HPLF WX Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

Severus Snape

Page 10 of 19 Previous  1 ... 6 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 14 ... 19  Next

Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 581 to 610

Post  Mona Tue May 31, 2011 9:09 am

journeymom - Nov 3, 2006 10:07 am (#581 of 2959)
"However, completely unbeknownst to Dumbledore, who approved his becoming Head Boy, James was planning and leading his Marauders in monthly excursions endangering the countryside.

Unbeknownst to most -- including Lily -- James continued the hexing war with Snape. "

Please clarify and remind me here. This is after the Prank? I admit, it's been a while since I read the text about this, but I thought it was the Prank that marked the beginning of James' improvements.


wynnleaf - Nov 3, 2006 11:03 am (#582 of 2959)
Please clarify and remind me here. This is after the Prank? I admit, it's been a while since I read the text about this, but I thought it was the Prank that marked the beginning of James' improvements.

It seems to have marked the end to his open hexing of students. But not apparently his more secret hexing.

We are told by Sirius and Lupin that although James mostly quit hexing people by 6th or 7th year, he did not quit the hexing war with Snape. He just didn't let Lily see any of it. Since neither Sirius nor Lupin indicated that James ever quit the hexing war with Snape, it must have gone on into 7th year. Anyway, it was certainly going on in 6th -- and it was based on 6th year behavior that James would have been named Head Boy.

As regards the Marauding with Lupin/werewolf at full moons... as I recall it was in 5th year that they became animagi. At the end of 5th year, they are shown referring to their escapades. We have no indication that those full-moon adventures ever ended while they were at Hogwarts. They never even seemed to think that there was much wrong with it, other than Lupin feeling bad about deceiving DD.


journeymom - Nov 3, 2006 11:27 am (#583 of 2959)
Thanks, wynnleaf. That's what I needed to know.


S.E. Jones - - Nov 3, 2006 1:20 pm (#584 of 2959)
wynnleaf --A certain number of possible moons between the pensieve scene memory and Sirius' next birthday. Only the possibility of one between OWLs and the closing feast, versus a number of other moons in 6th year. Also, this was Sirius' prank. He'd just had the opportunity to humiliate Snape in a big way. Why immediately devise this other plan?
Sirius said that at the time he planned the prank he did it because Snape was following them around trying to find out what they were doing to get them expelled. But neither Sirius nor James mention any such motivation at the time of the Snape's Worst Memory scene -- no, "let's attack Snape, he's trying to get us expelled," sort of comments. So I don't think that was on Sirius' mind the day of the OWLs, and the closing feast must have been about a week or so later.--

I see what you're saying about timing, but I still have to wonder why JKR would put in at all the fact that the OWLs were taking place near a full moon? I mean, we already knew Lupin was a werewolf and the Marauders already knew, from a literary standpoint, why tell us the full moon is coming?

As for why Sirius would devise a new plan just after exposing Snape's undies to the world, I'm thinking that Snape may have done something for revenge which led to the Willow incident. It certainly does give Snape a reason to do something that would make Sirius mad enough for the Willow prank, as you say he isn't concerned with Snape trying to get them expelled in the memory; however, I think that motivation may have been due to the fact that it was Snape's desire to follow Lupin that got Snape into trouble.


Laura W - Nov 3, 2006 2:47 pm (#585 of 2959)
"PoA, Chapter 18, p.261 (Cdn. Ed.) -- (lupin): "Snape glimpsed me, though, at the end of the tunnel. He was forbidden to tell anybody by Dumbledore, but from that time on he knew what I was ..." (Laura W)

"As regards Snape telling anyone that Lupin was a werewolf -- I meant during his final two years at Hogwarts, nor during his time as a loyal deatheater, when Lupin was an Order member. Sure, Dumbledore must have told Snape not to tell, but given that Snape must have been furious about the prank, and more furious probably that no one got expelled over it, why did he obey this order from Dumbledore?" (wynnleaf)

Because he knew how serious Dumbledore was about this and he was afraid *he* might be expelled from Hogwarts if he disobeyed the Headmaster.

After all, DD had a lot of sympathy for the boy Remus' plight and he had gone to a lot of trouble to make sure Lupin could go to school and that nobody would find out about his illness. DD had set up the Whomping Willow, the tunnel to the Shrieking Shack, having Madam Pomfrey sneak Lupin out every month for years, etc. DD obviously felt strongly about keeping Lupin's secret a secret so that Remus would be able to finish his education.

(Besides, it wasn't Lupin who nearly got Snape killed. It was Sirius. Lupin was in the shack, suffering and minding his own business. It wouldn't be fair for Lupin to have to pay the price being outed by Snape would have cost for something Sirius did.)

For all the reasons I outlined above, I can only guess that Dumbledore told the 16-year-old Severus that if he told *anybody* that he had discovered that a certain Gryffindor - I always assumed it was in their sixth year too, for some reason - turned into a werewolf every full moon, then Severus would be instantly dismissed from the school. And, of course, I can only imagine that a boy like I think Snape was would be deeply involved in his studies and nothing would be worth giving that up.

I do agree that having to do what Dumbledore said re this must have irked Snape no end.

Laura


Laura W - Nov 3, 2006 3:26 pm (#586 of 2959)
Just noticed this: "DD can be pretty intimidating." (T. Vrana)

(chucking) Well, I should think so!! Him being the only wizard in the whole world that the greatest Dark Wizard in a century is afraid of, and all.

"Pretty intimidating." Good one, T. Accurate, yet delightfully understated. (big grin)

Laura


journeymom - Nov 3, 2006 3:47 pm (#587 of 2959)
"I can only imagine that a boy like I think Snape was would be deeply involved in his studies and nothing would be worth giving that up."

I bet his boggart when he was in school was Slughorn telling him he failed everything.

Actually, this would be one more similarity between himself and Harry and Tom Riddle. Harry and Tom never wanted to go home.


haymoni - Nov 3, 2006 3:53 pm (#588 of 2959)
And his similarity to Hermione.


wynnleaf - Nov 3, 2006 4:24 pm (#589 of 2959)
So maybe DD threatened Snape with expulsion for telling about Lupin being a werewolf?

But Sirius gets -- what, detention? -- for setting up Lupin to become a murderer and Snape to get murdered?

I hope that wasn't the way it happened.

That would mean Snape saw something suspicious and wondered what, besides Lupin obviously legitimately going off with Pomfrey once a month, the Marauders could have been up to. He correctly guessed that they were doing something really bad that could get them expelled and wanted to figure out what it was. Sirius, full of indignation that anyone would be trying to figure out what they were doing (roaming the countryside putting everyone in danger), tricked Snape into going down the Whomping Willow tunnel where Snape was almost attacked by a werewolf and was pulled back by James. Snape actually saw the werewolf.

Somehow, the event was traumatic enough that Snape developed a great enough fear of werewolves that when taking Lupin his potion in POA, he wouldn't take his eyes off of him and even backed out of the room -- a week before full moon.

So this incident was most likely terrifying.

And for correctly concluding that the Marauders were engaged in something really bad, trying to figure out what it was, and after being traumatized by the incident --

Snape gets threatened with expulsion if he tells anyone??? While Sirius gets detentions and James comes away looking great?

I do hope not. I actually think better of Dumbledore than this. I hope we eventually learn more about the prank, and I hope this was not the way it happened.

However, even if DD told Snape not to tell anyone while in Hogwarts, it's clear that Snape must not have told anyone after Hogwarts, either. Even while being a loyal DE, and possibly guessing that the Marauders were in the Order, he didn't tell DE's that Lupin was a werewolf. Otherwise, parents of Draco, Crabbe and Goyle would surely have known and told their kids when Lupin came to teach.


T Vrana - Nov 3, 2006 4:46 pm (#590 of 2959)
I always had the impression that Snape backed out because he wondered why Harry was there and what they were discussing. Must reread.

Funny, Wynnleaf, but you indignation sounds very much like Harry's when he discovers that Snape was the one who gave LV the prophecy, and DD let him teach!!

DD has his reasons for what he does, and expects others to understand, or at least do what he asks.

I don't think DD threatened expulsion. I'm sure he just made it clear that Snape was to tell no one. End of story. Remember DD's quiet disappointment with Harry? DD doesn't need to threaten anyone.

Laura-


haymoni - Nov 3, 2006 4:48 pm (#591 of 2959)
If Snape felt that Hogwarts was home - or at least better than the home he had - he may not have wanted to risk leaving it.

I doubt Dumbledore would have to threaten Snape at all.

He could have explained how important it was for this young man to receive an education and that Snape should keep Lupin's secret, just as Dumbledore asked Harry to keep Neville's secret.


wynnleaf - Nov 3, 2006 5:15 pm (#592 of 2959)
Funny, Wynnleaf, but you indignation sounds very much like Harry's when he discovers that Snape was the one who gave LV the prophecy, and DD let him teach!!

Yeah, a bit. But that's a lot because I really don't think DD would have done it that way. It just seems like a "blame the victim" kind of thing and I don't think DD would do that.

He could have explained how important it was for this young man to receive an education and that Snape should keep Lupin's secret, just as Dumbledore asked Harry to keep Neville's secret.

Yes, I think that DD would more likely take that kind of approach.

I've wondered for some time if Snape really "let slip" about Lupin in POA in order to get him fired, just as revenge for his part in Sirius escaping. It doesn't really fit with Snape not telling about Lupin while at Hogwarts or later when a loyal DE.

Lupin may put that spin on why Snape told in POA, but of course he'd just had to leave his job, etc. It's just as possible that Snape revealed Lupin's being a werewolf in POA because of legitimate "whistle blower" reasons -- students were being endangered and could easily be again. I know that doesn't fit with the out-for-revenge notion that we have of Snape at the end of POA, but really it's only Lupin that tells us that is why Snape told about it. Hagrid seemed to think it simply a matter of course, not a matter of Snape getting revenge. Lupin was a werewolf, he was out endangering students the night before, naturally Lupin had to leave if he endangered students. We never hear any other adult's view of what happened regarding why Snape told about Lupin being a werewolf, or why Lupin left.


T Vrana - Nov 3, 2006 5:32 pm (#593 of 2959)
It could also be that Lupin never did anything to Snape. At most, in the pensieve, we see Lupin off to the side, not participating or interfering. But in POA, Lupin takes Black's side. Snape now sees Lupin as a collaborator.


S.E. Jones - - Nov 3, 2006 6:07 pm (#594 of 2959)
I too got the feeling that Snape was afraid of Lupin in the scene with the Wolfsbane Potion. He keeps his eyes on Lupin the whole time and backs out of the room. Also, at the start of term feast, he has his eyes on Lupin, although it's more a look of hatred. However, after re-reading the passages in PoA, and the last couple posts, I'm starting to think Snape's look in the Wolfsbane scene was more because he thought Lupin and Harry were up to something... maybe he thought they'd start planning monthly excursions similar to what James and his friends used to?

"Look at Snape!" Ron hissed in Harry's ear.
Professor Snape, the Potions master, was staring along the staff table at Professor Lupin. It was common knowledge that Snape wanted the Defense Against the Dark Arts job, but even Harry, who hated Snape, was startled by the expression twisting his thin, sallow face. It was beyond anger; it was loathing. (PoA5, p93, US)

The door opened, and in came Snape. He was carrying a goblet, which was smoking faintly, and stopped at the sight of Harry, is black eyes narrowing....
Snape set down the smoking goblet, his eyes wandering between Harry and Lupin....
...there was a look in his eye Harry didn't like. He backed out of the room, unsmiling and watchful. (PoA8, p156, US)

Frankly, if someone I knew had nearly eaten me, I think I'd be a little leery of them as well.


Laura W - Nov 4, 2006 12:56 am (#595 of 2959)
People, Snape himself says why he doesn't like Lupin - since, (sarcasm alert) obviously we cannot believe anything Lupin says (except that I do, as I see him as the most honest broker of the four characters; giving *both* the Marauders *and* Snape blame and credit when it is due in OoP and HBP). But back to Snape's own words. (grin)

PoA, Chapter 18. Lupin tells the Trio the whole story of what I guess we're calling The Prank. Unknown to him, Snape is in the room under Harry's Cloak. So, Remus tells the story and the chapter ends this way --

(Lupin): " '... Well, of course, Snape tried it - if he'd got as far as this house, he'd have met a fully grown werewolf - ... Snape glimpsed me though, at the end of the tunnel. ...'

'So that's why Snape doesn't like you,' said Harry, slowly, 'because he thought you were in on the joke?'

'That's right,' sneered a cold voice from the wall behind Lupin. Severus Snape was pulling off the Invisibility Cloak, his wand pointing directly at Lupin."

So Severus himself says that he hates Lupin because he thought and continues to think that Lupin, James and Sirius had *all* conspired to get Snape to the Shrieking Shack that night many years ago.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edited to add -

And as to my scenario about the possibility that Dumbledore threatened to expel Snape if he told, that was just a speculation.

wynnleaf had written; "Sure, Dumbledore must have told Snape not to tell, but given that Snape must have been furious about the prank, and more furious probably that no one got expelled over it, why did he obey this order from Dumbledore?"

This suggested to me that she did not think DD just telling Snape would be enough. So I invisioned what *would* be enough to induce Snape to "obey this order from Dumbledore." I do not see this as DD "threatening" anyone, but just performing his sometimes unpleasant duty as Headmaster. He has done this before, remember.

In CoS, when Harry and Ron come to school in the flying Ford, Dumbledore admonishes them with, "I must also warn you that if you do anything like this again, I will have no choice but to expel you." No reason he couldn't have said something similar to the 16-year-old Severus - albeit reluctantly, since I believe DD cares about all his students - regarding outing Lupin.

But, as I say, it's just a speculative answer to wynnleaf 's question.

Laura


shadzar - Nov 4, 2006 3:31 am (#596 of 2959)
Crazy early morning theory:

LV would have spared Lily her life as a prize for Snape. When LV killed Lily, Snapes attitude towards him changed and this is why DD trusted him so. Snape was bent on seeing LV being destroyed. The conflict he has is when his rivals son appears at the school. Torn between felings for the girl he could never get, and anger towards the son of his schoolhood tormentor he doesn't know what to do. Snape could have easily killed Harry several times but never does so he musn't be all bad.

Which brings me to vows... Maybe the MoM forced a vow on him as part of his (and other DE such as Karkalof) leaving the DE. Now he must also obey the vow to Narcissa. He only hurts Harry during the escape because Harry used the HBP spells against their creator. Snape didn't do much harm to anyone else other than DD and he could have easily caused more death and damage in the mayhem as he and Draco fled.

So Snape is fullfilling the vow to Narcissa by protecting Draco. I think more so today that he has taken Draco into iding, possibly with Narcissa, to someplace that even Lucious wouldn't know in case LV should find him after any prison break.

It sems Snape was drawn to the dark arts solely for revenge against James and joined the DE to be on opposite sides with him. With the death of Lily he may have sorted out his priorities, or decided to take revenge on LV for killing someone he wished to kill and someone he didn't want to see killed (Lily).

So Snape is actually good the entire time, but leans towards dark ways for his selfish attitude rather than wanting to destroy people.


wynnleaf - Nov 4, 2006 4:15 am (#597 of 2959)
So Severus himself says that he hates Lupin because he thought and continues to think that Lupin, James and Sirius had *all* conspired to get Snape to the Shrieking Shack that night many years ago.

Laura, this is correct. So if the motive was revenge, Snape had just as much reason to tell Lupin's secret when still at student at Hogwarts and when a loyal DE, as he did at the end of POA. It is Lupin's assumption that Snape told in POA due to revenge, but since revenge had not moved him to do so for almost 20 years, that may not be the reason in POA.

Laura, I knew you were speculating as to a possible reason for why Snape hadn't told Lupin's secret while a student at Hogwarts. I sort of "went off" on that possibility of DD threatening expulsion because I've heard that theory before and, if true, it always makes me somewhat upset at DD for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post.

Actually, I think there must have been more internal reasons, although it could have included some convincing by DD, or otherwise Snape would have told while a loyal DE.

shadzar said: It sems Snape was drawn to the dark arts solely for revenge against James and joined the DE to be on opposite sides with him.

Apparently Snape was drawn to the dark arts even aside from his hatred of James. However, an interest in the dark arts wouldn't necessarily lead a person to follow LV, particularly a person with a muggle parent. It could be however, that the constant war between himself and the Marauders set up such a strong "us and them" or more like "me and them" kind of mentality, that he chose to follow LV more as an action of his hatred of the Marauders than anything else.


Laura W - Nov 4, 2006 5:28 am (#598 of 2959)
"Laura, I knew you were speculating as to a possible reason for why Snape hadn't told Lupin's secret while a student at Hogwarts. I sort of "went off" on that possibility of DD threatening expulsion because I've heard that theory before and, if true, it always makes me somewhat upset at DD for the reasons I mentioned in my earlier post."

So, does it also upset you that DD explicitly threatened to expel Ron and Harry in the CoS example I quoted? That is, is your problem that DD sometimes has to use this strict discipline with students (ie - telling them they will be expelled if they do or don't do something) in the course of carrying out his duties as Headmaster, or is your concern specifically with the possibility that he would use that discipline on Snape with regard to telling all about Lupin after The Prank?


T Vrana - Nov 4, 2006 5:59 am (#599 of 2959)
I would say there is a difference between telling Ron and Harry, who broke a whole lot of rules, underage magic, seen by Muggles in a flying car, damaging the Whomping Willow, arriving late etc., that they musn't do something so foolish again or he would have to expel them, and Snape, who was nearly killed by Sirius' stupid joke. I'm sure that DD told Sirius and James that if they did anything that stupid again, he would expel them as well.

I think that it was more of a talk with Snape, explaining that Sirius and James made a foolish mistake, and Lupin should not have to pay for it. Sure, Snape gets angry and doesn't like it or believe it, but at 16 I'm sure he had no desire to disobey DD.


Laura W - Nov 4, 2006 6:26 am (#600 of 2959)
(too late to edit previous message to add following)

"So if the motive was revenge, Snape had just as much reason to tell Lupin's secret when still at student at Hogwarts and when a loyal DE, as he did at the end of POA. It is Lupin's assumption that Snape told in POA due to revenge, but since revenge had not moved him to do so for almost 20 years, that may not be the reason in POA." (wynnleaf)

Man, do I see this differently! It's not why wouldn't Snape tell what he knows about Lupin from the time they got out of school till the end of PoA, but why would he? The only times that Snape could hurt Lupin by revealing his secret are when Lupin is a student at Hogwarts or when Lupin is teaching at Hogwarts. In both cases, Snape could exact his revenge by telling. The rest of the time (ie - between their graduation and Lupin taking up the position of DADA professor), how would it hurt Lupin if people knew what he was? And who would Snape reveal it to? Voldemort? The Daily Prophet?

And I still say that I believe Severus and Remus would have had nothing to do with each other during those years anyway.

Snape did tell DD not to hire Lupin and was ignored. Once again, as after The Prank incident, during the year Lupin taught Snape was forbidden to tell about him by DD and was denied the opportunity to exact his revenge at one of the only two times it would really hurt the ex-Marauder (ie - remove him from Hogwarts - as a student or a teacher).

What *did* finally cause Snape to throw all caution to the wind and go against DD's wishes at the end of PoA was what Lupin called "the final straw." The final straw was that DD convinced Fudge that Lupin was trying to save the lives of the trio. DD convinced Fudge that Lupin was a good guy when Snape had been claiming the opposite to the Minister. Snape practically had a fit in the hospital. If there was any time for him to take his revenge on the man who had - in Snape's view - been in on The Prank 20 years ago, this was it: when Severus Snape, in a way, had once again been victimized by Remus Lupin (in his view, of course)and when Severus Snape could do the most harm to his lifelong enemy ... by making sure he was removed from a job he loved and a regular income.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I think that it was more of a talk with Snape, explaining that Sirius and James made a foolish mistake, and Lupin should not have to pay for it. Sure, Snape gets angry and doesn't like it or believe it, but at 16 I'm sure he had no desire to disobey DD."

Could be, T.

Laura


wynnleaf - Nov 4, 2006 6:58 am (#601 of 2959)
So, does it also upset you that DD explicitly threatened to expel Ron and Harry in the CoS example I quoted? That is, is your problem that DD sometimes has to use this strict discipline with students (ie - telling them they will be expelled if they do or don't do something) in the course of carrying out his duties as Headmaster, or is your concern specifically with the possibility that he would use that discipline on Snape with regard to telling all about Lupin after The Prank?

First, I agree with T Vrana -- there's a huge difference. It's not that I would disagree with DD needing sometimes to threaten this kind of penalty for someone. But is that really the way you handle a student who has just been almost killed by a prank involving the very group of students (the Marauders) who have ganged up on him for years? DD may not have known all that took place, but for Snape, Sirius' almost getting him killed was probably more a culmination of years of attacks, finally coming to a murderous attack. Further, Snape was highly suspicious (correctly) that the Marauders were using what turned out to be Lupin's werewolf transformation to do something really bad (although Snape didn't know what).

Once the prank was discovered and the boys apparently brought before DD (since he learned about it, after all), Sirius was not expelled. So if DD turned around from leniency to Sirius and threatened, to the possibly traumatized victim, expulsion if he ever told anyone -- well, I just think that would create an incredible bitterness in Snape, even more so because he thought Lupin was in on it.

While I understand that DD certainly wouldn't want Lupin's secret revealed, I would hope he'd take a very different approach with Snape in getting him to keep quiet about it.

Man, do I see this differently! It's not why wouldn't Snape tell what he knows about Lupin from the time they got out of school till the end of PoA, but why would he? The only times that Snape could hurt Lupin by revealing his secret are when Lupin is a student at Hogwarts or when Lupin is teaching at Hogwarts.

First, if Snape didn't tell about Lupin as a student because of a fear of expulsion, then why would he tell in POA -- wouldn't he fear loosing his job? But as for telling Lupin's secret after Lupin got out of Hogwarts -- yes it would hurt him. The WW in Britian is only a few thousand people. It wouldn't be that hard to spread the word that Lupin was a werewolf and ruin his chances of employment. Snape could have told while a loyal DE and gotten some measure of revenge, if he had wanted to do so.

What *did* finally cause Snape to throw all caution to the wind and go against DD's wishes at the end of PoA was what Lupin called "the final straw." The final straw was that DD convinced Fudge that Lupin was trying to save the lives of the trio.

This may be what Lupin believes, but how could he possibly actually know why Snape told his Slytherins? Was he at their breakfast table listening? Did he hear Snape say, "I'm really angry at Lupin because I lost my chance for an Order of Merlin, so I'm telling you this secret about him." No. It is simply Lupin's assumption that Snape must have told the Slytherins out of revenge. Only an assumption.

Note that when Hagrid talks about it, he does not seem to think Snape told the Slytherins out of any animosity toward Lupin. To Hagrid, it was simply a matter of unfortunate circumstance. Lupin endangered students and could continue to endanger students, so of course, he had to go. And in fact, whether for revenge or other reasons, it was a perfectly valid thing for Snape to tell the students. They had a teacher who could and had been a true danger to students and they should be warned. At early morning breakfast, Lupin might not have even returned from the forest and his transformation from his werewolf state. Snape was right to tell his students. Lupin thought he did it out of revenge, but that is only Lupin's opinion, not one that is substantiated by either DD, Hagrid, another character, or at any other point in the books -- other than Lupin's oblique reference to it once in HBP in his Christmas conversation with Harry.


Vulture - Nov 4, 2006 7:03 am (#602 of 2959)
If Voldemort currently thinks that Draco did the killing and finds out that it was Severus, what happens to Severus and the Malfoy family. I would be willing to bet that Voldemort is not fully aware of the Vow between Cissy and Severus. Would Voldemort be upset that Severus jumped into the middle of this? (Thom Matheson - Oct 30, 2006 4:25 pm (#546))

Well, it depends on how seriously you take Snape's statement in "Spinner's End" that "He (Voldemort) intends me to do it (the murder of Dumbledore) in the end, I think. But he is determined that Draco shall try first ..."

Seems to me if you feel responsible for the death of two innocent (good? - pick a word) people, you do not treat their poor orphaned son who is not only parentless but has had to live with a family that does not love him - and worse - in a despicable fashion from the time you have contact with the 11-year-old. (Laura W - Oct 30, 2006 5:34 pm (#549))

Well said, Laura _ I said that a long, long time ago, and it went down like a lead balloon. But I stick by it nonetheless. (It was during an argument about whether we can accept Dumbledore's statement that Snape was, and is, filled with remorse about James's and Lily's deaths.)

Even without eye contact, Snape seemed to read Harry's desire to pop his invisibilty cloak on at the start of term, when entering the Great Hall, late, without his robes. (T Vrana - Nov 1, 2006 5:06 am (#559))

Well, I could have predicted that, and though I know this may surprise ye all, I'm not a Legilimens ;-)

But (as Wynnleaf said in #560), in their final fight in Book 6, Snape was able to predict and block all of Harry's spell attempts, even the soundless one.

After Snape cast his AK, he seemed to clear Draco and the death eaters off the tower rather quickly. Why the haste? There was a fight going on below. No one was going to attack them on the tower; the entrance was protected. No one else knew what was going on on the tower anyway. All I can think of is that Snape wanted to get the death eaters out of the way before Harry recovered and revealed himself. (Soul Search - Nov 1, 2006 12:13 pm (#563))

Good point _ assuming Snape is on the good side, of course. Actually, the danger would be less about Harry revealing himself than about one of the other Death Eaters noticing the two brooms. Harry's lucky that the crew from Book 5 (Lucius, Bellatrix, & Co.) weren't on this job _ they seemed a lot quicker in the uptake. (Mind you, so did Book 5 in general !!)

You know, I haven't paid a lot of attention to: "Buckbeak had flown at Snape, who staggered backwards as the razor-sharp claws slashed at him." Snape could be really messed up; Buckbeak is a formidable creature, capable of inflicting serious damage. Snape is going to need some medical attention. (Soul Search - Nov 1, 2006 3:12 pm (#568))

Reminds me of the end of "The Fall Of Fingolfin" in Tolkien's "Silmarillion". (Won't spoil it for ye, but worth comparing with the fall of Dumbledore.)

I think Snape must have felt a similar, horrible isolation, and must deeply regret calling the one person who stepped out of the crowd "mudblood". And I think those wounds of being bullied and alone run very deep, and are enough to explain Snape's loathing of James, Sirius and Harry. (T Vrana - Nov 3, 2006 9:16 am (#580))

I disagree. Yes, he was isolated during that one incident, but he doesn't come across to me as (a) isolated all the time, and (b) a cowed and beaten victim _ he was still fighting while on the ground !!


T Vrana - Nov 4, 2006 7:16 am (#603 of 2959)
I do think Snape was isolated once Malfoy and company graduated. While we have only the pensieve scene to go on, it is all Jo has given us and she hasn't given us much else, except that Snape followed Lucius around like a puppy (or something like that).

I never said Snape was cowed, just isolated. He was fighting back, but against two wizards and in front of a large and apparently approving crowd. I am surprised how many people are not fussed about this. Truly imagine being that alone at the age of 16. Not only are you being bullied, but a whole crowd of people approve and take pleasure in watching. If Snape had any allies, they surely weren't there. We have seen other images of Snape as a loner (shooting flies off a ceiling), so I have to take the pensieve at face value and assume that once Lucius and friends graduated, Snape found himself alone more often than not.


wynnleaf - Nov 4, 2006 11:38 am (#604 of 2959)
I think Snape must have felt a similar, horrible isolation, and must deeply regret calling the one person who stepped out of the crowd "mudblood". And I think those wounds of being bullied and alone run very deep, and are enough to explain Snape's loathing of James, Sirius and Harry. (T Vrana - Nov 3, 2006 9:16 am (#580))

I disagree. Yes, he was isolated during that one incident, but he doesn't come across to me as (a) isolated all the time, and (b) a cowed and beaten victim _ he was still fighting while on the ground !! (Vulture)

Besides Sirius comment about Snape running with a particular crowd (of which the only ones whose ages we know are several years older than Snape), what is the evidence that Snape had a group of friends??? Canon, of course.

We have to remember that JKR chooses what scenes she wants to show us and what information she wants to give us. So far, she hasn't shown us any scenes with Snape and his friends, or any evidence from anyone other than Sirius (who absolutely hated Snape) that he had any friends other than Lucius who was quite a bit older was probably only at Hogwarts during Snape's 1st and possibly 2nd years.

We have no comments from the Marauders about their war with Snape including any of his friends (such as the trio's confrontations with Malfoy often including Crabbe and Goyle). There's no one defending him other than Lily in the pensieve scene memory. If he had a small group of friends he hung out with, why don't we hear about them being caught up in the Marauder's attacks on Snape? Why don't they appear at all in the pensieve scene?

As to being cowed, why equate being alone to being cowed? Only a couple of days ago I was talking to someone about his experience at a boys boarding school. He was a really bright, nerdy "loner" type and was targeted often as a person to beat up. As he told me about this, he took pride in saying that he was known for never giving up and always fighting back. Made me think of Snape.

Seems to me if you feel responsible for the death of two innocent (good? - pick a word) people, you do not treat their poor orphaned son who is not only parentless but has had to live with a family that does not love him - and worse - in a despicable fashion from the time you have contact with the 11-year-old. (Laura W - Oct 30, 2006 5:34 pm (#549))

I'd agree in the usual circumstance. But Snape doesn't consider James "good," by a long shot -- "arrogant" and "your filthy father." Lily, he perhaps cared about. But Snape's reaction to feeling responsible for Lily's death isn't a nice pure regret -- it's likely bound up in bitterness and resentment as well. My guess is that he also blames James for Lily's death (trusting a fellow Marauder when spy reports said one was betraying him), and might even blame Harry just for existing and being the person that LV targeted and Lily ultimately died for. No, it's not rational. No, it's not a good response to guilt. But it is a believable response, given a very bitter, resentful attitude.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 4, 2006 5:44 pm (#605 of 2959)
I can't see Lily as a prize for Snape. Why did Snape rate such a reward, and what was he supposed to do with her, once he had her? It wouldn't exactly be safe for Snape to keep her as a pet while he was teaching at Hogwarts. If he was going to spare her for any reason, I think Voldemort spared her because she might have been useful to him personally. We know she was good at charms.


Laura W - Nov 4, 2006 6:14 pm (#606 of 2959)
"wynnleaf had written; "Sure, Dumbledore must have told Snape not to tell, but given that Snape must have been furious about the prank, and more furious probably that no one got expelled over it, why did he obey this order from Dumbledore?"

Ok. ... Alternate answer to the question she posed. .... No mention of expulsion (as in my first possible scenario #585). -- He obeyed Dumbledore because he would not disobey Dumbledore. Period.

DD took the boy into his office and said something like, "Please sit down, Severus. I am going to ask you to do something which will be very difficult for you but I must insist. It was both stupid and dangerous what Black did to you and I am thankful that Potter had the good sense to save you before anything bad happened. There is no need, however, for Mr. Lupin to be removed from this school because of this incident. Therefore, I must forbid you to mention it - or the fact that Remus is a werewolf - to *anybody*."

While saying this, DD was fixing Snape with a very firm stare from those blue eyes (no twinkle), and Snape knew the Headmaster meant business. He may even have guessed - although it wasn't spoken aloud - that there would be consequences to pay if he did tell.

As far as I can see, in all six books the adult Severus has never disobeyed an order that DD has given him (regardless of how he felt about what he was being told to do). Maybe that is the simple yet correct answer as to why he obeyed DD re outing Lupin after The Prank or afterwards. (Until the "final straw" that is.)

Happy? (big grin)

Laura

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And the final straw is not Snape losing the medal he feels he richly deserves (although that is a small part of it). Nor does Lupin think/tell Harry that it is!! As Lupin himself tells Harry in that departure scene in PoA, what finally pushed Snape over the edge to the point where he actually disobeyed DD and told on Lupin was when DD convinced Fudge that Remus was a good guy (ie - attempting to save the kids from the murderer Black) although Snape had been claiming the opposite to the Minister (ie - Lupin was helping the murderer Black). Once again, one of Snape's enemies (Lupin) not only gets off scott free but is exonerated. And Snape's viewpoint has been discounted. To make matters worse, Severus had come so close to convincing Fudge. And, from what he says to Harry in his office while packing up, Lupin both recognizes this and is fair about disclosing it.

(Sheesh!) (taking deep breath; feeling better)


wynnleaf - Nov 4, 2006 6:15 pm (#607 of 2959)
Laura W,

He obeyed Dumbledore because he would not disobey Dumbledore. Period.

I like this and actually (if Snape is loyal), it fits with Snape as he generally does obey DD, at least for the most part. If that was the case, then that would mean that Snape always respected DD, even when he went off and became a DE -- which makes a sort of twisted sense, as something brought Snape back to Dumbledore, not the ministry or another individual, when Snape wanted to turn away from LV.

As regards why Snape told the Slytherins about Lupin becoming a werewolf -- you might be right as to why Lupin believed Snape did it. But was that really the reason? We don't know. Lupin couldn't have had inside information as to why Snape did it, unless somehow Snape had already had a personal conversation with DD about it and DD had shared with Lupin why Snape did it. Given that everything happened that morning over breakfast and then Snape had classes (I assume), I don't think it's likely that Lupin got his info from Dumbledore who got it from Snape. It's more likely that Lupin's comments as to Snape's reasons for outing him were simply Lupin's opinion about Snape's motivations. He might be right, he might not. Certainly, Harry was predisposed to believe Lupin's opinion, as are the readers. It's slightly possible we'll find out differently in book 7.

I can't see Lily as a prize for Snape. Why did Snape rate such a reward, and what was he supposed to do with her, once he had her?

If LV gave Lily a choice to live because of Snape, I doubt if it was as a prize for Snape. Instead, I'd picture Snape attempting to contrive some reasons for why LV shouldn't kill her and convince LV of this -- LV perhaps being willing to go along with Snape's suggestions because Snape had been doing a great job as a DE lately. But not specifically as a "prize" or reward for Snape, and not for Lily to be given to Snape.


T Vrana - Nov 4, 2006 6:23 pm (#608 of 2959)
Is it possible that Lily was not important enough to LV for him to murder her? Given that LV wants to make 6 horcruxes, might he limit the number of non-horcrux murders he commits? Given the fact that he diminishes his soul with each horcrux murder, perhaps he does not want to tear his soul needlessly. We know Sirius said Regulus was not important enough for LV to murder, so we do know LV limits his murders to the 'important' ones. The question then becomes, why James. But that goes elsewhere, I guess.

Is it possible that Snape ended up in Godric's Hollow with LV? That he didn't know until that night where they were going and who they were going after. Once he realizes, he is too afraid of LV to try stopping him, but he does ask LV to spare Lily. LV agrees, but grows weary of Lily's refusal to move. LV laughs that night (never quite understood the laughter)> Could he be laughing at Snape's reaction to Lily's murder? At the very least, Lily was smart, kind, and the one person who stood up for Snape. Might this moment be why Snape doesn't believe in wearing your heart on your sleeve?

This would also explain why Snape is so bothered by 'coward'. Had he tried to stop LV perhaps he could have saved both James and Lily, but instead, he was afraid, and tried to save Lily, but failed at that as well?


Saracene - Nov 4, 2006 9:37 pm (#609 of 2959)
Laura W:

---Seems to me if you feel responsible for the death of two innocent (good? - pick a word) people, you do not treat their poor orphaned son who is not only parentless but has had to live with a family that does not love him - and worse - in a despicable fashion from the time you have contact with the 11-year-old.---

But I think that it is entirely in Snape's character to lash out against the person who reminds him of his guilt. I've seen a few people say that, if Snape truly felt guilt over his part in Harry's parents' deaths, then surely he wouldn't treat Harry the way he does. However, the fault I can see with that reasoning is that it seems to presume that Snape is your average nice, decent person who would naturally do the right thing and treat the person he had wronged with kindness. But Snape is in fact *not* that average decent person. He is, as JKR herself put, a deeply horrible person, and would therefore act accordingly.


Saracene - Nov 4, 2006 11:54 pm (#610 of 2959)
wynnleaf:

---As regards why Snape told the Slytherins about Lupin becoming a werewolf -- you might be right as to why Lupin believed Snape did it. But was that really the reason? We don't know.---

Well, I for one really doubt that in the last book we're going to find out that the reason Snape outed Lupin to Slytherins in POA had something to do with Snape worrying about the safety of the students or something along these lines.

I do think that there were reasons for Snape's fury over Sirius' escape that neither Lupin nor anyone else bar DD was aware at the time. DD's quiet remark about Snape suffering "a severe disappointment" did seem to hint, to me, that DD knew something about the whole business that no one else did and that there was more to it than a childhood feud and loss of the Order. However, when it comes to Lupin, I'm quite inclined to believe that Snape revealed Lupin's secret out of sheer fury that the person he believed to be guilty as sin "got away". I don't really see the need for some direct or indirect statement from Snape to verify this - to me it seems absolutely consistent with Snape's overall personality and his actions/emotions shown previously in the book.

---

Regarding Snape's "Don't call me coward" outburst, I really don't think that it had anything to do with James. Yes, there's a pattern in the books of Snape losing his temper over something to do with James/Marauders. But IMO the most notable thing about that particular outburst is not Snape being angry or losing temper, but Snape being described as if suffering unimaginable *pain* - which had never figured in his James/Marauders-related oubursts.

Also, Snape may have been talking about James in a previous paragraph, but I just don't see it as the reason to believe that his reaction is linked to that one paragraph as opposed to the wider (and far more immediate) situation. Harry had just seen Snape kill DD. Even if Snape was unaware of Harry's presence at the tower, he'd have figured out that Harry was out for revenge for DD's murder. When Harry throws his "kill me like you killed him you coward", he's wandless and slumping against the tree (?), just as DD had been wandless and slumping against the wall when Snape killed him. So I don't really see a reason to doubt that Snape's reaction had everything to do with the events of that night. And I also believe that the reason he flipped out so badly at the second "coward" remark was because Harry made a direct link to what Snape had just done, as opposed to the more generic "coward" of the "fight, you coward".

--- About the Prank and DD's theoretical conversation with teenage-Snape afterwards: I don't think that DD would threaten Snape with expulsion or anything like that in order to make him keep silence about Lupin's furry problem. But I'm also not sure that he'd see him as an innocent blameless victim, either; it was after all strictly forbidden to students to come near the Whomping Willow and Snape's own curiosity was partly to blame for the whole disaster.

I do agree with Laura W that if Snape gave a word to DD to keep quiet about Lupin, he would keep it.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 611 to 640

Post  Mona Tue May 31, 2011 9:22 am

Saracene - Nov 5, 2006 1:19 am (#611 of 2959)
Mrs Brisbee (from "Dumbledore's Death" thread):

---Maybe this does belong on the Snape thread, but I don't know if Snape is "already" redeemed even if he has been loyal to the cause. There are two things going on here, first the harm that Snape did generally to the wizarding world by joining up with Voldemort, and second the personal harm he did to the individual persons he wronged. The first he might be redeemed for by working for the Order and remaining loyal to Dumbledore, but the second is really for only those persons he harmed to decide.---

I tend to think along the same lines. I think that Snape may have made up for his Death Eater past by working for the Order; obviously the wizarding court agreed since they didn't throw him into Azkaban. But when it comes to him being partly responsible for Harry's parents' deaths, it's IMO a much harder thing to make up for - if not impossible. I also think that this was partly why DD never told anyone in the Order about his reasons for trusting Snape: I think he realised that if he told all these people who knew James and Lily that Snape had been partly responsible for their deaths, many of them would have, well, a strong reaction.


Laura W - Nov 5, 2006 1:55 am (#612 of 2959)
"I think that Snape may have made up for his Death Eater past by working for the Order; obviously the wizarding court agreed since they didn't throw him into Azkaban. But when it comes to him being partly responsible for Harry's parents' deaths, it's IMO a much harder thing to make up for - if not impossible." (Saracene)

Exactly what I meant when I wrote in #549: "I know that it is possible Snape is atoning for telling V about the prophecy by working for the Order as a spy (maybe), but how he could really make it up to James and Lily is by taking on the role of someone who cares about Harry. And Severus knows this."

And thanks for your support on what I wrote re Lupin, Saracene. Jo can give us information by narrating an event or equally she can give us information by having a character impart information to us by way of his or her telling it to another character (ie - through dialogue).

Heading off wynnleaf: And yes, I know she sometimes has different characters contradict each other in what they say. I guess it all boils down to who each reader believes, based on his or her best judgement at the time. Until all will be revealed in Book Seven, at least. (grin)

Laura


T Vrana - Nov 5, 2006 7:01 am (#613 of 2959)
Saracene-

No slumping against a tree, but, yes, wandless, so I do think Harry is talking about DD, but the shift in Snape's reaction to the cowards, and the pattern established by Jo up to now, I can't dismiss.

Snape in POA, ranting about James refusal to believe he might be wrong about Black (thus ending up dead, along with Lily):

"..there was a mad glint in Snape's eye..."

"Snape shrieked, looking madder than ever"

In POA, post Black's escape (still thought by Sirius to be the reason the Potters are dead)

...Snape howled....His face was twisted; spit was flying from his mouth..."

Snape, HBP, Flight of the Prince:

"his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house..."

No small thing, Jo chooses these, and only these, moments to go ALL CAPS for Snape's verbal reaction, though we have seen him angry on other occasions, the ALL CAPS is reserved for James moments.

Though something had just happened on the tower, Snape was very calm when Harry first started throwing hexes at Snape and calling him a coward. And though the first coward was "fight back you coward" Snape had to know Harry was chasing him because of the tower. But he sneers. If he just killed DD and is feeling a bit upset by it, this is an odd reaction. Sneering.

Then, Harry uses one of Snape's curses, and Snape shifts gears dramatically. He is suddenly really, really angry and he's onto the subject of James. He has, IMHO, pushed aside the tower completely. He has stopped sneering and jeering. He has stopped running! He returns to rage over Harry. He is completely involved in a James' moment.

He is immersed in his 'filthy father' rant when Harry says "Kill me like you killed him, you coward...".

Snape goes over the top, as he has only ever done before, when it involved James. (Text above, inhuman etc.). Yes, this time goes a bit further, to feeling trapped and in pain, but Snape's situation has escalated. He is now on the run from the rest of the WW, he will be hunted and hated by the Order, he is thought to have murdered the greatest wizard of his time, he has to go underground as a DE full time and he is going to be thought a coward.

But he had just been called a coward with no effect. The second one hurts because it is linked, IMO, to the life debt he owes James and whatever he felt for Lily. His trapped position is worse than ever, but it all goes back to James. James tormented him, James stole his inventions, James save his life creating a life debt (for his own reasons, in on the joke and afraid of expulsion), James wouldn't listen and ended up dead, James made the life debt worse by not listening, James got Lily killed by not listening, I'm now in the worst position of my entire life because of JAMES.

On first read I thought Snape was thinking DD, but the sudden shift in demeanor and the previously established pattern of Snape's over the top reactions, lead me to believe that the surface interpretation, Snape is thinking about DD, seems a bit empty, and the connection to James/Lily and what his true feelings are (coward) takes us deeper into the true story of James, Snape and Lily.

EDIT- I also do not think it is a coincidence that Harry says "like you killed him.." rather than "like you killed DD...". Harry was definitely thinking DD, as he describes his position as like DD's. But the him leaves it open, and I think Snape was off on another tangent entirely.


Soul Search - Nov 5, 2006 8:10 am (#614 of 2959)
T Vrana, good post. I agree with the conclusion that Snape was thinking of James, even though Harry meant Dumbledore. There might be more, though.

Snape seems to be reacting to Harry's "Kill me like you killed him, you coward ..." reference out of great guilt. Perhaps more guilt than his giving the prophecy to Voldemort could justify. His reaction is very strong; more than the "prophecy" guilt would cause. His reactions to "James" that you point out suggests to me Snape harbors a guilt specifically related to James. More, even, than the life debt Snape might feel.

I am thinking Snape was at Godric's Hollow, and took no action when Voldemort confronted James ... and killed him. Snape could have helped James, but was too afraid of Voldemort. Snape feels this guilt on more than one level: he has to think of himself as a coward; not only did he let James die, he hated him enough to have even been pleased to see him die.

Snape has had to live with great guilt for fifteen years, with constant reminders ever since Harry came to Hogwarts. Snape is reminded of his guilt every time he sees Harry, and it shows in his treatment of Harry.

Is Snape seeking, perhaps without even knowing it, foregiveness from Harry? Will Harry give it, once he knows Snape's whole story?


T Vrana - Nov 5, 2006 8:19 am (#615 of 2959)
SS- I agree with your entire post!

The Shrieking Shack would seem to support Snape wanting some recognition from Harry "You should be thanking me (for saving you) on bended knee." Not forgiveness directly, but in Snape's mind, perhaps an evening of the score. I think Harry will need to forgive Snape. It remains to be seen if Snape can accept it.


wynnleaf - Nov 5, 2006 8:22 am (#616 of 2959)
Well, I for one really doubt that in the last book we're going to find out that the reason Snape outed Lupin to Slytherins in POA had something to do with Snape worrying about the safety of the students or something along these lines.

Saracene (and others),

I agree that if Lupin was not correct about Snape's motivations in telling the Slytherins, then it would be something that we'd find out in Book 7. And you're right that such a reversal is highly unlikely in Book 7.

To be honest, I originally considered the possibility that Lupin was not correct in his comments about Snape doing it for revenge, at the same time as I was working through the theory that Lupin would turn out to betray the Order. While I am by no means convinced that Lupin will be found to betray the Order in Book 7, I do think he is the most perfectly positioned character to be found a traitor (having motive, opportunity, past suspicions of other characters, history of betraying DD's trust, skills necessary to be a successful traitor, one of least suspected characters, excellent literary parallels, etc.). If that occurred in Book 7, it probably be shown that Lupin's ability to skew the truth (which we know that he does use, but the reader generally sympathizes when we know he does it), was also at work in his comments which the reader tends to accept as true. I had gone back through each conversation of Lupin's and looked carefully to see if his opinions, information, etc. on any subject tended to be substantiated by other information we receive in the books. If Lupin was revealed as betraying DD and the Order, it would not be surprising to discover that his remarks about numerous things, including why he had to leave his job would be found to be incorrect, in a sort of similar way that the comments of Jane Austen's Wickham on the loss of his job turn out to not be the real story, but are skewed truths to put his position in the most sympathetic light.

Because I was looking closely at all of Lupin's comments, not just those regarding Snape, I also looked closely at his comments to Harry at the end of POA. It had particularly struck me that Hagrid's attitude toward Snape's "outing" Lupin was so different from the perspective we get from Lupin. And I was also very interested in the demeanor of DD (he spoke "soberly" to Lupin) when he came to tell Lupin that his carriage was waiting and the two indicators we got that Lupin didn't want to prolong any conversation with DD (after DD arrived Harry thought Lupin looked like he wanted to leave as soon as possible and he told DD he didn't need to accompanying him to the carriage). My feeling that DD was perhaps displeased with Lupin and Lupin knew it, coupled with Hagrid's easy acceptance that Lupin's actions in endangering students necessitated his leaving, just didn't mesh with Lupin's picture of his having to leave primarily because a vengeful fellow staff member told his secret.

Still, I completely agree that as things stand now, we shouldn't expect JKR to re-visit this in Book 7 and so we're left with only the viewpoint that Snape told Lupin's secret out of revenge. It is only if our perspective of Lupin is overturned that we might expect to see any of that situation re-visited in book 7.

As regards the "Don't call me coward" response by Snape in HBP...

It all depends on how one views what Snape thinks Harry meant by "kill me like you killed him." If you think Snape interprets Harry to mean "kill me like you killed my father" (which Snape didn't actually do), then the "Don't call me coward" is a reaction to Snape's feelings about James. If you think Snape interpreted Harry to mean "kill me like you just killed Dumbledore" then Snape is reacting to what just occurred on the tower.

Personally, I think Snape is thinking primarily of the tower events.

BUT... I think that Snape's reaction to the "coward" comments are so extreme because of something in his history that makes him sensitive to that, not just because of what he did on the tower. My guess is that Snape has a view of self that is very precarious, and he fears his own weaknesses. Assuming he's loyal to DD, he knows that he is not in fact a coward, but his own fears about his weaknesses make him feel as though he appears to be a coward at the end of HBP -- and I think these fears of cowardice could be a result of something that happened when the Potter's died. Just guessing -- lots of guessing, of course.


T Vrana - Nov 5, 2006 9:46 am (#617 of 2959)
I could be quite wrong, of course, but when Snape's leaves the tower he has two things on his mind:

1) What he just did

2) Getting away from Hogwarts

Harry gives chase and calls him a coward. Snape's thoughts:

1) No matter what you think you saw, Potter, I am not a coward and by the way if you would like an example of a coward, let's discuss your dear old dad

2) Getting away from Hogwarts

Harry, just like James, tries to use Snape's inventions. Snape is mentally transported from his immediate time and place to a time years before. Harry calls him a coward a second time. Thoughts:

1) James

2) I am not a coward, but I did something that makes me feel like a coward. (and whatever it is, it wasn't bothering me a moment ago)

He stopped running and returned to get in Harry's face, raging about James. It took an attack from a hippogriff to remind him to hightail it out of Hogwarts.


Soul Search - Nov 5, 2006 9:52 am (#618 of 2959)
T Vrana, good pickup on the PoA "You should be thanking me on bended knee." Thoughts that he might be able to save Harry, again, might have been Snape's motivation for going to the shack in the first place.


T Vrana - Nov 5, 2006 10:07 am (#619 of 2959)
SS- I agree

1) Capture Black, the traitor who blew my attempts to save the Potters

2) Save the Potter brat

Guilt appeased, Life Debt repaid, I can get on with my life.

I think this is the disapointement DD was referring to, not the Order of Merlin.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 5, 2006 1:26 pm (#620 of 2959)
Snape has a point, though, Lupin CAN be dangerous. He was dangerous as a werewolf when he was at school. If he'd gotten away from the other Marauders, it would have been awful. And if he doesn't take his potion, he can still be dangerous. All werewolves are dangerous. Look at the way Molly felt about the new werewolf in the hospital. Why would it be so wrong of Snape to have a mistrust of werewolves? Everyone else does, to a certain extent.


Laura W - Nov 6, 2006 2:15 am (#621 of 2959)
This probably has nothing to do with anything (grin), but Snape calls James a coward and Voldemort admits to Harry that his father was brave. (GoF, Chapter 34, Lord Voldemort to Harry: "And now you face me, like a man ... straight-backed and proud, the way your father died ...".)

Of course, Severus' experiences with James and Tom's experiences with James were undoubtedly very different.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, and something else strange just occurred to me. (It must be the Nov. 5 full moon out there tonight; it has always affected me.)

I know that Severus and James had been enemies practically from the first day of the first year of school ( "just like you and Mr. Malfoy," as DD puts it to Harry), and I know that James and Sirius really humiliated Snape in the Worst Memory scene, and I know Severus was/is sure James was in on The Prank. All reasons for Snape to hate James. Plus, other possible ones we don't know about yet.

But ... despite the fact that it put upon him a very unwanted life-debt, I would think Snape would be grateful that James saved him from certain death by werewolf bite. Even if, as Snape has concluded - and *I* do not believe for one moment that this was the reason -, James did this deed simply to avoid being expelled. Even if that was the motivation, he still kept Severus from dying or becoming infected with Lupin's disease.

Along with Snape's justified resentment of The Prank being pulled on him in the first place - although he *was* trying to get the boys expelled by catching them at some major mischief -, wouldn't any normal person be at least a little grateful that at the last moment Potter chose - that word again - to snatch them from the jaws of death (for *whatever* reason!)?

I mean, would Snape *really* have preferred that James had not done this and the 16-year-old Severus had died or turned into a werewolf?? (Or am I thinking like a normal person again?)

Laura


T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 4:35 am (#622 of 2959)
Snape loathes James, and, it can be argued, with good reason. Snape is nearly killed, or at the least risks becoming a werewolf at the hands of his enemies. Why would he resent James saving him? He feels James only saved him to save himself (as you point out). But more importantly, now he owes his greatest enemy a life debt.

Before we get too down on young Severus trying ot catch the Marauders breaking the rules (which they were), let's recall that Harry, Ron and Hermione have on several occassions done the same.


Laura W - Nov 6, 2006 4:51 am (#623 of 2959)
I know what you said in your first paragraph, T. As a matter of fact, I wrote it in my previous post in detail. Still ... because of James, Snape lived past the age of 16 and is not a werewolf. I repeat ... despite everything, shouldn't and wouldn't that deserve *some* gratitude?

I mean, Lupin and Snape are hardly friends (understatement) and never were, and Snape did get Lupin fired (if you believe that). Still, Lupin is willing to give Snape the credit and appreciation he deserves for making Remus the Wolfsbane Potion. Lupin is able to see that Snape helped him and expresses his gratitude for that to Harry, despite his personal feelings for the Potions Master. Why can't Snape do that re James? (Answering myself - Because Remus and Severus are two very different people in all ways.)

Hey, I just thought of a parallel - which I am fully expecting to be shot down (grin). Severus chooses to only see the bad things James did to him over the years - although the way Lupin tells it, Snape also did his share of hexing Potter and Black when they were in school - and conveniently "forgets" that James did save his life; and Harry chooses to only see the bad things Snape did to him over the years and conveniently "forgets" that Snape saved his life during that Quidditch match in PS (not to mention that Snape told the rest of the Order to go to the MOM in OoP and rescue Harry et al), and that his mentor Dumbledore trusts Severus.


T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 6:18 am (#624 of 2959)
Laura- The parallel is dead on. There are so many more as well! Harry also wants desperately to blame Snape for Sirius' death. Snape blames James for his and Lily's death, though it was he who gave LV the prophesy. But on some level, they both know they bear some responsibility.

As for Snape having any gratitude toward James, they are enemies on the deepest levels. Being indebted to one's enemy is a hard pill to swallow, especially if you think the debt was created by your enemy to save his own skin.

If Snape felt any gratitude, at all, I am willing to bet it went out the window when Snape tried to warn the Potters that LV had a spy close to them, and James ignored the warning and ended up dead, along with Lily. Now Snape not only has the original life debt, but whatever guilt (remember, life debt guilt not normal human being guilt) goes along with contributing to your debtees death, and failing to do more to repay the debt. For Snape it just keeps getting worse and worse, and he gets little, or no, recognition for his efforts. Everyone suspects him. The Order only trusts him because DD does. I think his trapped feeling is related to all of this.


wynnleaf - Nov 6, 2006 7:15 am (#625 of 2959)
I agree about the parallels. People often ask how Snape could hate James for being "responsible" for his own and Lily's death by trusting in a close friend when the spy's report (Snape's report?) had told them that a close friend was betraying them -- especially when it was Snape's taking the prophecy to LV that caused them to be targeted. One might as well ask why Harry hates Snape for his "responsibility" in Sirius' death, when actually Harry's actions did more to bring about Sirius being in danger than Snape's actions.

My guess is that both deal with feelings of guilt by passing them off on the person they hate. Snape passes along his guilt to James, and Harry to Snape. Snape refuses to feel any gratitude toward James for saving his life, and Harry refuses to feel any gratitude toward Snape for saving his life. Snape is worse about it in that he extends his hatred of James to James' son. But I wouldn't be surprised if Snape had a son the age of Harry, Harry would probably hate him just because of his relation to Snape.

I am so fascinated with JKR's apparent satisfaction with getting Harry to a point where his hatred of Snape is even more personal. Now that I'm thinking of the parallels, I believe what JKR has done is get Harry to the point where he hates Snape just as much as Snape hated James and for similar reasons. Now he can hate Snape for killing Dumbledore, who Harry cared about so much. And this can mirror the possible hatred Snape has for James who (in Snape's eyes if he cared for Lily) helped cause the death of Lily.

Anyway, they have to get over it. I really don't think JKR is going to allow Harry to defeat LV while carrying this much hatred toward others. So my guess is that she'll have them work out their hatred first.

That's a big reason why I don't think we're going to see Harry realizing Snape's true loyalties and forgiving Snape after some dramatic scene where Snape gives his life to save Harry. Because I think JKR would want to really end the hatred -- not by death and a token "gosh, that's too bad. He really was loyal after all," but a true forgiveness. Possibly on both sides, or possibly just Harry forgiving Snape. And I think that will likely come before a final confrontation with LV.


T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 7:38 am (#626 of 2959)
I do think Harry forgiving Snape is going to happen. But Snape may be a different story. I don't see Snape ever resolving his hatred totally.

I have not fully thought it through, and don't have time to fully go into it now, but want to put it out there for some pondering. I wonder if Snape is not very much like Les Miserables' Javert. He is trapped in his hatred of James and can't see that Harry is not James, as Javert can't see that Valjean is a changed man. In the end Valjean saves Javert's life, and Javert, unable to reconcile doing what he feels bound to do, follow the letter of the law and imprison Valjean again, and, honor bound to spare Valjean because he owes him his life (shall we call it a life debt?), chooses death for himself, instead.

If Harry forgives Snape and saves his life somehow, while I do not see Snape committing suicide, might he sacrifice himself when he realizes Harry is not James, and that the only way to repay the life debt he owes James and Harry is to give his own life. I see the same conflict of hating James/Harry and recognition that Harry is not James and is worth sacrificing for.

Hmmmm..needs some work. But I do see similarities between Javert's nasty, but essentially rule driven personality, and Snape's. Javert could not resolve his conflicting feelings except through his own sacrifice, and I see this possibility for Snape.

Fire away...


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 6, 2006 9:06 am (#627 of 2959)
Lupin as I see it, does not hold it against Snape that he lost his job. He seems philosophical, as if he almost expected it to not work out long term. If Lupin does not, should we?


wynnleaf - Nov 6, 2006 9:42 am (#628 of 2959)
T Vrana,

On Les Miserable... very interesting comparisons.

On the one hand, Snape does seem a bit like Javert in his rigid emphasis on the rules. But there are some big differences.

Javert does not simply dislike Valjean, he feels he has to actually see that the law is kept regarding Valjean -- in other words, he wants to arrest him, see him punished, etc. Snape may hate Harry because of James, but he is not doing any more to "punish" Harry than verbal insults and sarcasm. On the flip side, he's also saved Harry's life. So I don't see Snape reaching a point where he feels a compulsion to see something bad happen to Harry (punishment, legal justice, etc), that is fighting with an opposing need to acknowledge some mercy on Harry's part (which could occur).

while I do not see Snape committing suicide, might he sacrifice himself when he realizes Harry is not James, and that the only way to repay the life debt he owes James and Harry is to give his own life.

I could see Snape giving his life to save Harry -- hey, he's already risked it numerous times if he's loyal. But I don't see him feeling that he must give his life in order to satisfy the debt. In other words, if to keep Harry alive, Snape had to die, he'd probably do that. But if there were other ways to keep Harry alive, I think Snape would see that as satisfying the life debt, too. Would that change if Harry saved Snape's life? Maybe. But Harry's not going to be doing any saving of Snape until after he forgives him. And that's going to take Snape being revealed as loyal, a lot of backstory revealed, etc. By that time, I expect the focus will shift to destroying LV. If Snape gets in a life-threatening situation at that point, Harry might save his life, but I think it possibly unnessary to the story, because I'd think by then Harry would already have forgiven Snape. In other words, at that point, I don't think JKR would need to have Harry go through a "should I save Snape?" crisis. Convoluted thinking, I know.

Further, I think Snape's character is a bit more "humanized" than Javert by Dumbledore's trust. When Snape totally looses it in POA, Dumbledore is amused. Dumbledore teases Snape at Christmas with the vulture hat and Snape slides the hat back to Dumbledore. Dumbledore takes him to dinner looking for the pudding. Dumbledore trusts Snape with his own life in HBP, and with Katie Bell's. There's a lot more. But what I'm saying is that I think Snape's character will ultimately be revealed to be the one that Dumbledore sees (whatever that is), and it won't be the totally impersonal cold character of Javert.


Soul Search - Nov 6, 2006 9:44 am (#629 of 2959)
Lupin is so philosophical about losing his Hogwarts job that I have to believe Dumbledore warned him about Voldemort's curse on the DADA position. Makes me wonder why Lupin took the job. Was it to get to know his friend's son?


T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 10:19 am (#630 of 2959)
Wynnleaf- Good points, but the genres are a bit different, too, so if we water down the rigid rules = prison, to the rigid rules = harassing, detention, expulsion, it works.

I agree I don't see Snape feeling he must dies to satisfy the life debt, it is more a realization, I think, that Harry is not James, is not arrogant etc., and that he is worth dying for. I can see Snape sacrificing himself if it saves Harry. Snape has risked much, but ultimately he failed to save James. Perhaps it was cowardice, perhaps deep down he felt he wasn't worth saving. And right now, I do not think Snape thinks Harry is worth dying for. He has saved his life, but it was no risk to himself to do so. That he continues to work for DD (I think), possibly out of obligation, is not the same as recognizing that Harry is special and the chosen one.

This is where I'm tying to go with the Javert analogy. That Javert comes to realize that Valjean has changed, and that rather than sacrifice his ideals or Valjean, he sacrifices himself.

In a similar fashion, Snape will never stop hating James, and I can't blame him. He will, I think, come to realize that Harry is not James, and will see that Harry is worth the sacrifice. That is, Snape may have the choice of saving himself, or Harry, and he will come to realize he must save Harry, because he is worth saving, not because he owes him anything. "I still hate James, but I see now you aren't James, and I must sacrifice myself."

Harry doesn't even have to save Snape for this to happen, but he does have to come to his own realizations about Snape and forgive him.

As to Snape being a bit more human, and less cold, again it is the genre I think that softens Snape. In the context of HP, Snape is cold and unforgiving.

Not sure I'm making it clear, but if we connect Javert's unwillingness to break the law, with Snape's unwillingness to let go of his hate of James, Javert had choices:

1) Stick to the law and arrest Valjean (not a choice he can live with)

2) Break the law and let him go (not a choice he could live with)

3) Accept that Valjean is worth sacrificing for, that is, he can't do number one or two because of who he is, so Valjean becomes worth the sacrifice. He would rather die than arrest Valjean or let him go.

Snape will have a choice:

1) Continue to see Harry as James, let Harry die (sticking with the 'law')

2) See Harry as Harry, let go of his hatred, but let Harry die (breaking the 'law')

3)See Harry as Harry and realize he is worth sacrificing for

Hmmm...still needs some distilling...


T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 10:50 am (#631 of 2959)
Distilled from above:

There comes a point for Javert when he realizes he can't let his need to strictly adhere to the law overcome the fact that Valjean is a changed man who does not belong in prison. He sacrifices himself instead.

There may come a realization for Snape, that his need to hate James can't overcome the fact that Harry is not James, that he is special, and Snape will need to sacrifice himself to save Harry.

This all depends on Snape getting an opportunity to save Harry and sacrifice himself.


T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 11:26 am (#632 of 2959)
OR- last one, I promise! (for a while)

Javert: I can't break the law.

Snape: I can't stop hating James.

Javert: But I can't put you in prison.(You are not the same man I arrested all those years ago.)

Snape: But I can't let you die. (You are not James.)

Javert: So I must sacrifice myself.

Snape: So I must sacrifice myself.

Hmmm...I rather like that one. Note to self for future, distill, then post.


rambkowalczyk - Nov 6, 2006 4:20 pm (#633 of 2959)
In the Flight of the Prince, Snape called James "your filthy father". ... Why did Snape see him that way? --Regarding werewolf incident-- However, Snape believed that James was actually in on the trick, and simply got cold feet at the last minute. Apparently, the entire group ended up before Dumbledore for this incident. We don't know who got punished and how. We know that Sirius did not get expelled, nor anyone else. And we know that Snape never told (until POA) that Lupin was a werewolf. It would be fascinating to know why Snape didn't tell anyone about Lupin. Did he have to be threatened to not tell? Was he offered an incentive not to tell? Why didn't he? wynnleaf post 576

I agreed that Snape believed this, but it doesn't make it true on James part. James could have been truly sorry that Snape was put in danger. I think Dumbledore believes this as well. I can't see him making James Head Boy unless James had truly changed.

Throughout his last two years in school, Snape saw James elevated to the position of Head Boy. Yet Snape thought he had been part of the plot to kill him. Whatever suspicions that Snape had that the Marauders were engaging in monthly activities worthy of expulsion were in fact completely correct -- they were secretly planning and engaging in very wrong and dangerous activities. Further, Snape knew that James and the Marauders continued the war, only now secretly, to hex him and attack him.

It must have been incredibly galling to see James given the position of Head Boy, knowing that James was definitely not the model boy that the Head Boy position suggested. Snape must have known that James did not deserve that position. wynnleaf post 576

Again I agree that from Snape's point of view this is how it seemed, but I think Dumbledore had the better assessment of James. Wynnleaf, if all you were trying to do was to give us an idea of how Snape saw things, then I agree with you completely, but if your point is that Snape is correct and Dumbledore was wrong to think that James didn't change significantly then I have to disagree. I believe that Dumbledore knows when someone has reformed whether it is James or Snape.

Also I think it's possible to assume that Sirius was punished appropriately in Snape's eyes and this is the only reason that Snape never told anyone else that Lupin was a werewolf.

---Seems to me if you feel responsible for the death of two innocent (good? - pick a word) people, you do not treat their poor orphaned son who is not only parentless but has had to live with a family that does not love him - and worse - in a despicable fashion from the time you have contact with the 11-year-old.--- Vulture

Snape may regret what he has done but that doesn't mean he can live with it. Maybe Harry's eyes remind him too much of his guilt and he can't forgive himself. If you can't forgive yourself you are doubly harsh on others when they make mistakes.

I am thinking Snape was at Godric's Hollow, and took no action when Voldemort confronted James ... and killed him. Snape could have helped James, but was too afraid of Voldemort. Snape feels this guilt on more than one level: he has to think of himself as a coward; not only did he let James die, he hated him enough to have even been pleased to see him die. Soul Search post 614

I like this idea. I think Snape is a bitter man because he can't forgive himself. Soul Search in addition to your idea someone else suggested that if Snape were there and did nothing to help James that he might have tried to save Lily or to at least discourage Voldemort from killing Lily.

It would explain why in POA Snape hates Sirius because his betrayal put Snape in the position to act as a coward and not save James' life.

I know I have said that Harry has to forgive Snape for what he has done but Harry's forgiveness can only go so far just like that of Dumbledore's. If Snape can't forgive himself then he is lost.

I would like to make an analogy between Snape and Pettigrew.

Both have life debts that were not honored. (Assuming of course this idea is true) Maybe the life debt magic is over rated. This makes me wonder whether Snape had any opportunity to save James. Because if a life debt were truly powerful magic should have happened to save James.

Both betrayed the side they were supposed to be on.

But according to Dumbledore Snape expressed deep regret about giving Voldemort the prophecy. Pettigrew never said he was sorry about betraying James and Lily to Voldemort. When he wasn't trying to blame Sirius for this all he said was that Voldemort was too powerful to resist and that he was afraid to die.

Is Snape's cowardice the same as Peter's. Or is there a subtle distinction. Does Snape truly regret his actions (in the sense that if he could do it over he would have chosen differently).


T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 4:33 pm (#634 of 2959)
rambko-

I had mentioned Snape asking LV to spare Lily (as have others). I especially wonder if this is true because Harry heard high, cold laughter when he heard his mother's murder. What was LV laughing at? I am proposing that Snape did end up a Godric's Hollow with LV that night, not knowing where they were going, and was too afraid to stop LV from killing James, but did ask that Lily be spared. When Lily refused to move LV wearied of the whole thing and AK'd her. Snape reacts to the murder of Lily and this is why LV laughs. He's laughing at Snape and his wearing his emotions on his sleeve. This would explain Snape's reaction to the coward comment, the high cold laughter, and Snape's desire to no longer wear his heart on his sleeve.

Or, it may be that LV was laughing at the request itself, did decide to spare Lily, but then tired of her refusal to move.

Either way, it explains the laughter.


S.E. Jones - Nov 6, 2006 5:04 pm (#635 of 2959)
--I especially wonder if this is true because Harry heard high, cold laughter when he heard his mother's murder. What was LV laughing at?--

I thought Voldemort's laughter came right before the bright green flash of light and the pain in Harry's forehead. That would mean Voldemort was laughing, not as he killed Lily, but as he tried to AK Harry. I could see him laughing, thinking himself so smart for heading off the prophecy by killing Harry as a baby.


T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 6:37 pm (#636 of 2959)
I have thought the same, but it always rang false for me, somehow. LV is always presented as cold and calculating. The laughter just seems out of place for the situation, unless he was laughing at someone.

If he was laughing at Snape's reaction to Lily's death, that would precede the attempted AK of Harry.

Could be way off here....but I never could make the laugh fit.


rambkowalczyk - Nov 6, 2006 7:26 pm (#637 of 2959)
Thank-you Vrana, your idea does make sense.

So I decided to take a look at Harry's memories.

At Quidditch.(Grim defeat POA) Not Harry, please no, take me, kill me instead---" ... Not Harry! Please ... have mercy ... have mercy "

A shrill voice was laughing, the woman was screaming, and Harry knew no more.

Note here laughter came first then screaming. More consistent if Voldemort were laughing at Snape than if he were laughing at the idea of defeating the prophecy.

In Lupin's office (The Patronus)

"Lily, take Harry and go! It's him! Go! Run! I'll hold him off--" The sounds of someone stumbling from a room--a door bursting open--a cackle of high-pitched laughter--

I assume this laughter is because Voldemort catches up to Lily. She has no time to escape.

On the train and when saving Sirius only Lily's screams are mentioned, no laughter.


T Vrana - Nov 6, 2006 7:43 pm (#638 of 2959)
Thanks for finding those.

Hmmmmmm. Well, I'm still not at all happy with the laughter. It seems quite different from LV's usual cool, controlled attitude, doesn't it?

I agree the first one could be laughter at Snape. Not sure about number two.

Why no laughter on the other two...?


S.E. Jones - Nov 6, 2006 8:28 pm (#639 of 2959)
Can we really say he has a normal cool, controlled demeanor? We've only seen him a few times, really, in brief flashes. As Tom, before his Hogwarts days, we saw him (HBP) as being very emotional and uncontrolled, then we have Dumbledore's description of him as being controlled and calculating when he arrived for his first year. The Riddle that came from the dairy (CoS) was very calculating, but I'm not sure I'd call him cool and controlled. We saw him with Hepzibah Smith (HBP) with that same controlled manner Dumbledore describes him with, but we also saw glimpses of something very uncontrolled slowly boiling up to the surface (the red flashing in his eyes). We saw him in the back of Quirrell's head (as Vapamort in PS) and he wasn't exactly cool and controlled then. We didn't see him again until he regained his body in GoF and though he was rather cool and controlled while he was actually in control, when the Priori Incantatem started, he started to show signs of losing his controlled demeanor. The same is true of him at the MoM (OP) when Dumbledore appeared.

All I'm saying is that we haven't really got a good enough picture to say for sure if he's always cool and controlled. Even his brief job interview with Dumbledore (HBP), which I just realized I didn't mention above, shows him slipping between cool and emotional and back.

I could see him laughing when he got to Godric's Hollow for a great many reasons: 1) He could've just liked killing by then, as Hagrid suggested, 2) He could've found the Potters' meager attempts at protecting themselves from someone such as himself to be laughable (he is rather vain and prideful, it would seem), and 3) He was going to beat the Prophecy by heading it off just as he was going to beat Death by creating his Horcruxes....


Mrs Brisbee - Nov 6, 2006 9:07 pm (#640 of 2959)
We also saw glimpses of Voldemort's demeanor through Harry in OotP. Harry could feel when Voldemort was in towering rages. Harry, channelling Voldemort's emotions, laughed his head off when the Death Eaters escaped Azkaban. So I think he might laugh when he's feeling particularly triumphant.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 641 to 670

Post  Mona Tue May 31, 2011 9:37 am

wynnleaf - Nov 6, 2006 9:42 pm (#641 of 2959)
Again I agree that from Snape's point of view this is how it seemed, but I think Dumbledore had the better assessment of James. Wynnleaf, if all you were trying to do was to give us an idea of how Snape saw things, then I agree with you completely, but if your point is that Snape is correct and Dumbledore was wrong to think that James didn't change significantly then I have to disagree. I believe that Dumbledore knows when someone has reformed whether it is James or Snape.

rambkowalczyk, I was not meaning that Snape's beliefs about James were necessarily true. I was instead thinking through what would lead Snape to such hatred and resentment of James and perhaps also the type of resentment and bitterness that could lead him to join LV.


Saracene - Nov 6, 2006 10:45 pm (#642 of 2959)
---It all depends on how one views what Snape thinks Harry meant by "kill me like you killed him." If you think Snape interprets Harry to mean "kill me like you killed my father" (which Snape didn't actually do), then the "Don't call me coward" is a reaction to Snape's feelings about James. If you think Snape interpreted Harry to mean "kill me like you just killed Dumbledore" then Snape is reacting to what just occurred on the tower.---

I still don't see though why Snape would interpret Harry's words as, "kill me like you killed my father". Firstly, Snape didn't actually kill James. Secondly, it's unlikely that Snape would be aware that Harry actually knew about his part in James and Lily' deaths. Remember that Harry himself only found out about it by sheer chance a short time ago. If Snape realised, from Harry's words, that Harry knew Snape was partly responsible for James' death, I'd expect him to be a lot more shocked and surprised, because Harry was never supposed to know this.

T Vrana:

---In a similar fashion, Snape will never stop hating James, and I can't blame him. He will, I think, come to realize that Harry is not James, and will see that Harry is worth the sacrifice. That is, Snape may have the choice of saving himself, or Harry, and he will come to realize he must save Harry, because he is worth saving, not because he owes him anything.---

Personally, I very much doubt that Snape will undergo any significant change or come to some important realisation or anything along these lines.

Someone once brought up the question of character development and whether we can expect to see Snape change in any way at all in the last book. I think, however, that Snape is a classic example of "static" character development: a character who is developed but not *changed* (as opposed to "dynamic" character development where a character does undergo some sort of inner change). As the books progress, Snape is developed because we find out things about his personality, background, relationships etc. that makes our (and Harry's) perceptions of him change. But Snape himself, as in the present-time Snape who is in the "now" of the story, does not change.

So I expect the last book to follow the same pattern: it will reveal something about Snape and his past/personality, but I just don't think that Snape is the sort of literary character who actually changes in any significant way.

Regarding comparisons with Javert: I can see some broad similarities as far as characters go, but I think that they're hugely different in the way that they're *written*. JKR wrote Snape as a deliberately murky and ambiguous character, a mystery; Hugo laid out everything about Javert right off the bat. JKR never ever gets inside Snape's head; Hugo devoted a whole chapter detailing what was going on inside Javert and why he chose to commit suicide in the end.


Laura W - Nov 7, 2006 1:08 am (#643 of 2959)
"I would like to make an analogy between Snape and Pettigrew. Both have life debts that were not honored. (Assuming of course this idea is true) Maybe the life debt magic is over rated. This makes me wonder whether Snape had any opportunity to save James. Because if a life debt were truly powerful magic should have happened to save James." (rambkowalczyk)

Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why Snape's life debt to James Potter was not paid off in full when Snape saved James' son from being killed during the Quidditch match in PS.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Lupin as I see it, does not hold it against Snape that he lost his job. He seems philosophical, as if he almost expected it to not work out long term. If Lupin does not, should we?" (DZ)

I know this answer is going to get me into trouble but I genuinely mean it with all my heart. The answer is ... because not all of us are as generous in spirit and fair-minded as Remus Lupin. I know I'm not (in so-called real life), which certainly may be a failing on my part. At one point in one of the books I believe one of the trio says that the Ministry will realize Sirius is not the murderer they thought he was (and punished him merciously for) and will apologize to him, and Sirius replies that even if they do he might not forgive them after what he's been through. I fear that might be *my* reaction too. Lupin is kinder than I.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And something else -- Just re-re-reading OoP. Phineas Nigellus' portrait speaking to Harry at Sirius' house: "It looks to me as though you would have been better off in my own house. We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks."

Aside from the fact that I think that is a *terrible generalization* about a very large group of students who have passed through Hogwarts in the last thousand years, how - if at all - do you guys think it applies to the particular Slytherin we are discussing here on this thread?

Laura


Saracene - Nov 7, 2006 2:05 am (#644 of 2959)
Laura W

---Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why Snape's life debt to James Potter was not paid off in full when Snape saved James' son from being killed during the Quidditch match in PS.---

Well... I find the idea that lifedebts are somehow "transferrable" pretty weird.

BTW, although I think that the whole lifedebt magic thing will undoubtedly be important in Pettigrew's storyline, I doubt that it will feature as strongly in Snape's. Even if you look at the way DD talks about James/Snape as opposed to Harry/Pettigrew, he talks about Snape's desire to be quits with James as if it was something that exists in Snape's *own head*, not in terms of Snape being bound by some magical arrangement.

---I know this answer is going to get me into trouble but I genuinely mean it with all my heart. The answer is ... because not all of us are as generous in spirit and fair-minded as Remus Lupin.---

While I do believe Lupin to be generous and fair-minded, I personally believe it's more complicated than that. JKR once described Lupin as someone whose flaw is that they "like to be liked". And what often comes with this flaw is not just the willingness to cut your close friends an awful lot of slack - which JKR mentions - but also this determination, you could almost say, to cut slack where people at large are concerned - even when the people in question do not like you and do you wrong. (I'm not saying of course that Lupin would cut slack on *really* serious stuff like Pettigrew's betrayal.)

---Aside from the fact that I think that is a *terrible generalization* about a very large group of students who have passed through Hogwarts in the last thousand years, how - if at all - do you guys think it applies to the particular Slytherin we are discussing here on this thread?---

Well, I believe that Snape will end up giving that particular stereotype a much-needed kick, Smile


S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 2:21 am (#645 of 2959)
Saracene --While I do believe Lupin to be generous and fair-minded, I personally believe it's more complicated than that. JKR once described Lupin as someone whose flaw is that they "like to be liked". And what often comes with this flaw is not just the willingness to cut your close friends an awful lot of slack - which JKR mentions - but also this determination, you could almost say, to cut slack where people at large are concerned - even when the people in question do not like you and do you wrong. (I'm not saying of course that Lupin would cut slack on *really* serious stuff like Pettigrew's betrayal.)--

I thought this too, which is why I found it so very interesting that Lupin thought it so very outrageous that Dumbledore believed Snape was sorry over James's death. It could be that he's only saying this because Snape just killed Dumbledore (i.e. he's speaking out in anger and doesn't actually believe what he's saying), but I don't think so. I think we're just seeing a Lupin who isn't bothering to censor his thoughts or control his emotions.

"And Dumbledore believed that?" said Lupin incredulously. "Dumbledore believed Snape was sorry James was dead? Snape hated James...."


Laura W - Nov 7, 2006 3:37 am (#646 of 2959)
"Well... I find the idea that lifedebts are somehow "transferable" pretty weird."

So what happens if the person you owe the life debt to dies, Saracene? Should the debt become null and void, do you think? I kind of think it makes perfect sense to wipe the slate clean by paying it to the person's descendents if possible. But once it's paid, it's paid. And, to me, the Quidditch incident was it.

"Even if you look at the way DD talks about James/Snape as opposed to Harry/Pettigrew, he talks about Snape's desire to be quits with James as if it was something that exists in Snape's *own head*, not in terms of Snape being bound by some magical arrangement."

Funny, then why did I always equate the two situations? I know. In PoA re Peter, DD tells Harry, "When one wizard saves another wizard's life, it creates a certain bond between them ... and I'm much mistaken if Voldemort wants his servant in the debt of Harry Potter." Wouldn't the words "bond" and "debt" also apply to James/Snape as to Harry/Peter? Two wizards, saves lives, etc. "Magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable."

You know, Saracene, when DD first tells Harry about Professor Snape "being in your father's debt" in PS, the next line is "Harry tried to understand this but it made his head pound ..." Me too! (big smile)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I thought this too, which is why I found it so very interesting that Lupin thought it so very outrageous that Dumbledore believed Snape was sorry over James's death. It could be that he's only saying this because Snape just killed Dumbledore (i.e. he's speaking out in anger and doesn't actually believe what he's saying), but I don't think so." (SE Jones)

Whereas I *do* think so. (Only time and Book Seven will tell, eh?) I believe at *that moment* in the hospital wing he was suffering from a form of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder - and, without getting political or divulging military anecdotes of which I am personally familiar, I use that medical term deliberately - in which the only thing his brain could see - feel - was that his mentor was killed and that Severus Snape had done it (as Ginny and Harry told him). All of his normal rationality flew out the window. It is perfectly understandable. The shock made him snap. Whether temporarily or permanently remains to be seen. (Hey, kind of a parallel to when he turns into a werewolf. Or maybe not.)

Throughout the rest of the books, when he is in his right mind, his comments about Snape are that of the non-insanely-grief-sticken Remus Lupin talking - particularly in the Very Frosty Christmas chapter of HBP:

# "It all comes down to whether or not you trust Dumbledore's judgement. I do; therefore I trust Severus."

# "I do not forget that during the year I taught at Hogwarts, Severus made the Wolfsbane Potion for me every month ... so that I did not have to suffer ..."

# "You are determined to hate him Harry. And I understand; with James as your father, with Sirius as your godfather; you have inherited an old prejudice."

That's my explanation, anyway.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Well, I believe that Snape will end up giving that particular stereotype a much-needed kick, Smile" (Saracene)

Maybe, maybe not.

... which, I guess is what this whole thread it about in a nutshell. (wink)

Laura


wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 3:56 am (#647 of 2959)
Maybe it's just me, but I don't understand why Snape's life debt to James Potter was not paid off in full when Snape saved James' son from being killed during the Quidditch match in PS.

Actually, I don't think there is any canon to say that it was not fulfilled. Personally, I think it was.


S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 4:50 am (#648 of 2959)
I don't think post-traumatic stress would be the right technical term, but I see what you're saying. I can definitely say, from being in situations where you find that someone you know killed someone you're close to (yes, I've actually had that happen, right across the street from me, in fact), you do go into a bit of mental and emotional shock and you may want to storm at someone afterwards. However, still don't think that's the case here, I think we're just seeing Lupin as Lupin and without all the cool logic that colors his normal interactions. But, I'll agree to disagree.

Anyway, back to Snape, I was thinking about something today, I know the idea of him having a thing for Lily seems very popular but never saw anything in canon to suggest such an attraction. However, I did get the feeling that Snape may have had a thing for Narcissa after reading HBP. I thought this was kinda funny as many people have listed James getting the girl Snape wanted as one of the reasons why Snape hated James and why he detested their kid so much but, if Snape did have a thing for Narcissa, then it might be possible that Snape has kept such a strong friendship with Lucius and showed a fondness for Draco because Lucius got the girl Snape wanted and because Draco is their son. It just kinda struck me today just how funny the duelism present in that idea was.


T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 6:07 am (#649 of 2959)
On the life debt, I don't think magic is involved, I think it is more honor bound. When James saved Snape I do think a life debt was created. That Snape contributed to James' death and failed to do more to stop it would compound it, I would think. Saving Harry would only have 'paid' the original debt.


wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 7:00 am (#650 of 2959)
However, I did get the feeling that Snape may have had a thing for Narcissa after reading HBP.

S.E.Jones, I've considered this possibility, too. Could be, but one thing I noticed about the Spinners End chapter is that Narcissa doesn't play that card at all. She seems have a long acquaintance with Snape (knows how to get to the house and more). But as she brings every argument or pressure that she can to bear on Snape, she uses Snape's friendship with Lucius and his relationship with Draco, but she never tries to play on any sort of care that Snape might have for her personally. There's never a "please do this for me," sort of feeling to her pleas. I think if she had any idea that Snape had, or used to have, a romantic interest in her, she would have included that in her "weapons" to use to convince Snape.


T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 7:46 am (#651 of 2959)
saracene

Personally, I very much doubt that Snape will undergo any significant change or come to some important realization or anything along these lines.

Someone once brought up the question of character development and whether we can expect to see Snape change in any way at all in the last book. I think, however, that Snape is a classic example of "static" character development: a character who is developed but not *changed* (as opposed to "dynamic" character development where a character does undergo some sort of inner change). As the books progress, Snape is developed because we find out things about his personality, background, relationships etc. that makes our (and Harry's) perceptions of him change. But Snape himself, as in the present-time Snape who is in the "now" of the story, does not change.

I don't think Snape will change either, thus my comparison to Javert, who could not change, and was therefore left with suicide as his only option once he realized that Valjean was not the same man he arrested all those years ago.

In the same fashion, I don't think Snape is going to see Harry as this great guy and give him a hug or apologize etc. But I think he will realize Harry is not like James, and is more like Lily. Snape will still be the nasty, vindictive, horrible guy we've all come to love , right up until he dies. But he will see Harry for who he is, I think. This is far more interesting than the book ending with Snape still sneering at Harry, or at least until one of them dies.

I know the Javert comparison is not perfect, different genres, different writing styles, but I do believe the similarities hold for the final choice each may have to make. Change, not an option, realization and sacrifice, option.


wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 7:59 am (#652 of 2959)
On the subject of whether Snape will change, or if we'll just continue to discover more and more about him....

Well, we know that we're going to discover more and more about him. For many readers, the perception of Snape is going to change (for good or bad), as we discover more. There should be the sense in Harry as well as many readers of "oh, I never thought he was like that!" or "I never expected that to be his motivation!" In that sense, it may seem like Snape changes when in fact he doesn't.

On the other hand, if Harry's opinion of Snape changes, then there almost has to be some sort of change in the way Snape reacts and responds to Harry. So yes, I do expect to see something different there. But that doesn't mean that Snape will be some profoundly different fellow. I expect him to stay sarcastic, insulting, prickly, etc.

If there's any change at all, it would be that he stops looking at Harry and seeing James. That is character development. But I wouldn't expect Snape to become nice to Harry, even if he did see him as more like Lily.

Just my guess, but I'd expect if Snape was friends with Lily, he was sarcastic and said dreadful things around her, but she was the type that could deal with it. Remember Slughorn talking about her cheeky comebacks? I think she could probably deal with Snape if he was a friend.


T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 9:51 am (#653 of 2959)
saracene

Regarding comparisons with Javert: I can see some broad similarities as far as characters go, but I think that they're hugely different in the way that they're *written*. JKR wrote Snape as a deliberately murky and ambiguous character, a mystery; Hugo laid out everything about Javert right off the bat. JKR never ever gets inside Snape's head; Hugo devoted a whole chapter detailing what was going on inside Javert and why he chose to commit suicide in the end.

Ambiguous so far. We are looking at an incomplete story. While I don't think we are going to go inside Snape's head, I do think we will find out what makes Snape tick.

I still don't see though why Snape would interpret Harry's words as, "kill me like you killed my father". Firstly, Snape didn't actually kill James. Secondly, it's unlikely that Snape would be aware that Harry actually knew about his part in James and Lily' deaths. Remember that Harry himself only found out about it by sheer chance a short time ago. If Snape realized, from Harry's words, that Harry knew Snape was partly responsible for James' death, I'd expect him to be a lot more shocked and surprised, because Harry was never supposed to know this.

DD reacted to Harry finding out about Snape and the prophesy by going a lighter shade of pale. It seems to be a concern right then, despite the fact that they have other things to deal with at the moment (horcrux hunting). I can only think that this might throw a wrench in DD's plans. DD sent Harry away to get a cloak he had already told him to carry, so I think he needed a few minutes to get some things done. One thing may have been to tell Snape what Harry knew. If DD knew there was a possibility he would not survive the night, (and since he knew Malfoy was trying to kill him, they were going horcrux hunting, and he brought the Order inside, perhaps he knew about the vow etc.), he would have wanted Snape to now Harry's frame of mind. Long story short, DD could have told Snape before leaving that night.

While Snape did not directly kill James, he certainly contributed. Not a stretch that he would feel as though he did kill James in a way.

Besides all this, Snape wasn't in a really rational state of mind. He had stopped running, left Malfoy on his own, and returned to rage at Harry. He was deep into a James moment, so deep that it took a hippogriff to bring him back to his senses.


Soul Search - Nov 7, 2006 10:32 am (#654 of 2959)
Let's stretch things a bit. What if Snape's reaction to "kill me like you killed him," with Snape reading "him" as James, is backstory for something we will learn in Book Seven. (Wish we had a title!)

There is good canon for Snape being at Godric's Hollow. Snape was a double agent. It is quite reasonable that Snape was with Voldemort at Godric's Hollow.

Voldemort tells Harry "I killed your father first ..." so Snape didn't actually perform the curse that killed James, but he could very well have witnessed it first hand. And done nothing to prevent it. Snape, himself, would feel "I as good as killed him," just like Sirius thought the same thing for convincing James to use Wormtail as secret keeper.

It is quite reasonable that Dumbledore told Snape that Harry had learned about Snape passing the prophecy to Voldemort. Time was short, though, and Snape could well suspect that Harry learned about his role at Godric's Hollow as well. That is, when Harry said "kill me like you killed him" Snape could have had a sudden fear that Harry also learned the Snape had let Voldemort kill James.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 7, 2006 10:43 am (#655 of 2959)
I may be the odd one out, but I really do not think that Snape as thinking of James with the "kill me" thing. I think what had just happened filled everyone's minds so completely, that it HAD to be Dumbledore. It was such a monumental event.

I'd love to have more info on the relationship between Snape and Narcissa. Narcissa and Draco are the only two I can think of who have played up to Snape like that. Narcissa, when she was wheedling him at Spinner's End and Draco when he suggested Snape apply for Headmaster. The wife and the son certainly seem to have more interest in Snape, or at least what he can be useful for, than the husband. I think Narcissa, if not knowing Snape was playing both sides against the middle, senses at lease that he has more feeling that most Death Eaters. (I can definitely see where the fan fic idea that Draco is Snape's godson came from.) Narcissa and Snape are more on the same page than some of the other Death Eaters we know. Even Bella is a different breed, and she's Narcissa's sister.


T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 10:49 am (#656 of 2959)
DIE- But that's just it, for such a monumental event, Snape is sneering and jeering at Harry for the first coward. It's the second coward, after Harry does a very James-like thing and tries to use the prince's curses, and Snape begins to rage about James, that puts Snape over the top.

What daughter?


wynnleaf - Nov 7, 2006 11:07 am (#657 of 2959)
But that's just it, for such a monumental event, Snape is sneering and jeering at Harry for the first coward. It's the second coward, after Harry does a very James-like thing and tries to use the prince's curses, and Snape begins to rage about James, that puts Snape over the top.

I'm a little more with Die on the "coward" thing. The first time Harry calls Snape "coward" it's really a very adolescent "fight back you coward" kind of statement. And it doesn't say "you're a coward because of ...." It's just a name. Snape isn't so reactionary that the name calling itself gets him angry.

But when Harry says "kill me like you killed him..." and includes the "coward" name, then the taunt strikes home. I think Snape would find this distressing whichever person he thinks Harry is talking about. If he thought it was James, then it would make him furious, and if he thought it was DD he'd still be furious.

But as to who Snape is thinking about at the time, I think that the big clues are 1. Snape did not directly kill James, but he did directly AK DD (whether it killed him or not). 2. the comparison to Fang seems much more directly tied to the current situation and not one 16 years previously.

Besides that, we already had a description of Snape's face on the tower that mirrored the description of Harry's in the cave -- hatred for self and revulsion at what he's doing (I'm assuming Snape's emotions are the same as Harry's, as JKR so obviously used the same words). If Snape was feeling hatred for self and revulsion for what he'd done, then those emotions seem very similar to the reaction he had to the "coward" taunt later.

Now, since I don't think Snape's AK killed DD, why would Snape get so upset about it? Wouldn't he know that his AK wasn't meant to kill DD?

But here is I think the explanation of Snape's concern that DD "took too much for granted." I'm thinking that Snape was very anxious about DD's plans and how everything would really work out. I think when he did that AK on the tower, he didn't know for certain how DD would fare. He didn't know how injured or ill DD already was. He didn't know if he'd make it down from the tower. He didn't know if DD would live through it (and DD might not have lived). So Snape does feel hatred and revulsion at what he's done and he's very, very anxious about what the result will be.

When Harry says "kill me like you killed him, coward" (quote not exact), Snape snaps because that's exactly what he's worried about -- that DD has or will die from all this and he, Snape, becomes to all appearance the cowardly murderer.

Just my theory, of course.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 7, 2006 11:13 am (#658 of 2959)
I meant son. I'll edit it. I meant Draco. I was just talking to someone about Jo's statement that Luna was not Snape's daughter and took too long to change gears. I'm getting too old for these fast paced boards!

I don't know if Snape would think of James even, when Harry used the curse, because Snape knows darned well Harry had his old book, and was using it. That must be really frosting him.


T Vrana - Nov 7, 2006 11:24 am (#659 of 2959)
It wasn't the 'kill me' comment that brought Snape back to Harry, and set him off. It was James. Snape lost track of where he was going and what he should have been doing, because he was raging about James. It was in the midst of this total preoccupation with James, from 16 years ago, that the second coward really pushed him over. Don't have the book handy, but if Snape was concerned about DD, he didn't show it until after Harry did a James and used his spells. Then, he gets really angry, stops running, stops taking care of Draco, and returns to rage at Harry. Then, Harry uses the second coward, and Snape really loses it.

DIE- Snape brings James up, your filthy father etc., I think it was more than the book.


S.E. Jones - Nov 7, 2006 3:31 pm (#660 of 2959)
wynnleaf --But as she brings every argument or pressure that she can to bear on Snape, she uses Snape's friendship with Lucius and his relationship with Draco, but she never tries to play on any sort of care that Snape might have for her personally.--

That's assuming that Narcissa knew. Personally, I doubt she did. You don't hit on your best mate's girl, it just isn't done. JKR noted that Lupin may have had a thing for Lily but never competed with James for her; he probably didn't even let James know that he liked her. I would think Snape would be the same way with Narcissa, if he did indeed like her.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 8, 2006 10:08 am (#661 of 2959)
That's true, but I think girls usually can tell when someone likes them. Usually being the key word. Who knows with these two?


rambkowalczyk - Nov 8, 2006 1:41 pm (#662 of 2959)
Someone once brought up the question of character development and whether we can expect to see Snape change in any way at all in the last book. I think, however, that Snape is a classic example of "static" character development: a character who is developed but not *changed* (as opposed to "dynamic" character development where a character does undergo some sort of inner change). As the books progress, Snape is developed because we find out things about his personality, background, relationships etc. that makes our (and Harry's) perceptions of him change. But Snape himself, as in the present-time Snape who is in the "now" of the story, does not change. Saracene

A couple of thoughts on this. Have Dumbledore's or Lupin's or any of the adult characters changed? Is there a significance as to whether Snape changes or not?

I think there is a possibility that Snape might actually change as opposed to just discovering something about his character. Please bear with long explanation.

Every now and then Dumbledore is alluded to as Christlike in that 1 he seems to be perfect, 2 he talks about choices and how they define us 3 Although stern and powerful he isn't a condemning person 4 he is willing to sacrifice himself not only for the good but also the imperfect.

Christ also had a Judas who was one of the chosen twelve to betray him. Snape whom Dumbledore trusted with his life, killed Dumbledore. So is Snape Judas? According to Christian tradition, Judas is considered lost not because he betrayed Christ but because he despaired. In plain English, all Judas had to do was to wait out the three days and express his sorrow to the risen Christ. Jesus would have forgiven the truly repentant.

Is Snape lost? Has what he done so unforgivable in his own eyes? If the answer is yes, then Snape hasn't changed and will be a tragic figure who will die.

But if we are to believe Dumbledore then we know that Snape has previously repented being a Death Eater. According to Dumbledore he expressed great sorrow and truly regretted telling Voldemort about the prophecy. (We'll assume that this was not Dumbledore's big mistake).

Therefore it would be a major character change if Snape truly apologized to Harry and asks Harry to forgive him.

Just to complete the big picture, I believe Dumbledore's big mistake is that Pettigrew will honor his life debt and somehow save Harry in book 7. I believe that Pettigrew is the betrayer and Judas figure. He believes himself to be unforgiven and therefore chooses to follow Voldemort.

The life debt may have a magical bond but it only works if you choose to honor it. Snape has always tried to honor it. Peter never has.


wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 2:06 pm (#663 of 2959)
While I think there are probably some religious connotations to the HP series, and JKR has said that she wouldn't comment on that until after Book 7 (rather than that are no such connotations), I very definitely don't think there's anything allegorical about HP. Nor do I think there are clear Christ-figures or Judas-figures.

JKR does always have a betrayer in each book. But I think that's of note. In each book she has Harry learn that someone is not who they seemed, or not who he thought. Usually that person is actually a betrayer, although not always technically a betrayer.

Judas is a follower who becomes a betrayer. His treachery appears to dismay even him (perhaps it went further than he expected), and he kills himself. But he doesn't try to repent or get redeemed from his crime.

If Snape is loyal to DD, then he was never a traitor to the Order. He went directly from Hogwarts to LV (at least it so appears), and from there betrayed LV to go to Dumbledore. But he never betrayed the Order.

His redemption would be focused on his crimes while a DE -- in particular taking the prophecy to LV, who then targeted the Potters. If he's loyal to DD, his redemption is not for a crime of treachery.

If he's not loyal to DD, and has been following LV all this time or is "out for himself," then he's more likely either the perfect quadruple agent (always loyal to LV), or just an out-and-out traitor -- not a follower who got frustrated and betrayed his true leader.


Madame Pomfrey - Nov 8, 2006 5:07 pm (#664 of 2959)
But,Snape has been loyal(we think) to Dumbledore for 16 years.What if he has been following Voldemort since his return and really betrayed Dumbledore on the tower? Isn't it strange how when Dumbledore was suspended in midair it was described kind of like a crucifix? Geez..Maybe Dumbledore did sacrifice himself after all.


Choices - Nov 8, 2006 6:10 pm (#665 of 2959)
If anyone is the Christ-like figure, I see it as being Harry. He is the "heir of God(ric)" Gryffindor. He is the one who descends into the area below the earth/place of death (Chamber of Secrets, beneath the trapdoor, graveyard, etc.) and rises again, sometimes after three days, victorius. There is a tremendous amount of Christ-like symbolism around Harry. I have seen Dumbledore, Harry and Fawkes described as the "trinity".


wynnleaf - Nov 8, 2006 6:15 pm (#666 of 2959)
From Time Magazine, 2005

Interestingly, although Rowling is a member of the Church of Scotland, the books are free of references to God. On this point, Rowling is cagey. "Um. I don't think they're that secular," she says, choosing her words slowly. "But, obviously, Dumbledore is not Jesus."

So DD isn't a Christ-figure. And like I said about Judas-figures, there's just too many traitors and characters with unknown or undiscovered motivations and loyalties to say one of them would be Judas-figure.


Saracene - Nov 9, 2006 3:44 am (#667 of 2959)
---Therefore it would be a major character change if Snape truly apologized to Harry and asks Harry to forgive him.---

More like a major character transplant, IMO, Smile

I really can't imagine Snape asking Harry to forgive him or apologizing to him.


T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 4:31 am (#668 of 2959)
I agree with Saracene. I don't think Snape will change, but I do think he will realize at some point that Harry is more like Lily than James. I also think he may end up sacrificing himself for Harry/Lily. I don't think he would ever apologize to Harry/James.


Thom Matheson - Nov 9, 2006 5:56 am (#669 of 2959)
Have we ever known a Slytherin to do anything for the sake of goodness and kindness? I don't mean any disrespect here I 'm talking about the traits that make some wizards Slytherin in the first place. If Snape actually does something positive, his motive, for me, would be to clear his name, not to aid the Potter's. Even an Order of Merlin 1st class would be a better fit for me. Overall Slytherins think of themselves first and how it would benefit, them. That is their personality trait.


T Vrana - Nov 9, 2006 9:47 am (#670 of 2959)
Thom- I'm so glad you asked this because after re-reading 'After the Burial' I am more certain that Snape will see Harry differently before the end.

The short answer to your question- Slughorn.

In After the Burial Harry does a few things with Slughorn:

1) Brings up Lily, reminds Slughorn he liked her, Slughorn said everyone did, she was brave and funny.

2) Tells Slughorn Lily need not have died, she could have run, but she died to save Harry. Slughorn begs him to stop.

3) Says she sacrificed for me, LV killed her, and you won't help her son defeat LV by giving me the memory.

4) Uses his eyes, Lily's eyes, to hold Slughorn's gaze.

5) Slughorn is terrified to give Harry the memory, he wants to help Harry, but fears LV will find out.

6) Harry asks Slughorn to be brave like his mother.

7) Slughorn does it.

Going back to Severus for a minute. I do think he was thinking of James and Lily when Harry called him a coward (I know many disagree, so no need to reiterate, this still works if you don't agree). I do think Snape may have been at Godric's Hollow, and typical Slytherin, chose to save himself rather than James, to whom he owed a life debt. I believe he did like Lily, whether it was just respect, friendship or unrequited love, whatever. Lily's bravery and sacrifice shamed him, the way it shamed Slughorn. Snape does feel like a coward because he was unable to do what Lily did, the right thing, the brave thing.

I think that Snape will see Harry's eyes, as Lily's eyes, at some point in book 7, and, like Slughorn, will do the right thing, the brave thing, and sacrifice himself for Harry.

This, I think, is why Snape is so bothered by the coward comment.

Lily's power to influence others to do the right thing, to be brave as she was brave, will be part of Harry's strength in book 7, I think. His eyes, her eyes, will be key.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 671 to 700

Post  Mona Tue May 31, 2011 9:42 am

Vulture - Nov 9, 2006 10:50 am (#671 of 2959)
Besides Sirius comment about Snape running with a particular crowd (of which the only ones whose ages we know are several years older than Snape), what is the evidence that Snape had a group of friends??? Canon, of course. (wynnleaf - Nov 4, 2006 11:38 am (#604))

I went into this before _ please see Vulture, "+ Severus Snape" #183, 6 Sep 2006 11:27 am _ particularly the paragraph about Narcissa. I don't claim that Snape is the sort to naturally make loads of friends of his own age, but nor do I believe that he was alone and friendless at Hogwarts. It wouldn't surprise me if, with his own interests and what we know of his adult impatience (to use no stronger a word) with ignorance of magic, he had a tendency to hang around with those older than him. Narcissa isn't that much older _ and we know that, as adults at least, they seem to be on friendly terms. (Of course, canon gives us no clue about when that started _ but they were at school together for 3 or 4 years.)

A point which people seem to be forgetting is the effect of being a Slytherin on Snape's social life: I mentioned this before as well. We know that the other Houses don't like them _ so Slytherins would have more need for their own and each other's company. Therefore, younger and older would be more dependent on each other than in other Houses.

We've seen Malfoy and other Slytherins inter-acting: they're not particularly nice to each other, but we know that they would always gang up against the rest. I see no reason to imagine that it was different in Snape's day.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 9, 2006 11:44 am (#672 of 2959)
Snape as a Judas figure bears more contemplation. Think about it. If Judas had NOT done what he did, the prophecies might not have been carried out, and things might not have gone as they were meant to go. He was a necessary character in that drama, as Snape might be here. If Judas had not caused the death of Christ, there would have been no final triumph. That could well apply to Snape in some way.


rambkowalczyk - Nov 9, 2006 2:26 pm (#673 of 2959)
Think about it. If Judas had NOT done what he did, the prophecies might not have been carried out, and things might not have gone as they were meant to go. He was a necessary character in that drama, as Snape might be here. If Judas had not caused the death of Christ, there would have been no final triumph. That could well apply to Snape in some way. Die Zimtzicke

There are two aspects to Judas, one is that he betrayed Christ and the other is that he despaired. Without Judas' betrayal there would have been no death and no resurrection. But Christianity would still exist is Judas didn't commit suicide.

It's just that I think Snape's nastiness is due to guilt feelings--something he did or didn't do before Harry grew up. Giving the prophecy to Voldemort knowing that at some point that Voldemort would target the child is sufficient reason to feel guilty. Not saving James if Snape was there at Godric's Hollow could also be another reason to feel guilty assuming of course that he was actually there. Whether or not he actually killed Dumbledore (I tend to think he did) may be less important.

The key is can Snape live with himself? Did he depend on Dumbledore to not wallow in guilt but to channel it into something useful-spying on Voldemort. Will he change now that Dumbledore is dead?


Susan Bones - Nov 9, 2006 11:19 pm (#674 of 2959)
I think that Snape will see Harry's eyes, as Lily's eyes, at some point in book 7, and, like Slughorn, will do the right thing, the brave thing, and sacrifice himself for Harry. -T Vrana

Isn't there a JKR interview in which she says that Harry having Lilly's eyes will be important in a future book? That would certainly support your theory, T Vrana. Or I suppose the "future" book to which she was referring could have been HBP.


Laura W - Nov 10, 2006 12:07 am (#675 of 2959)
"Have we ever known a Slytherin to do anything for the sake of goodness and kindness?" (Thom Matheson)

Forgetting about Snape for the moment - because we do not *know* his motives for anything he has done -, I would answer your question with a "no", Thom . (I'll get to Slughorn in a moment.) Which is kind of too bad, in my opinion. But that's how Jo has drawn them.

The Slytherins are mean to Hagrid when they and the Gryffindors have Care of Magical Creatures class together (there are no Slytherins who are shown as being respectful to Hagrid); the Slytherins do not play fair during the Duelling Club incident (ie - Millicent Balstode had Hermoine in a headlock); aren't all of Umbridge's posse in OoP from Slytherin house?; heck, even when Gryffindor plays Slytherin in Quidditch, Jo has the students from Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff routing for Gryffindor (you'd think it would sometimes be to their advantage to have Slytherin win). And these are just a few of numerous examples.

Slytherin is not *my* house, but I do think Jo rather overdid it in painting the whole house with a very negative hue. The hue being as Phineas Nigellus sees it in my post #643 or as Thom put it in his quote above.

Now to Slughorn. ...

T Vrana wrote, " Slughorn is terrified to give Harry the memory, he wants to help Harry, but fears LV will find out. Harry asks Slughorn to be brave like his mother. Slughorn does it."

Yeah, but Harry had to take Felix Felicis *and* to get Sluggy very drunk - using the Refilling Charm on the wine bottles (giggle) - in order to trick him into doing the right thing and giving up the memory. Don't forget that.

Actually, I quite like Horace. He may be a social climber and a name dropper, which is not an attractive characteristic, but he's not a bigot. He doesn't have this pure-blood-wizards-are-the-only-good-wizards thing like some Slytherins - Malfoys, Blaise Zabini, etc. He admires talent and accomplishment, *whoever* displays it. And he obviously has no use for Death Eaters, which I'm sure is why Lucius' son was not asked to be a member of the Slug Club. He has a cheerful personality, which I believe is genuine. And he tries to make classes fun for the children while still teaching them important skills, so he's not a bad teacher. (And true Slytherin that he might be, I seriously doubt if Slughorn would *ever* call a first-year Potions student - or an any-year Potions student - who made a mistake, "Idiot boy!" in front of the rest of the class.) On top of that, he obviously feels very guilty about having told Tom Riddle about Horcruxes, which shows us a Slytherin with a conscience and sense of social responsibility.

Laura


Saracene - Nov 10, 2006 4:12 am (#676 of 2959)
Laura W:

---Actually, I quite like Horace. He may be a social climber and a name dropper, which is not an attractive characteristic, but he's not a bigot. He doesn't have this pure-blood-wizards-are-the-only-good-wizards thing like some Slytherins - Malfoys, Blaise Zabini, etc.---

I quite like Slughorn too, but I'm with Harry in thinking that Slughorn is a bit too much surprised that a muggle-born witch like Lily could be so talented. And there's also that bit where, in the Pensieve memory, Slughorn tells Tom Riddle something to the effect of, *of course* you're of pure wizard stock, Tom, with your abilities. So I think that the prejudice is definitely there, although in a more subtle form than, say, Malfoy unabashed racism (blood-ism?).

Vulture:

---We've seen Malfoy and other Slytherins inter-acting: they're not particularly nice to each other, but we know that they would always gang up against the rest. I see no reason to imagine that it was different in Snape's day.---

Yeah, but this house solidarity doesn't necessarily make friends, as such. Slytherins may gang up against the rest where one of their own is concerned, but this doesn't mean that they actually *care* about that person or would want to socialise with them in normal circumstances.

On Snape being at Godric's Hollow: personally I just don't get the feeling that Snape lacks courage, whatever else he may be. So no, I don't really subscribe to the theory that he was there during the attack but was too afraid to interfere.


Laura W - Nov 10, 2006 5:16 am (#677 of 2959)
"And there's also that bit where, in the Pensieve memory, Slughorn tells Tom Riddle something to the effect of, *of course* you're of pure wizard stock, Tom, with your abilities."

What Slughorn actually says is this: "I confidently expect you to rise to Minister for Magic within twenty years. ..."

Then Tom says: "I don't have the right kind of background, for one thing."

And Slughorn replies: "Nonsense, couldn't be plainer you come from decent wizarding stock, abilities like yours. ..."

Decent wizarding stock? If only he knew! One side of the boy's family was Muggle and the other may have been pure-blood and direct descendents of Salazar Slytherin, but the Gaunts were anything but decent. Of course, both as Tom and as Voldemort, our villain did everything to keep his half-blood status from others.

But, if you interpret "decent wizarding stock" to mean "pure-blood wizarding stock," and if Slughorn was impressed by that alone, then Draco would have been part of the Slug Club and so would all the Weasleys. Harry was there because he was famous and Ginny was really only there because she was a talented hexer. And not only did Sluggy praise the Muggle-born Lily, he later - at the Christmas party I think - commented on what a gifted Potions student the half-blood Severus Snape was.

Slughorn may expect those who come from pure-blood stock to be particularly accomplished (as a Slytherin personality type would expect), but he is impressed with talent, accomplishment and fame no matter *who* exhibits it. Even though that sounds terrible, in a way that's to his credit.

Chilling is Slughorn's next comment to Riddle in that memory scene. "No, you'll go far, Tom, I've never been wrong about a student yet."

Again, if only he knew!

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"blood-ism?"

I like it! (big grin)


T Vrana - Nov 10, 2006 5:52 am (#678 of 2959)
Laura- I agree with the Felix, got him drunk etc. But Slughorn was truly terrified, and still gave the memory to Harry. He did it for Lily and for Harry, not for personal gain. He did the right thing and the brave thing. It took Felix and quite a large amount of wine for Harry to get to him. But he did get to him. He didn't give it to Harry because he was drunk, Harry got to him because he was drunk. It is a small difference, but an important one, I think. It wasn't that Slughorn was suddenly brave because of the felix and wine, he was still petrified, it was that Harry had a chance to get to him, and convince him to do the right thing even though he's still terrified.

edit- I should also add he's still deeply troubled by what he revealed in the memory, and hopes Harry will not judge him too harshly.

Saracene- I think in general Snape is brave, but being afraid to take on LV at the age of 19, 20 or so, is believable, I think, even for someone who is otherwise brave.


T Vrana - Nov 10, 2006 6:26 am (#679 of 2959)
Darn, too late to edit.

I want to add that I don't think the felix affected Slughorn at all. I think it helped Harry to know what to do. The wine lowered Slughorn's defences, and the felix told Harry to use Lily's eyes, and Slughorn's affection for Lily, to get the memory.

If it was just a matter of getting Slughorn drunk, or the felix, DD would not have thought it was something Harry was uniquely qualified to do. Same reason he took Harry to get Slughorn.


Thom Matheson - Nov 10, 2006 9:14 am (#680 of 2959)
But why was Slughorn there in the first place? He wasn't going to come until he thought of the spider venom he could extract. Just as any Slytherin, he was being sneaky, and self motivated.

This seems to be the only pattern we have been allowed to see from Rowling regarding Slytherins. I don't see Snape any other way either.


T Vrana - Nov 10, 2006 9:21 am (#681 of 2959)
Thom-

Yes, his motivation to go was typical Slytherin, but he then did something very unselfish and brave, and he did it for Lily/Harry. He is still a Slyhterin, but we have to give credit where credit is due. He overcame his natural tendency to protect himself and gave Harry the memory.

Snape may yet do the same thing, for the same reason.


Thom Matheson - Nov 10, 2006 9:28 am (#682 of 2959)
That also shows that dig deep enough and the houses can come together for the common good, as the founders wanted, and was told by the sorting hat.

I just don't think that Snape will be one of them. I do think that he will play a part in the finale that will assist Harry but I do not believe that he will be Hogwarts or OoP material again. He has worn out his welcome. His redeeming debt remember is to Harry, Not the Order. He can do that from the DE side of the fence, same as Wormtail


T Vrana - Nov 10, 2006 9:35 am (#683 of 2959)
I agree that he's not returning. Snape will die, I think, sacrificing for Harry/Lily.


wynnleaf - Nov 10, 2006 10:10 am (#684 of 2959)
Several comments.

1. I agree with Laura (I think it was) that JKR has done perhaps too good a job at showing the bad side of Slytherins. It makes it seem like the entire house has terrible motivations, rude, mean, unfair, etc. Yet she tells us that there are good Slytherins. And she makes the houses represent the 4 elements, implying strongly that the characteristics of the houses are equally important to the wizarding world and needed unity.

So on the one hand the characteristics of Slytherins are necessary and equal in importance to other house characteristics, but then what she actually shows us is only the down-side of those characteristics.

2. On Slughorn -- I like Slughorn, in spite of his weaknesses. Know why? Because regardless of his desire to get that spider venom, he is really nice to Hagrid. He is nicer to Hagrid than any other adult we've seen directly on the page. Yes, we know DD is nice to Hagrid, too. But we actually get to see Slughorn with Hagrid, drinking with him, singing with him, telling stories, etc. There is not an ounce of superiority in the way Slughorn talked to Hagrid. The little eulogy his gives over the funeral is perfect and meets Hagrid's need to pay respect and mourn the spider (forgetting his name - Aragog?).

I think that Slughorn is exhibiting, in going to the funeral and the way he treated Hagrid, the best of Slytherin characteristics. Yes, he wanted the spider venom. But based on how very nicely he treated Hagrid, I tend to think that Slughorn is the sort of person who looks at every situation in a sort of "what's in it for me" kind of way. But that doesn't mean he's not also thinking "what can I do for the other person?"

There's nothing wrong with establishing relationships that are mutually beneficial and satisfying. I don't see a reason why someone has to make sacrificial relationships, or one-sided relationships, in order to be "good." I think Slughorn's way of relating to Hagrid is a perfect example. He goes out of his way to be nice to Hagrid. He seems to actually enjoy being nice to Hagrid. He also gets the venom, and while in Hagrid's hut was probably also thinking that maybe Hagrid would someday give him some unicorn hair, or other interesting ingredients. But he's also enjoying simply being with Hagrid and singing and telling stories and drinking. And Hagrid comes out of it with a good funeral for Aragog, hears a meaningful eulogy, and has that kind of satisfying post-funeral "wake" (what do you call the post-funeral ones?).

3. Okay, back to Snape. We don't know his motivations. We don't know what's "in it for him," in following DD (assuming he's loyal). But if he's loyal -- well, even if he's loyal to LV -- he's clearly sacrificing a great deal for some cause or another. I'm not sure what's "in it for him," whoever he's loyal to, and especially if he's loyal to DD. After all, Snape's been at this endeavor for 20 years and what has he gotten out of it so far? A regular job that he doesn't seem to enjoy much, and a ton of pressure what with spying and so forth on top of a full time teaching job and overseeing a 70-100 kids 24/7 nine months out of the year.

Will Snape die sacrificing himself for Harry?

Well, I hope not. But mostly, I hope that Harry doesn't get the easy forgiveness route of "oh gosh, he was loyal after all and now he's dead. I feel so guilty. I'll forgive him." No, I hope Harry has to forgive someone who is alive. Forgiving a dead Snape, at least in a book, is a lot easier because Harry doesn't have to live out that forgiveness by actually interacting with Snape. He doesn't have to trust Snape either -- not if he's dead. So I'm hoping Harry has to learn to trust and forgive Snape first.

4. As to whether JKR will kill off Snape -- hm. Well, I'm sort of hoping the birthdays on her site are a clue. She never has marked the birthdays of characters that are either dead now in the series (Sirius, Cedric, James and Lily, etc.), or Dumbledore who is either dead now or will be by the end of book 7. And there are a number of other major characters whose birthdays she has not marked. But she has marked Snape's. A lot of people wonder if she only marks the birthdays of characters who are "alive" at the end of the series, and thus "alive" to her in 2006.

5. I do think that he will play a part in the finale that will assist Harry but I do not believe that he will be Hogwarts or OoP material again. He has worn out his welcome. His redeeming debt remember is to Harry, Not the Order. He can do that from the DE side of the fence, same as Wormtail. (Thom)

Well, if Snape and DD planned any of the end of HBP, it seems likely that they planned for Snape to work for LV's downfall from the inside of the DE camp. So I don't think we'll see him joining openly with the Order, although he may have an Order contact.

As regards Snape's "redeeming debt" to Harry... Personally, since I think Snape has already paid the life-debt to James (if it can be transferred) by saving Harry in PS/SS, I think Snape's biggest "debt" is to Dumbledore. Snape owes Dumbledore immensely -- far more than he ever owed James. I wouldn't be surprised if part of what he's willing to do at DD's orders is because he owes Dumbledore so much.


T Vrana - Nov 10, 2006 1:43 pm (#685 of 2959)
Hi, Wynnleaf- I tend to think Snape has not paid the life debt with saving Harry. If James had lived, and Snape saved Harry, debt paid. But Snape gave information that led to James' death. So, not only does he have the original life debt to pay, but it was compounded by Snape's part in James' death (revealing the prophesy, and perhaps not doing enough to save James from LV).


T Vrana - Nov 10, 2006 2:51 pm (#686 of 2959)
Vulture

---We've seen Malfoy and other Slytherins inter-acting: they're not particularly nice to each other, but we know that they would always gang up against the rest. I see no reason to imagine that it was different in Snape's day.---

Except that we do not see anyone come to Snape's aid in the pensieve except Lily. Are we to believe that Snape was the only Slytherin who went outside after the OWLS exam?

Susan Bones

Isn't there a JKR interview in which she says that Harry having Lilly's eyes will be important in a future book? That would certainly support your theory, T Vrana. Or I suppose the "future" book to which she was referring could have been HBP.

It could be just HBP, but I think Snape and Lily will be important, and therefore Lily's eyes, for a couple of reasons:

1) Lily was the only person to step out of the crowd

2) Snape never says anything to Harry about Lily

3) When Harry says in the hospital wing at the end of HBP that Snape didn't think much of Lily and called her a mudblood, everyone is conveniently preoccupied with their grief.

"No one asked how Harry knew this. All of them seemed to be lost in horrified shock...."


Thom Matheson - Nov 10, 2006 2:58 pm (#687 of 2959)
Wynnleaf, I think that you are right in assuming that Snape owes Dumbledore. I can't see it being a life debt as we know it, but certainly Snape would be nothing without Dumbledore.


Laura W - Nov 10, 2006 11:47 pm (#688 of 2959)
"Laura- I agree with the Felix, got him drunk etc. But Slughorn was truly terrified, and still gave the memory to Harry. He did it for Lily and for Harry, not for personal gain. He did the right thing and the brave thing. It took Felix and quite a large amount of wine for Harry to get to him. But he did get to him. He didn't give it to Harry because he was drunk, Harry got to him because he was drunk. It is a small difference, but an important one, I think. It wasn't that Slughorn was suddenly brave because of the felix and wine, he was still petrified, it was that Harry had a chance to get to him, and convince him to do the right thing even though he's still terrified. edit- I should also add he's still deeply troubled by what he revealed in the memory, and hopes Harry will not judge him too harshly." (T. Vrana)

I actually agree with you on this. It just would have been a little bit nobler had he given Harry - or Dumbledore - the memory without Harry having to take a potion to make him lucky and Slughorn having to take in copious quantities of wine. But, in the end, he did the right thing despite his fear. And I do give him credit for this. Especially with him being a Slytherin and all.

"1. I agree with Laura (I think it was) that JKR has done perhaps too good a job at showing the bad side of Slytherins."

Yes, it was me who wrote that in post #675, wynnleaf.

Laura


Laura W - Nov 11, 2006 12:17 am (#689 of 2959)
wynnleaf ...

You don't have to respond to this if you don't want to - duh, obviously! -, but I *am* curious as to how you feel about what Phineas Nigellus (a Slytherin himself) said to Harry in OoP: "Phineas Nigellus' portrait speaking to Harry at Sirius' house: 'We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks.' "

Again, although I do not identify with that House personally, I find that comment to be quite insulting.

laura


Thom Matheson - Nov 11, 2006 5:17 am (#690 of 2959)
Laura, I don't quite see it that way. Over the course of time Harry has had some good insightful talks with Phineas. He says a lot about Harry as well. I see it as Harry on the other hand is brave but a bit reckless, albiet, stupid at times. The part about saving your own neck is a mark of a Slytherin. It's part of why Snape's future is also marked I believe.


Laura W - Nov 11, 2006 6:06 am (#691 of 2959)
Blimey, Thom, did you think I meant it was an insult to Harry ?? If so, I'm really sorry I wasn't clearer. What I meant was that I find that comment of Nigellus' to be quite insulting to Slytherins.

(And also, of course, wonder how - if at all - it might apply to Snape.)

Laura


T Vrana - Nov 11, 2006 6:21 am (#692 of 2959)
About Slytherins, our own world is filled with folks who primarily look out for themselves. Many of them become very successful in business and bring us new and better technology, products etc. There is a place for all four houses, even in 'real life'.

I find it interesting that Phineas said this, and that Lily/Harry seems to have the power to help a Slytherin get past this inclination, power even DD didn't have with Sluggy. (But I hope he had with Severus....maybe not, maybe Harry/Lily will need to turn Snape as well).

Laura- The felix only helped Harry know how to handle Sluggy. I wonder if Harry would have been a tad more successful the first time around if he had taken the Lily approach and slowly worn Sluggy down. He could have gone to some of Sluggy's parties and eased his way into a similar situation as the night of the funeral. But his first attempt was so badly done that Sluggy was on his guard thereafter. The wine lowered Sluggy's guard.


Laura W - Nov 11, 2006 7:00 am (#693 of 2959)
"About Slytherins, our own world is filled with folks who primarily look out for themselves. Many of them become very successful in business and bring us new and better technology, products etc. There is a place for all four houses, even in 'real life'."

Absolutely!! As McGonagall told the first-years in PS, "Each house has its own noble history and each has produced outstanding witches and wizards."

I just wish Jo had shown more of that instead of the opposite (as per the examples in my post #675, the comment by Phineas, the cheating Slytherin Quidditch team, and the words of the Sorting Hat in PS, "Those cunning folks use any means/To achieve their ends.").

Knowing Jo, though, perhaps she is *purposely* making the Slytherins look bad in the first six books to have them - or some of them (Snape, a Malfoy, a current or former Slytherin previously merely mentioned in passing) - become the real heroes and saviors of the WW and the unifiers of Hogwarts in Book Seven.

I'm not being fasicious, here. I have learned that *anything* can happen with these books; and the less you expect it, the more likely it will take place.

(I still hope Harry is the one to defeat Voldemort and save the WW, though; with what he has had to put up with all his life, I think he's earned the right. - sigh )

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with what you wrote in your last paragraph, T. Dumbledore was obviously *very* displeased with Harry's efforts (non-efforts) to get the memory from Sluggy, and let Harry know in no uncertain terms. Because Harry did not take his responsibility seriously, he lost a lot of time and had to resort to the last-minute almost-panicking measure that he did. Fortunately for him, it worked.

Laura


wynnleaf - Nov 11, 2006 7:37 am (#694 of 2959)
You don't have to respond to this if you don't want to - duh, obviously! -, but I *am* curious as to how you feel about what Phineas Nigellus (a Slytherin himself) said to Harry in OoP: "Phineas Nigellus' portrait speaking to Harry at Sirius' house: 'We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks.' " (Laura)

I can't say for sure that JKR doesn't think this herself, but I hope she'll show otherwise.

The problem with Phineas' statement is it seems to rule out any self-sacrificial acts for Slytherins. But JKR has said that any mother (any normal mother I presume) would sacrifice herself for her child as Lily did. Doesn't that mean the same for Slytherin mothers?

We don't know for sure if Narcissa is Slytherin, but she is willing to risk LV's volatile temper to go behind his back and ask for Snape's help.

We don't know Snape's motivations for certain yet. But whatever side he's on, he seems to me to have been engaging in some pretty self-sacrificial behavior for many years -- for some cause. After all, I can't see that he's gained much from it.

For whatever reasons Snape joined LV, let's suppose he wanted to get out of it and went over to DD. To a certain extent, I think he almost had to take the path he did after that point. He couldn't openly leave LV, so the only other real option was to be a spy. So we could say that at that time, risking his life was forced upon him. But after LV was first "destroyed" (not entirely), Snape stayed on at Hogwarts. Did he have to? DD kept him out of Azkaban, but did that force Snape to stay at Hogwarts in a position that it doesn't seem he particularly enjoys? I doubt if it pays particularly well, and a full-time teaching position plus being head of house might be fulfilling to someone who enjoys it, but to Snape?

Then later, when LV came back, one could certainly argue that Snape had to go back to spying, otherwise be considered sort of like Karkarov and LV target him for death.

But, you know, you could argue for many people who do brave things that they were benefiting themselves by doing so. If we didn't get to see the inside of Harry's head, we could guess that even from the first book, Harry had to do the brave things he does because he had to stop LV from coming back -- otherwise risk being killed by LV eventually. We could speculate that Harry had to find the answers to the Chamber of Secrets to get out of being suspected by his peers as the Heir of Slytherin. We could say that Harry had no choice, but to be brave in the GOF, and any extra rescuing of people that he did was simply to garner himself points (which it did in the second task). The only reason we know that Harry is self-sacrificing is because we see in his head. But ultimately, he knows that he has to fight LV not just because LV is bad (hey, that's a reason for anyone to fight him), but because he knows he has to do so, or LV will kill him. So there's certainly a "looking out for his own interests" in Harry's need to defeat LV.

This is no slight against Harry.

Does one analyze every brave act to see what the person got out of it, in order to weaken the view of the character performing the act? I think a person would find themselves taking character shots at lots of people if you did that.

As for Phineas, he certainly has seen a lot as a wizard and as a portrait and probably knows a lot about Snape's activities. But he doesn't strike me as a master judge of character, more as a cynic. I'd take his words in that way.

Further, since Slytherin represents one of the 4 equally important elements, I think their traits have to be acknowledged as equal to the other houses, not as the embarressing, necessary-but-evil traits.

[HungarianHorntail11]HungarianHorntail11 - Nov 11, 2006 9:33 am (#695 of 2959)
So I don't think we'll see him joining openly with the Order, although he may have an Order contact. wynnleaf

I agree, as I think we have already seen this in OotP. Were there not comments made stating that Snape never stays for dinner and just comes to the Order meetings at the Black house and leaves right away? That could be interpreted in the following ways: 1) He is not for the Order (which would be kind of revealing behavior) 2) His heart is not in his duties, or 3) He cannot get caught meeting with the Order. I vote for the last and perhaps a bit of the second, as there are clearly people in the Order he could live without.


Sandylee - Nov 11, 2006 10:16 am (#696 of 2959)
Not sure I'm making it clear, but if we connect Javert's unwillingness to break the law, with Snape's unwillingness to let go of his hate of James, Javert had choices:

1) Stick to the law and arrest Valjean (not a choice he can live with)

2) Break the law and let him go (not a choice he could live with)

3) Accept that Valjean is worth sacrificing for, that is, he can't do number one or two because of who he is, so Valjean becomes worth the sacrifice. He would rather die than arrest Valjean or let him go.

I've always had a different view of Javert's dilemma. It isn't that Javert can't live with the choice he makes of letting Valjean go, I think. It's that, in discovering that Valjean isn't evil -- despite having broken a law -- Javert's entire world view has been destroyed.

We are given a clue to this in the hint that Javert, like Valjean, came from "the street." Javert has risen "above" his humble beginnings, where the "criminal class" (in his view) resides and has made himself (again, in his view) a man of honor. Criminals, he believes, can have no honor, can embody no virtues, can deserve no mercy. His entire self-image is comprised of the belief that he has spent his life righting wrongs and punishing the guilty. Valjean has just shown him that he may well have spent his life deluding himself -- committing, in fact, evils far greater than stealing a loaf of bread. Javert has discovered that adopting a rigid, rule-based ideology which admits no shades of gray in the dispensation of "justice" -- in short, the work of his entire life -- guarantees neither justice nor virtue.

That is the realization with which he cannot live. His suicide is both a despairing recognition that his life's work has been, not acts of absolute virtue, but acts of pride and arrogance, and terror of no longer knowing how to distinguish good from evil. It is possible, he now realizes, that he has been the agent of injustice all along. His entire world view has been predicated on the conviction that he understands absolutely the distinction between good and evil, and in understanding that distinction so perfectly, cannot himself do evil. Now, he has no foundation for living a moral life -- he has no certainty. And it is certainty he cannot live without.

Snape, on the other hand, is not an ideologue. He has not constructed an imaginary moral system in which he rigidly distinguishes between good and evil. In fact, he understands -- whichever side he's really on -- better than Harry that the moral universe admits of grays, and his own agonies, I believe, derive quite specifically from that recognition.

I suspect, though cannot prove, that Snape recognizes all too well his own moral failings, his weaknesses, and struggles to overcome them, despite the turmoil of his conflicting emotions. I think that he represents, more than anyone in the series, a kind of rueful acknowledgement of the difficulty of reconciling one's most powerful emotional responses with one's more rational and/or pragmatic assessment of the moral landscape. We hear his view on wearing one's heart on one's sleeve -- that it is absolutely necessary, in order to achieve "rightness," "success," even "wisdom," to rein in one's emotions, to control them, to master them. This, above all, is Snape's hardest struggle -- to hold in check the emotions engendered by whatever childhood incidents have damaged him so. And he knows this. And he works very, very hard at it, but still cannot conceal the resentment seething inside. And that resentment is most evident in the anger he has transferred from James -- and perhaps many others -- to Harry.

If Snape dies to save Harry, I believe it will require a moment of emotional release for Snape -- a moment in which he relinquishes his anger -- a catharsis of some sort in which he is able to achieve something more profound than the mere "control" of his emotions. I believe that he will need to recognize the source of his emotional turmoil and act to render that impetus impotent.

Snape is a very different man from Javert, in my view, because Snape is wrestling with a problem Javert has never had. Snape knows he has done great wrong. Javert doesn't. Snape is attempting to right whatever wrongs he has done. Javert believes that to be impossible.

Snape could never commit suicide. Javert could never live without certainty. Snape embraces, I think, the struggle while Javert rejects it out-of-hand. Snape has profound courage, and Javert reveals himself, in the end, as the consummate coward. For it is, for each, the moral task of facing one's own failings which determines (in my opinion) how we are to judge them. Javert is to be pitied. I suspect that, in the end, Snape will be found to be worthy of admiration.


wynnleaf - Nov 11, 2006 11:35 am (#697 of 2959)
Sandylee,

Thanks so much for your analysis of Javert. It has been a long time since I've read Les Mis, or seen my favorite film version (with Frederic Marsh). I just knew that the comparison of Javert and Snape didn't sit right with me, but couldn't articulate why.

I completely agree with your analysis of Javert. That a loyal Snape must have had to acknowledge his own weaknesses, failures, and crimes is a huge difference from Javert. Sure, Snape hasn't become nice and he has clearly transferred his hatred of James to Harry, but if he is loyal, he must have acknowledged those failures surrounding his becoming a DE, following LV, etc.

Whether Snape's motivations are a life-debt to James, a care for Lily, trying to simply find redemption, or just trying to pay what he owes to DD, any of those motivations is completely different from Javert's motivations.

The degree to which Snape embraces the struggle and whether his courage is simply that of bravery in his work, or a deeper bravery in overcoming his weaknesses, we won't know until hopefully Book 7.

Somehow, whatever JKR will show us about the good side of Snape's motivations and struggles, it has to mesh with the character that is willing to be so extremely insulting to his students.


T Vrana - Nov 11, 2006 11:36 am (#698 of 2959)
Sandy Lee- Well thought out analysis. I didn't mean to imply that Snape and Javert are the same character. My comparison was far more superficial. Both Snape and Javert are nasty, but not truly evil. Both are obsessed with rigidly following the rules. Both hold a view of the protagonist that is false, and both, I think will come to realize their vision is false. For Snape, he will see that Harry is far more like Lily, and will, I think, see that Harry is worth the sacrifice he could not/did not/should have made for James and/or Lily.

Where it comes to James, Snape does not see any gray. The comparison here is off because Javert had a view encompassing an entire class of people. Snape's black and white vision is reserved for James, and Harry.

While I like Snape's character, I can't be as generous as you are. I don't see Snape's desire for emotional control in quite the same light as you do. I think Snape sees wearing ones emotions on one's sleeve as a weakness. Contrast this with Harry's greatest power, the ability to love and be loved. Snape has tried to shut himself away from emotion, out of fear, I think, of ridicule or appearing weak. His nasty comment to Tonks about her new patronus shows this. So I do not see Snape's attempt at emotional control as a path toward 'rightness', 'success' or 'wisdom', but as a reaction to fear of being seen as weak.

If Snape does have an emotional catharsis, I don't think it will be just letting go his anger and hatred, but also acknowledging love, and that to love is not a weakness.


wynnleaf - Nov 11, 2006 11:41 am (#699 of 2959)
. I think Snape sees wearing ones emotions on one's sleeve as a weakness. Contrast this with Harry's greatest power, the ability to love and be loved.

T Vrana, wouldn't it be cool to see JKR actually make a point of this?

I don't think it could happen unless Harry came to trust in Snape's loyalty before finally going after LV. Otherwise, there wouldn't be any mechanisms for us to hear again about Snape's attitude about wearing your heart on your sleeve and be able to contrast that to Harry's strength in his love.


Sandylee - Nov 11, 2006 12:31 pm (#700 of 2959)
Thanks so much for your analysis of Javert. It has been a long time since I've read Les Mis, or seen my favorite film version (with Frederic Marsh). I just knew that the comparison of Javert and Snape didn't sit right with me, but couldn't articulate why.

I've always had a soft spot for Javert because he believed with all his soul that he was doing the right thing. His moral blindness is a common one among people who see good and evil as opposites rather than as a gradation, and who believe that a wicked act automatically denotes an evil person. Such people -- though dangerous and the cause of much harm in the world -- are not in themselves evil, but, rather mistaken, I believe, about the nature of evil itself. They are also usually all too conscious of the temptations of the world and fear in an unnatural way to fall themselves. From the first pages of Javert's introduction to the book, it is clear that he must become a tragic figure -- doomed by his own determination to achieve moral certainty and to live by that certainty. I wept at his death, for there had never been any hope he could reconcile his view of the world with the world as it truly is.

I completely agree with your analysis of Javert. That a loyal Snape must have had to acknowledge his own weaknesses, failures, and crimes is a huge difference from Javert. Sure, Snape hasn't become nice and he has clearly transferred his hatred of James to Harry, but if he is loyal, he must have acknowledged those failures surrounding his becoming a DE, following LV, etc.

"Nice," is, I think, a very sloppy word we all use too frequently to describe people who play well with others. Some who play well with others aren't, at bottom, very "nice" at all. We are reminded of Tom Riddle, whom his peers and professors believed to be "nice." It's an adjective meant to convey something which exists both on and under the surface -- and may sometimes conceal an interior which entirely belies the surface thought to reflect it.

With Snape, I believe we are seeing the opposite. His seeming "cruelty," interpreted through Harry's eyes, "reveals" a character of a fundamentally heartless nature, taking apparent pleasure in inflicting suffering on his students. But I think Snape's behavior actually conceals what lies under the surface.

If you'll remember, one of the most unfair acts he inflicts on Harry is the smashing of his potion vial and consequent awarding of a failing grade. A petty, mean-spirited thing to do, clearly, but indicative of a cruel nature? What is missing in the analysis of this act is both the fact that it was an (admittedly childish) reaction to Harry's blatant invasion of Snape's privacy -- an act for which we do not assign the judgment of mean-spiritedness to Harry while we tend to do so to Snape. Yes, Snape is the adult, but Harry is, by this time, no child in the moral sense. He knows that what he's doing is wrong, and doesn't care. It is possible to interpret Snape's retributive act as a demonstration for Harry of how it feels to be on the receiving ends of a deliberate wrongful act. "I know it's wrong to smash your vial and give you a failing grade for it, but I don't care. Just as you knew it was wrong to pry into my private life, but just didn't care. See how it feels?"

Snape may not be "nice" in the conventional sense of well-behaved and fun to be around. But he may well prove to be "nice" in a far more important way -- as a bit of an iconoclast in terms of his teaching style, for example -- with his own unique and well-considered methods of maintaining both the illusion that he's still a Death Eater and providing Harry with a form of moral guidance in novel, if unpleasant ways.

Somehow, whatever JKR will show us about the good side of Snape's motivations and struggles, it has to mesh with the character that is willing to be so extremely insulting to his students.

So far, I'm not having a problem reconciling these two sides of Snape. He's not a "social" kind of guy. He doesn't court affection. He has no interest in the social graces. And I think that at least a part of this surface persona is an act -- designed to keep his loyalties ambiguous to all but Dumbledore, sacrificing the option of human relationships for the ability to secure his usefulness to the Order. And part of this surface persona is simply native to his personality -- the testiness, the dry and cutting wit, the keen observation and discerning of motives. There are many fine human beings who are pretty difficult to live with, and Snape has reasons both personal and "professional" for his personality style, I think.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 701 to 730

Post  Mona Tue May 31, 2011 10:12 am

Sandylee - Nov 11, 2006 1:00 pm (#701 of 2959)
Sandy Lee- Well thought out analysis. I didn't mean to imply that Snape and Javert are the same character.

Oh, yes. I understood that. Sorry if I made it seem as though I thought you were drawing an absolute parallel.

My comparison was far more superficial. Both Snape and Javert are nasty, but not truly evil.

Agreed.

Both are obsessed with rigidly following the rules.

Not agreed, here. You can't be a spy and be obsessed with rigid rule following. Snape is a pragmatist, and he knows, as he explains to Malfoy, "how to act." But he's deceiving Malfoy, I think, about what role he's really acting, and part of his act is the pretense to rigid discipline. He often permits Slytherins to break the rules, and he has no problem with manipulating rules to achieve his ends. He is entirely unlike Javert in that, as, for Javert, the "Law" (with a capital "L") is the definition of the "Good."

Both hold a view of the protagonist that is false, and both, I think will come to realize their vision is false.

I'm not even sure that this is true. I'm not entirely convinced that Snape does hate Harry. I'm convinced that he wants everyone to think he hates Harry, but his effort in extreme duress at the end of HBP to try one last time to get Harry to understand the importance of closing his mind and learning non-verbal curses, is but one piece of evidence that he really does have Harry's best interests at heart. I get the impression in many scenes that his accusations of Harry being "arrogant" like his father are intended more as a (misplaced) effort at driving Harry away from the temptation of arrogance. And he's not entirely wrong about Harry, for, in some key ways, Harry does display a dangerous degree of arrogance. He's so certain that he's right about the imagined danger to Sirius, for instance, that he nearly gets his friends killed as a result -- and does get Sirius killed. I think that Snape is walking a very fine line between attempting to coach Harry in a direction which will help him survive and allowing that attempt to reveal his true loyalties. He is trying, I think, to knit with his hands tied behind his back, and doing a sometimes (but understandably) poor job.

Where it comes to James, Snape does not see any gray. The comparison here is off because Javert had a view encompassing an entire class of people. Snape's black and white vision is reserved for James, and Harry.

Again, I don't totally agree -- particularly with respect to his feelings about Harry. And his apparent hatred of James, carried with him from childhood, may itself be part of the "toolset" he uses to both keep Harry at arm's length but affect him in ways designed to strengthen him and teach a pragmatic form of wisdom characteristic of someone who knows the value of not "wearing one's heart on one's sleeve."

I don't see Snape's desire for emotional control in quite the same light as you do. I think Snape sees wearing ones emotions on one's sleeve as a weakness.

So do I. But it's the display of emotion that he sees as a weakness -- or, rather, the inability to conceal emotion -- and not the having of emotion in the first place.

Contrast this with Harry's greatest power, the ability to love and be loved. Snape has tried to shut himself away from emotion, out of fear, I think, of ridicule or appearing weak.L

Again, I don't agree here. It is clear that Snape feels emotions. Certainly he has a temper. And we have seen him capable of gentleness, as when he heals Malfoy with the song-like spell. As a spy, however, it is his absolute duty to conceal his emotions -- and, he believes, as the "Chosen One," it is Harry's duty to conceal his, as well. He is often contemptuous of Harry because Harry seems to Snape unwilling to live up to the duty to resist Voldemort, when failing to do so may put others at great risk. Snape knows what's a stake, has information Harry doesn't have, and is often exasperated, I think, by the limitations on what he can and can't reveal.

I think it's far too easy to attribute a fundamentally cold and uncaring nature to Snape because of the behavior he exhibits -- and I think so precisely because it is so easy to forget, sometimes, his role as spy.

His nasty comment to Tonks about her new patronus shows this.

I'm not so sure. I rather think that his nasty comment to Tonks has to do with what he believes about Lupin -- and perhaps with better reason than we know. And we know, at least, that Lupin was too much the hanger-on, with respect to James, to attempt to influence him against the kind of casual and arrogant cruelty we saw James inflict upon Snape. Lupin really is weak, in some ways very significant to Snape, and I think that Snape's willingness to cause Tonks that brief pain was an expression of a conviction that pain often accompanies life lessons. He's issuing a warning to Tonks -- don't lose your self in another person. Don't relinquish what you are, and live entirely for someone else. And don't be blind -- Lupin isn't perfect.

If Snape does have an emotional catharsis, I don't think it will be just letting go his anger and hatred, but also acknowledging love, and that to love is not a weakness.

Strangely enough, I have little doubt whatever that he already knows this. I think whatever residual anger he feels towards those who wronged him in the past -- and towards those whom he wronged (it's sometimes harder, as with Percy, to forgive people who were right than to forgive people who were wrong), and whatever his resentments towards Harry, Snape understands the power of human emotion. I think that if he has an emotional catharsis, it will be as a consequence of attaining something he has missed all these years of living a double-life -- the freedom to express himself openly, to place his heart directly on his sleeve. It is for this reason that I don't think Snape will die in the end. I don't think he can ever attain the freedom to grow while he must actively deceive -- and he can never stop deceiving until Voldemort is dead.

If we are to see a demonstration of the real Snape, the one lurking under the surface, the one Jo has kept hidden from us all these years, I doubt it can come before Voldemort's death. Or, at the very least, after Snape understands that his usefulness in combatting Voldemort is at an end.


S.E. Jones - Nov 11, 2006 4:24 pm (#702 of 2959)
"We Slytherins are brave, yes, but not stupid. For instance, given the choice, we will always choose to save our own necks."

I don't think this remark rules out any self-sacrificing behavior on the part of Slytherins because I think you can group "save our own necks" with saving that which is theirs. Narcissa is saving her son by risking Voldemort's wrath to go to Snape and plead for his assistance. I see Gryffindors as being very cavalierish (think of the scene in PoA where Ron wakes up with Sirius standing over him, it's such a Gryffindor-esk response for the whole room to go running after the supposed murder instead of locking themselves in their room once he leaves), while I see Slytherins as being more calculating so they might only enter a fight if it somehow benefits them or someone connected to them. That doesn't mean they can't be self-sacrificing, just that they'd only sacrifice themselves for something they love, whether it be a loved one, their favorite school, or their world.

I have to agree that Phineas's personality is very much that of a cynic and I find it interesting that the Sorting Hat, who has to understand the houses enough to group people into them never makes the same conclusion about Slytherin's being completely self-serving that Phineas Nigellus seems to. It calls them "cunning", says they see the means justifying the ends, calls them "shrewd", "power-hungry", "ambitious", and points out their pureblood obsession, but never does it say they are completely self-serving. In CoS Dumbledore tells Harry, "You happen to have many qualities Salazar Slytherin prized in his hand-picked students. His own rare gift, Parseltongue - resoursefulness - determination - a certain disregard for rules..." which fits with the Sorting Hat's discription of them, but still doesn't mention any particular self-serving nature. I'm not saying that they're not self-serving, as I clearly think they can be, but I think it shows that it would be possible for a Slytherin to do something for the greater good, as long as that Slytherin feels it's right (as it would play into them sacrificing for what they hold dear), even given everything JKR has shown us of Slytherins in the books, which would mean that Snape isn't beyond committing an act of sacrifice where Harry's concerned.

I hope I'm making sense. I don't feel particularly well so my brain's not working at its best today.

Sandylee, a very well written analysis. I don't agree with all your points, but you did express them well. I still think it possible that Snape could hate Harry and try to drive Harry to be something better, for everyone's sake. I also think that Snape's comment about Tonk's patronus was a way of lashing out at Lupin, because I agree with you that he sees Lupin as being weak, not a way of warning Tonks about life's little lessons. Again, very well written and a very good read.


T Vrana - Nov 11, 2006 4:32 pm (#703 of 2959)
Sandylee- I think you are giving Snape a bit more credit than he deserves, and I think he is far more emotionally damaged than you are recognizing (but you are in good company, DD was mistaken as well).

Harry seems to Snape unwilling to live up to the duty to resist Voldemort, when failing to do so may put others at great risk. Snape knows what's a stake, has information Harry doesn't have, and is often exasperated, I think, by the limitations on what he can and can't reveal.

Yes, he did know what was at stake, but he stopped teaching Harry Occlumency. DD made it clear it was important, and Snape knew it was important, but he could not get past his emotional scars. While Harry was not applying himself, and had no right to invade Snape's memories, the 35+ year old Snape is more culpable than the 15 year old Harry. If Snape is truly as under control as you see him, and only interested in teaching Harry, and thwarting LV, he would have resumed the lessons after cooling off.

I do think Snape is obsessed with rules as he sees them, hard work and attention to studies should trump popularity and skill on the quidditch field. The school rules should be followed but DD allows the Marauders, the Weasley Twins and Harry to break them without much consequence, and that really steams Snape.

I think that if he has an emotional catharsis, it will be as a consequence of attaining something he has missed all these years of living a double-life -- the freedom to express himself openly, to place his heart directly on his sleeve.

Snape's double life has been really short. From the moment of the prophesy until the Potters deaths (a little over a year), and from the end of GOF until now. While DD was sure LV was not finished and assumed he would be back, he said, honestly, that he wasn't sure if it would be 5 years or 50. Snape felt the need to put his life on hold and keep up his 'spy' face in between, just in case LV returned during his lifetime? I really don't see Snape ever wanting to wear his heart on his sleeve. He's too afraid of appearing weak.

If Snape was as in control as you assume, he would also have considered listening to Black and Lupin in the Shrieking Shack, or at the very least have wanted to take them to the castle first, rather than completely losing his cool and eagerly looking forward to taking Black, and possibly Lupin, to the Dementors.

So far, I'm not having a problem reconciling these two sides of Snape. He's not a "social" kind of guy. He doesn't court affection. He has no interest in the social graces

He seemed pretty interested in smarming it up with Fudge and getting an Order of Merlin, and he has no trouble smirking and smiling at the praises of Malfoy ('you should be headmaster, Professor,' or something like).

I do like Snape, but part of what I like is that he is so damaged, but I still think ultimately he will overcome his demons and come out on the right side despite all of it. It also affirms that DD is right to see the best, even in a guy like Snape.

EDIT- I do think Quirrelmort was telling the truth:

"But Snape always seemed to hate me so much."

"Oh, he does," said Quirrel casually, "heavens yes. He was at Hogwarts with your father, didn't you know? They loathed each other. But he never wanted you dead."


Laura W - Nov 11, 2006 6:36 pm (#704 of 2959)
"I have to agree that Phineas's personality is very much that of a cynic ..." (S.E. Jones)

And he *was* the least popular headmaster Hogwarts has had in a thousand years of existence. Maybe that's why. (smirk)

"I'm not saying that they're not self-serving, as I clearly think they can be, but I think it shows that it would be possible for a Slytherin to do something for the greater good, as long as that Slytherin feels it's right (as it would play into them sacrificing for what they hold dear), even given everything JKR has shown us of Slytherins in the books," (S.E. Jones)

I think the best example of that is Regulus Black.

"I hope I'm making sense. I don't feel particularly well so my brain's not working at its best today."

If that's how your brain functions when it's not at its best, it must be awesome when it is, Sarah.

I think your analysis of the difference between the Gryffindor personality and the Slytherin personality - while being fair and even-handed regarding the strengths and weaknesses of both - as you put it in your post was excellent. It sure helped crystallize a few things for me that were sitting in my brain in a foggier state.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I haven't yet bought into your line about Snape willingly and altruistically - I know you didn't put it that way - ultimately sacrificing himself for Harry. So he hates Harry, because of James or whatever, and treats him abomibably continuously for six books and then something miracuously occurs in Book Seven that changes Severus' mind about the Potter kid to the point that Snape not only likes and/or appreciates and/or forgives Harry - or James -, but he is willing to march into battle and let himself be killed with the express purpose of saving the lad from death. It's like he becomes the new Sirius Black - because I believe Sirius would do that for Harry.

I'm not saying Jo won't have that happen but, if she does, she had better make it 100 per cent plausable; because I am not big on characters in novels suddenly becoming the opposite of what they have been or feel totally different from how they have felt about something due to some epiphany or whatever. I, for one, will take lots of convincing of its veracity if that happens here! (stamping foot)

On the other hand, I must admit that if anyone could write it such that I could accept the way it plays out, Jo Rowling could. (grin) Except for the time-turners (boo, hiss) , she's done a good job of convincing me so far.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, thanks for answering my question, wynnleaf. Whether I agreed with everything you wrote in it or not, I enjoyed reading your well-thought-out perspective.

Laura


S.E. Jones - Nov 11, 2006 6:47 pm (#705 of 2959)
--If that's how your brain functions when it's not at its best, it must be awesome when it is, Sarah.--

Thanks Laura. Unfortunately, my brain hasn't worked at its best for several years now, not since acquiring some ongoing medical problems. But thanks all the same, really.

--Although I haven't yet bought into your line about Snape willingly and altruistically - I know you didn't put it that way - ultimately sacrificing himself for Harry.--

I wasn't suggesting that Snape would sacrifice himself for Harry out of any love for the kid, but because he loves his world and Harry's survival is what is best for his world. It goes right back to what I was saying about Slytherins in general: it would be possible for a Slytherin to do something for the greater good, as long as that Slytherin feels it's right (as it would play into them sacrificing for what they hold dear)....


Thom Matheson - Nov 11, 2006 6:52 pm (#706 of 2959)
Laura, I didn't take it to mean Harry at all. I was trying to point that the Slytherin nature, what we have been shown isn't very redeeming. Sorry about that. Been working all day an couldn't get back to post. By the time you get this back therer have been 15 posts and the original thought has been lost.

So, that said, I as usual, (don't say it Vrana), have completely lost my mind, and of course, can't remember what I wanted to say. Cue the monitor and break to commercial.


T Vrana - Nov 11, 2006 7:23 pm (#707 of 2959)
Thom- Go ahead, spoil all my fun....


journeymom - Nov 11, 2006 9:34 pm (#708 of 2959)
"If we are to see a demonstration of the real Snape, the one lurking under the surface, the one Jo has kept hidden from us all these years, I doubt it can come before Voldemort's death."

A small quibble here, but it seems to me that the demonstration of the Real Snape indeed must come before LV's death. It will because Snape may some how facilitate LV's death.


Saracene - Nov 12, 2006 12:12 am (#709 of 2959)
Sandylee:

---I suspect, though cannot prove, that Snape recognizes all too well his own moral failings, his weaknesses, and struggles to overcome them, despite the turmoil of his conflicting emotions. I think that he represents, more than anyone in the series, a kind of rueful acknowledgement of the difficulty of reconciling one's most powerful emotional responses with one's more rational and/or pragmatic assessment of the moral landscape.---

I like your analysis, Sandylee, but I can't really agree with the above. My impression of Snape is that he's one of the most emotionally immature and least self-aware adult characters in the series, and I think that Snape's way of controlling emotions by simply clamping down the lid on them as hard as he can is not really dealing with them. I also don't think that he's the sort of person who does much soul-searching or is able to look at himself "from aside" and examine his own thoughts or emotions or weaknesses.

I've read a few HP fanfics written with Snape as the main character where, by the end, he has some big emotional catharsis, overcomes his demons, acquires some valuable self-knowlegde, recognises the value of relating to people, etc. etc. But I rather suspect that all these things will only happen in fanfics.

---With Snape, I believe we are seeing the opposite. His seeming "cruelty," interpreted through Harry's eyes, "reveals" a character of a fundamentally heartless nature, taking apparent pleasure in inflicting suffering on his students. But I think Snape's behavior actually conceals what lies under the surface.---

I do think that the final book will reveal that there's more to Snape than what meets the eye. However, I'm not sure if I'd refer to it in terms of the final book showing us the "real" Snape. I think that the person we've seen in the first six books is the "real" Snape, too - it's just that what we've seen of him so far has not been the complete picture. I don't think that, with the final book, JKR will be saying, "forget what I've said previously about Snape being a deeply horrible person and a sadistic teacher, because Snape is realy not like that and it's all been a put-on". I think it would be something more like, "yes, Snape is a deeply horrible person and a sadistic teacher. But that's not *all* he is."

And I suspect that if there's any example of Snape putting on a "persona" for the benefit of on-lookers, it's the oh-so seemingly relaxed and confident Snape in Spinner's End.


wynnleaf - Nov 12, 2006 8:49 am (#710 of 2959)
Busy weekend in real-life has kept me from posting much here, so there's a lot to catch up on.

1. I don't exactly see why anyone things Snape is any good at controlling his emotions. When do we see him clamping down on his emotions?? Of all the adults in the series, the only other person who shows their emotions as much as Snape is probably Sirius. Snape glowers, scowls, snarls, spits, grips his hands under stress, face pales under stress, his color rises under other stresses, his eyes glitter. Verbally, he shouts, uses insults, sarcasm, etc. Fake-Moody easily goads him into revealing how important DD's trust is to him.

What is it that makes people think Snape controls his emotions or is reserved at all? Can anyone imagine McGonagall, Flitwick, or Sprout being this open about their emotions?

Snape is very emotional and he doesn't clamp down on it much at all. He may not tell people directly in some sort of fluffy sentimental way what he's feeling, but he certainly is open about the fact that he's feeling something.

The problem is that we only have Harry's point of view to interpret exactly what those feelings of Snape are. Some writer (can't recall), once said that a cold expression often looks just the same as a deeply sad one. So I don't know that Harry's understanding of Snape's expressions is always correct.

2. The real Snape -- what we've seen so far or someone very different? I don't think Snape has been acting a part in regard to Harry. If I had ever wondered, the Flight of the Prince would put that to rest. In a moment of such high stress, I don't think Snape was acting at all, in his demeanor toward Harry. His willingness to use comments about Harry's "filthy father" as ammunition on Harry showed very clearly that he does transfer his hatred of James to Harry.

But that doesn't mean there's been no acting. Someone said Snape has not had to act the DE between the Potter's deaths and LV's return. I strongly disagree. Even Hagrid thought LV was not gone for good. If even Hagrid thought he'd return, Snape must have known he could also. So with children of DE's in his House, Snape had to maintain an appearance of "death eater under cover" for the benefit of the DE families that would hear about him from their kids.

3. Snape thinks rules are important. Hmm. Is this true? Then why does he allow so many exceptions to his house? Or does he? We actually don't know that he lets his house get away with a lot. We know that if he disciplines his house, he must do it privately. But will he let rules slide? Yes, sometimes. There are actually numerous examples, but the biggest is the way he dealt with Harry over Sectumsempra. If rules were of the highest importance (over other considerations), he should have sought expulsion and he did not. Remember, he actually didn't know of Draco's part in it -- neither Harry nor Draco told the full story to Snape. Even McGonagall thought Harry's action could have gotten him expelled.

So who is Snape?

Sandylee draws a great picture of what I would like Snape to be. But I don't think we know yet what he's really like. It could still be that JKR will show us a much less "worthy" aspect to his motivations.

However, I tend to believe DD's understanding of character. Yes, he was wrong about how much Snape could take, in regards to getting past his difficulties with James in order to teach Harry. But what we're really saying is that DD misjudged the depth of how Snape's pain would affect him.

But for DD to trust Snape so much means there's got to be more to Snape than we've seen. What I would hope that JKR would reveal in Book 7 is the Snape that DD trusts. I'd like her to reveal the Snape that DD thinks is amusing to watch get furious; the Snape that DD will tease with a vulture's hat; the Snape that is willing for DD to see that something is his greatest regret; the Snape that DD trusts.

I don't think DD trusts Snape because of some one particular event (although I do think there is a particular trust worthy event). I think DD trusts him because he knows Snape in a way that Harry doesn't, and I think that JKR has kept that character hidden from us.


T Vrana - Nov 12, 2006 1:42 pm (#711 of 2959)
McGonagall is very emotional! Nostrils flaring left and right, yelling at Neville not to embarrass Hogwarts during GOF, running out to get Harry to show him to Wood for the Quidditch team, getting teary every now and then, meetings with Umbridge....

I said Snape wasn't playing a double roll for very long, meaning there was no need for him to meet with and deceive LV or other DEs during the 13 years LV was gone. Yes, it was likely LV would be back, but the stress of simply remaining at Hogwarts was not the same as playing both side during the first and second war with LV. The idea that Snape was nasty to Harry just to remain 'undercover' was what I was challenging. Had he been nice to Harry he could just as easily say it was part of his cover to remain at Hogwarts. Being nasty to Harry doesn't further his position as a spy. Actually, the fact that Snape challenges DD at times, and is nasty to Harry, would suppport him not being a DE spy, as you would think a DE spy would be a yes man, acting the part of a cooperative colleague.

Snape is nasty to Harry because he hated James, and hates Harry.

I will be really disappointed if it turns out Snape is just a really great guy who played his part well. Being a really terrible person, who still manages to do the right thing, for the WW and Harry (Lily), is far more compelling. If Snape does the right thing despite his flaws and weaknesses, it will be very powerful and will affirm DD's ability to see good in a person, even when it is very, very deeply hidden. What a letdown if he was really good all along.


wynnleaf - Nov 12, 2006 2:05 pm (#712 of 2959)
This is what I said earlier about McGonagall:

Can anyone imagine McGonagall, Flitwick, or Sprout being this open about their emotions?

In other words, McGonagall does show emotions, certainly, but as blatantly as Snape? I don't think so.

Still, my point is that Snape does not conceal his emotions or try to keep them hidden. He keeps his thoughts and opinions often hidden from the students, but all of the staff do that. But he does not hide his emotions. The question for me is whether Harry really reads Snape correctly. Since our "take" on what Snape is supposedly thinking or feeling comes mostly from Harry and his view of Snape, I wonder how much we are getting the truth, or just Harry's assumptions.

I thought JKR used Hermione to point this out to us in HBP. In the first DADA class, Harry thinks Snape speaks caressingly about the Dark Arts. He seems to think it sounds like Snape loves the dark arts. But when Harry comments on this to Hermione, she doesn't see it that way at all and compares Snape's first lecture to Harry's opening talk to the DA the previous year. But if we had not had Hermione's second opinion of Snape's voice tone and intent in his lecture, we'd have been left to assume that Harry's interpretation was the correct one.

This makes me wonder how many times in earlier books we've been lead to believe Snape had a particular expres​sion(a glare, for instance), that was described that way because that's the way Harry saw it, but in reality it meant something different. Another descriptive is the word "cold" or "coldly." Harry often hears Snape say something "coldly." But a "cold" expression is actually very hard to read and the same goes for a cold tone of voice, especially if the person isn't a warm sort to begin with. It made me wonder if Snape is often simply speaking calmly or in a sort of business-like tone, and Harry reads it "cold." I personally get this one all the time, since my "let's get this done" tone seems to sound like "I'm angry" to a lot of people.

No, I'm not trying to excuse the sarcastic and insulting things Snape says and suggesting that Harry's just hearing it wrong. But it reminds me about something a friend who is also a family counselor told me -- that if two people get to a bitter or difficult enough point, there is practically nothing that the one person can do or say, regardless how innocent, that the other doesn't see it in the worst possible light. I tend to think Harry and Snape look at each other that way.


HungarianHorntail11 - Nov 12, 2006 3:02 pm (#713 of 2959)
I will be really disappointed if it turns out Snape is just a really great guy who played his part well. T Vrana

I don't think you have much to worry about. The greasy hair, the yellow teeth - those are evidence of someone who wants to distance himself from others.


T Vrana - Nov 12, 2006 4:57 pm (#714 of 2959)
that if two people get to a bitter or difficult enough point, there is practically nothing that the one person can do or say, regardless how innocent, that the other doesn't see it in the worst possible light. I tend to think Harry and Snape look at each other that way.

I agree. But for Harry, all he did was show up looking like James, and he has had sympathy for Snape (boy crying in the memory and pensieve scene). Harry has taken some pleasure in blaming Snape for things, but part of him realizes it. I don't think Snape realizes, yet, how much he is displacing his guilt.


Thom Matheson - Nov 12, 2006 5:02 pm (#715 of 2959)
I agree T Vrana. No one is that good and actor, all the time. Especially when emotions are high, the real Snape comes out. It is very difficult for someone to hide themselves within a character. The way he handled the bathroom scene with Harry and Draco is, for an official of the school was appealing. Harry should have been exposed for this near death incident and yet nothing was done?

Although I like the character and his role in the series, but as for the "good" side? We have already seen the best that Severius has to offer and in the end he will get his come-upence.


T Vrana - Nov 12, 2006 5:31 pm (#716 of 2959)
Thom- I disagree with the last bit. I think (hope) Snape will have an epiphany and realize how wrong he as been about Harry. How sad if he doesn't.

Mind you, this does not mean Snape is going to start giving out hugs and washing his hair, just that he will discover that Harry is not really like James, and is much more like his mum.


Thom Matheson - Nov 12, 2006 5:41 pm (#717 of 2959)
Vrana, that makes for great happy everafter tales, but changing personalities never happens. But then again, this is a story. So there you go.


T Vrana - Nov 12, 2006 6:19 pm (#718 of 2959)
Matheson- No change, at all. Just recognition. Snape will continue to hate James with every fiber of his being, he will continue to be nasty, vindictive, angry, greasy, emotionally damaged etc., but I think he will have a moment of clarity when he has to see that Harry is very little like his father, and very much like his mother. No happy ending, Snape will die, I think.


Laura W - Nov 12, 2006 6:50 pm (#719 of 2959)
"But it reminds me about something a friend who is also a family counselor told me -- that if two people get to a bitter or difficult enough point, there is practically nothing that the one person can do or say, regardless how innocent, that the other doesn't see it in the worst possible light. I tend to think Harry and Snape look at each other that way."

(mischeivous grin and wink) Ironically, wynnleaf, that's exactly how Lupin sees it too ("You are determined to hate him, Harry,' said Lupin with a faint smile. 'And I understand; with James as your father, with Sirius as your godfather, you have inherited an old prejudice.").

Still, that does not mean that one or the other of the warring parties not is, in fact, a rotten human being. They do exist, after all. And prejudices aside, it is possible that one of the parties acts towards others or thinks in a genuinely despicable way. Neither person may like the other but that doesn't mean both are equally wrong in their feelings about each other.

"I think (hope) Snape will have an epiphany and realize how wrong he as been about Harry."

If it happens *that* way, T, all credibility regarding this series goes out the window for me. I'm not saying he cannot end up doing something good but he still has to be the Severus Snape we have seen in six books or I will consider it to be a real cop out.

I'm just re-re-reading the wonderful chapter Occlumency in OoP and what strikes me is both the similarities and the differences between that chapter and the chapter The Patronus in PoA. In both, professors are teaching Harry particularly difficult magic which a lot of adult wizards are unable to do. Whereas Lupin is patient and encouraging with Harry, Snape is insulting and mocking when Harry can't do the task; whereas Lupin apologizes when the unsuccessful efforts actually physically hurt Harry, and suggest they suspend class for the day; Snape ignores the fact that Potter smashed his knee on the desk and keeps falling to the floor; when the class is over, and Harry feels emotionally drained and beaten up by it, Lupin gives him chocolate for the trauma he has suffered; when the class is over and Harry again feels emotionally drained and beaten up, Snape just tells him, very rudely, to do his homework and to come back next Wednesday.

Now, I write this not as criticism of the Potions Master - actually it is, but that is not the point I am trying to make. That Occlumency lesson is Snape; a wonderful, consistent portrait of Snape inside and out. Including his beautifully-worded description of the fine art he is about to teach Harry and why it is necessary. (On a personal note, although I will never forgive him for how he treated the children in his class - read, Harry, Hermoine and Neville - no matter what he does in future, I have always loved the way he puts words together.) It is also very Snape for him to take his memories out of his head because they are the last thing he would want Harry to see on the off-chance that the stupid boy actually gained access to his mind.

I, for one, do not want Severus to become a totally different person in Book Seven. I don't want him to do something seriously out of character. As I mostly believe he has been working for the Order for the first six books - if DD trusts him and I trust DD, then I trust Snape -, although I am not 100 per cent positive about this, then I do not think it would be a stretch for him to do something to defeat LV in Book Seven. And in doing so, he might save Harry's life. But that is totally different from him suddenly liking and/or appreciating and/or forgiving Harry (or James). To me, that would not be Snape. And I want Severus Snape to stay Severus Snape. He is such a great fictional character.

Laura


Laura W - Nov 12, 2006 6:57 pm (#720 of 2959)
T. Vrana, just saw your last post. Maybe we don't disagree so much as it appeared at first. Thought your last line was unintentionally funny. I know this may seem hard to believe (smirk), but for a lot of HP fans around the world - just regular big fans of the books, not necessarily folks like us Forumers who feel the need to pick apart every single word, including the commas, of each book for deep hidden meanings -, having Snape die would be a happy ending. Seriously.

Laura


T Vrana - Nov 12, 2006 7:05 pm (#721 of 2959)
Laura- I don't want Snape to become a different person either, and it would be a cop out, and awful. But we know that Snape sees Harry as James. We also know that Harry really isn't much like the James we know so far. I also think Snape gave Harry a very, very small chance to be like Lily when he asked those absurd 6th year questions in PS/SS (not fair and the guy is a creep, but I do think it is not a coincidence that Lily was great at potions, Snape asks a new student with Lily's eyes 6th year potions questions, and then dismisses him as just like James). Would it be a change of character if Harry does something so Lily like that Snape can't ignore it? Or would it just reveal what we all suspect, there is something we do not know, that is important, between Snape and Lily. Again, no change in his character, just his current character being forced to recognize that Harry is part Lily.

No group hugs or sobbing reconciliations, just a moment of recognition, then, I suspect, a bit of rage, at himself, his situation, the world, James, then death.

EDIT- Cross posted. I actually almost commented that for some Snape snuffing it might be considered a happy ending,(big smirk) but I think there is something a bit tragic about Snape's situation.


Thom Matheson - Nov 12, 2006 9:18 pm (#722 of 2959)
Good post Laura. Vrana, thanks for the clarification. I think that we all agree, in substance, to the same things here. Snape will do exactly what he is supposed to do. I was tying the Slytherin base to it where Phin. Nigallis said that Slytherins will cover their own backs first and formost(paraphrase here). Snape will look out for his own bum and do what is in his best interest. I just can't see a life debt to the Potter family heir will come in to play. He may as Laura and Vrana stated do something that leads to Voldemort's demise, but it will be because it benefits himself.

As you said T Vrana, Severius is between a rock and a hard place now. Can't go back to Hogwarts, can't be with any OoP folks, and whatever he does with or against the Death Eaters will back him up further. He might try to move to Durmstrang and get away from all of it.


Laura W - Nov 13, 2006 2:20 am (#723 of 2959)
I liked your last post, T Vrana.

"Or would it just reveal what we all suspect, there is something we do not know, that is important, between Snape and Lily."

What we all suspect? Perhaps not *all* of us. (grin) I know Lily was a popular girl, like Ginny, because Jo told us so. But I am not convinced by canon that every man she met at Hogwarts fell in love or strong like with her (ie - Lupin, Snape, etc.). Maybe that's because I have not seen any of the HP movies where, apparently, all the men talk about her in honeyed tones.

I'm one who, based on the way I read and interpreted Spinner's End - one of my favourite chapters in all the books -, thinks Severus is very fond (at the least) of Narcissa.

Anyway, for six years now, Snape has had Lily's eyes staring at him every day at school and that hasn't softened either his attitude towards or his treatment of Harry. Although Harry looks exactly like James, his eyes are Lily's (as we are told often enough!). Snape is very aware of who Harry's mother was. It isn't a fact suddenly to be revealed to him in Book Seven. (hmmph!)

Thanks, Thom. Move to Durmstrang. (hee, hee) That's funny.

laura


wynnleaf - Nov 13, 2006 6:20 am (#724 of 2959)
We have remember that most readers do not read the books numerous times sifting through the details for all the clues about Snape's motivations. Nor do most readers have long in-depth discussions about it. JKR is writing mostly for those people, not people like us. (Yes, I know she does include some things for the die-hard fans, but she's not writing it only for people who comb through details with a fine-toothed comb.)

Because of that, most readers seem to accept the idea that Snape is actually a traitor and it was obviously proven by the fact that he killed DD on the tower. I think most readers will need a lot of convincing that the insulting, sarcastic guy that seemed to AK Dumbledore in hate and rage, is really loyal.

I don't think the average casual reader is guessing that Snape really had a "thing" for Lily or that he's really been guarding Harry all along, bound by duty to a life-debt.

So I don't think that JKR can just pull out the Lily connection, or the life-debt excuse and make that believable to most readers, especially in light of how nasty and mean she's made Snape appear, especially through Harry's point of view which most readers probably accept as the truth.

Even if those of us on the Lexicon forum could accept that Snape was loyal with a few scenes showing us a connection with Lily, or that the life-debt was really important, or whatever, I think it's going to take a lot more for the average reader to experience a sort a huge shift in their understanding of Snape and see him as loyal and someone Harry can trust.

I think the "trust" thing is going to be important, if for no other reason than that DD used the word so many times in relation to Snape.

Therefore, I think JKR is going to have to show her readers sides of Snape they haven't seen. I don't think we're just going to get "same old Snape" in Book 7. Yes, he'll still be sarcastic and insulting. But I think she's got to actually show us a broader view of Snape, in order to convince the large majority of her readers who have accepted her surface picture of Snape at face value. I think she's going to show the readers the person that DD trusted.

If she wants Harry to trust Snape -- and I think given DD's repeated comments, she will want that -- then Harry is going to have to see more to Snape than just a mean, insulting and sarcastic guy. Telling him "by the way, he liked your mom," just won't create trust. Telling him "by the way, he owes your dad one," won't create trust. I think that JKR will have to show Harry (and thus the readers), that there's more to Snape.

That may not add up to change in the character, but it will be development of the character in the sense that we, and Harry, learn about more sides of the character than we currently know.

Besides, JKR has called Snape a "gift of a character." Why would a purely insulting, sarcastic, nasty guy be a "gift of a character?" That's really a pretty 2-dimensional character, even if he does connect to a lot of the plot. I think there's "a lot more to Snape than meets the eye," and we're going to see it in Book 7.


T Vrana - Nov 13, 2006 8:06 am (#725 of 2959)
wynnleaf- Um, despite the fact that we are really a bunch of clever folks here (big, big smirk), I think you are underestimating the average reader. A quick poll amongst some folks I know who do not get into the analysis at all, and who are 'average readers', all think there is something fishy about DD's death, and question if Snape is really a traitor.

I think we have already seen big hints that there is more to Snape, hence all the debate about DD's death.

Laura-

While Snape has been looking at Harry for 6 years, and knows who his mum is, he is too caught up James hate to see Harry for who he is. He did note the eyes, I think, in that very first potions class. But after his little 'Lily quiz', dismissed Harry as a miniature James.

Take the example of Slughorn. He knew Lily, and that she was Harry's mum, and commented that Harry had her eyes, but it took an unguarded moment for Harry to use this connection successfully. I think Snape will have another opportunity to see Harry differently.

With the huge reaction Snape has to James, and the fact that he never, ever says a word about Lily to Harry, something is there, not necessarily love. Slughorn was shamed into giving Harry the memory just because he was fond of Lily as a student and awed by her bravery. That Snape was involved in the murder (even if by just giving the prophesy) of such a person, when she was the one person brave enough to step from the crowd when the popular bullies, James and Sirius, were tormenting him, has to have a place, I think. Why else show us this?

THOM- Not sure I agree. I think Snape will do something to help Harry that will not be for himself. Lily seems to have the power to bring out the best in folks, James, and even a really selfish Slyhterin, Slughorn.


wynnleaf - Nov 13, 2006 8:09 am (#726 of 2959)
I want to make a comparison.

JKR says that Jane Austen's surprise twists (which are practically all character related), are her "standard" to which she aspires. So I thought about how Jane Austen handled turning an apparently mean, arrogant git into someone her main character could trust -- and in that case love.

First -- I'm going to use Darcy and I am NOT saying that Snape is like Darcy. I'm just pointing out what the author had to do to make Darcy's trustworthiness and some of his good intentions believable (not all his intentions are good, by any means).

Darcy is presented first being rude and insulting. He seems to consider the protagonist and all of her friends and family completely beneath him. We learn that he broke up a relationship between two perfectly nice people, one of whom was the protagonists sister. We learn that he supposedly destroyed the expectations/livelihood of one of the protagonist's friends. He continues to make insulting remarks to the protagonist.

But Austen needed to take her protagonist to a point where she would change her opinion of Darcy, trust him to have good intentions (at least some of the time), and ultimately love him. So Austen had quite a long way to go to convince her main character and her readers that this was believable.

JKR also has a long way to go if she's going to get Harry to believe in Snape's trustworthiness after doing far worse things than Darcy -- AKing DD, taking the prophecy to LV, plus the large range of insults, etc. Plus Snape actively seems to hate Harry (albeit a displaced hatred of James), whereas Darcy simply greatly disapproved of Elizabeth and her family.

Austen could not depend on simply giving us a motivation for Darcy's actions. She has to show us that the character is different from what we, or Elizabeth, thought. Austen does not try to deny that Darcy is insulting, or that he did indeed break up the relationship of Bingly and Elizabeth's sister, or that he took actions against Wickham.

What she does is give us the reasons for his actions toward Wickham, and tell us why he (mistakenly) thought Elizabeth's sister was not sincere in her attachment to Bingly.

But even that wouldn't help us or Elizabeth change our real opinion of Darcy. We and Elizabeth had to start seeing him differently. Austen does this by showing Elizabeth (and the reader), that there are other people that find Darcy admirable. She has those people describe why, too. And she allows Darcy to open up about his motivations through a letter, which Elizabeth and reader get to read, giving us a different side of Darcy.

It is only after we begin to see the different side of Darcy, that his rescue of Elizabeth's younger sister from Wickham seems to fit his character.

Now of course Snape isn't a copy of Darcy by any means. He's done a lot worse things, but on the other hand, JKR is probably only going to get the protagonist to trust him -- not love him.

In order to make that Harry's eventual trust of Snape believable, I think JKR will need to do something similar to what Austen did. She'll have to show us that there's more to Snape than what we've seen so far. She'll have to show Harry, and the reader, a person worthy of trust -- not just a set of excuses for his past actions.


T Vrana - Nov 13, 2006 9:11 am (#727 of 2959)
Wynnleaf- I don't disagree, but I think we already have some insight into Snape:

1) saved Harry in PS/SS

2) 'saved' Harry, Ron, Hermione in POA

3) tries to help DD convince Fudge that LV has returned in GOF

4) gives Umbridge fake veritaserum

5) somewhat tender moment healing Draco in HBP

6) last minute lesson, and stopping the crucio on Harry in HBP

7) Snape as victim we, and Harry, can empathize with.

Plus more I can't recall right now.

Now, all of these (except empathy) can go either way, good Snape or bad Snape, which is the really brilliant part. Jo has laid the groundwork to go either way. But she does not have the burden in book 7 of suddenly revealing a Snape we have never seen. She has hinted at Snape's true character and now merely has to complete the picture. I doubt the new info is that Snape is just a really great guy. He's not, but DD still trusts him and for a reason he can't or won't share completely with Harry.

My money is on Lily in some form, not necessarily love, but at least respect, admiration, like, maybe love. For 6 years, no mention of Lily, not even what an idiot she was to marry James? And that bizarre 'quiz' he gave Harry in PS/SS? He was looking for a trace of Lily, I think, and decided none was there, case closed. But he will get another opportunity, I think, and we will get the real reason DD trusted Snape, and that may be enough for Harry.

EDIT- And I think Harry will have the benefit of memories and the pensieve.


wynnleaf - Nov 13, 2006 9:21 am (#728 of 2959)
Now, all of these (except empathy) can go either way, good Snape or bad Snape, which is the really brilliant part. Jo has laid the groundwork to go either way. But she does not have the burden in book 7 of suddenly revealing a Snape we have never seen. She has hinted at Snape's true character and now merely has to complete the picture. I doubt the new info is that Snape is just a really great guy. He's not, but DD still trusts him and for a reason he can't or won't share completely with Harry.

I agree in part. The problem is Harry. Harry knew of all of those "good" things about Snape prior to the end of HBP, and it didn't create any trust for Snape. Harry still hated Snape.

Harry will find out why DD trusted Snape, but without some further insight into Snape's character I don't think it would make sense for Harry to suddenly trust Snape. For instance, if saving the lives of Harry and others didn't create the slightest ounce of trust in Snape, why would finding out that Snape cared about Lily help? Why would finding out that Snape was trying to keep a life debt help? Harry's going to have to learn more about Snape as a person, not just some facts that show his motivations.

Now if JKR had Harry discover something about his mother's attitude toward Snape, that could make a difference. If he, for instance, was given a way to see Snape through Lily's eyes (let's suppose, for instance, that Lily was friends with Snape), that could help. It wouldn't be conclusive, because Harry hated Sirius when he thought that Sirius was James' friend and still betrayed him. But it could be a personal side that would show a different aspect to Snape's character -- that he's not just a person DD could trust, but also a person Lily could like.


T Vrana - Nov 13, 2006 10:02 am (#729 of 2959)
Harry already admits on some level that his anger with Snape is misdirected, prior to HBP. I wasn't assuming that Harry would trust Snape because of Lily, but that Snape would, before the end (his, I think), see that Harry is more like Lily than James, and it will be important to what Snape does.

I'm not sure Harry needs insight into Snape's character, just more information on what happened, on events. His character can remain as is if we see that events reveal he is the 'good' guy many have assumed he was until HBP. Good, as in really working with DD, not good as in please move in next door and be my new best friend.

As mentioned, we already, and Harry already, has some clue that Snape may not be an evil git. This just needs expanding and clarification. Part of this broadening of our understanding of Snape and why he is the way he is, will relate back to James and Lily, I think.


Vulture - Nov 13, 2006 10:03 am (#730 of 2959)
"Have we ever known a Slytherin to do anything for the sake of goodness and kindness?" (Thom Matheson)

Forgetting about Snape for the moment - because we do not *know* his motives for anything he has done -, I would answer your question with a "no", Thom . (I'll get to Slughorn in a moment.) Which is kind of too bad, in my opinion. But that's how Jo has drawn them.

The Slytherins are mean to Hagrid when they and the Gryffindors have Care of Magical Creatures class together (there are no Slytherins who are shown as being respectful to Hagrid); the Slytherins do not play fair during the Duelling Club incident (ie - Millicent Balstode had Hermoine in a headlock); aren't all of Umbridge's posse in OoP from Slytherin house?; heck, even when Gryffindor plays Slytherin in Quidditch, Jo has the students from Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff routing for Gryffindor (you'd think it would sometimes be to their advantage to have Slytherin win). And these are just a few of numerous examples.

Slytherin is not *my* house, but I do think Jo rather overdid it in painting the whole house with a very negative hue. The hue being as Phineas Nigellus sees it in my post #643 or as Thom put it in his quote above. (Laura W - Nov 10, 2006 12:07 am (#675))

I agree. As far as we definitely know, we haven't (yet ?) seen a Slytherin do so. Hang on _ I forgot Slughorn. I know he's not that brave or selfless, but I think it's clear enough that he's not evil. We know, for example, that he is ashamed of having let Voldemort know about Horcruxes.

When I first started reading the books, I had two ideas about Slytherin House _ (a) that every school has bullies and other unpleasant types, but Hogwarts, being magical, is able to stick them together; or (b) that Slytherins have been marked off from the rest ever since what one could see as the "curse" left by their Founder.

Obviously, option (a) doesn't seem so true by now, after (i) McLaggen, whom most readers regarded (a bit unfairly) as being "thoroughly unpleasant", and (ii) perhaps more importantly, after Harry seeing James and his Gryffindor friends bullying Snape.

I think (b) holds up a bit better _ we have plenty of material to show that Slytherins, far from seeing themselves as outcasts, see themselves as the elite. So the "curse" of Salazar works two ways _ the other Houses don't want anything to do with Slytherin because of what they see as its evil ways, but Slytherins, in turn, look down on the others as not being "pure".

Vulture: ---We've seen Malfoy and other Slytherins inter-acting: they're not particularly nice to each other, but we know that they would always gang up against the rest. I see no reason to imagine that it was different in Snape's day.---

_ Except that we do not see anyone come to Snape's aid in the pensieve except Lily. Are we to believe that Snape was the only Slytherin who went outside after the OWLS exam? (T Vrana - Nov 10, 2006 2:51 pm (#686))

Well, yes, this has led to lots of debate, and I can't give a rock-hard-canon answer that would satisfy people. The best I can do is go for a common-sense possibility :

We know that Defence Against The Dark Arts was, and is, Snape's favourite subject (it needn't have been so for other Slytherins: they probably had the variety of opinions about it which you could get in any school). We know that, after the exam, Snape was absorbed in reading over the exam paper as he followed the others outside. We have what I reckon is a high probablility that James, though seeming to wander outside with no particular aim, had an eye on Lily's group. We know that James and Sirius, and their gang, were sort of the "rock stars" of their time in school _ so people would follow them around. We also know (I hope) enough about Slytherin to realise that any self-respecting Slytherin would avoid that Gryffindor glamour like the plague _ and the feeling was mutual.

So put all that together and it doesn't surprise me that no Slytherins (or not enough to start a fight) were around. The real surprise is that Snape was. In my view, he just got caught, in the wrong place at the wrong time _ and the apparent reason was his absorption in his favourite subject. I say "apparent" because it is just posssible, based on the Marauders' comments about him in Book 3, that his absorption was faked, and that he was really snooping around trying to overhear something about Lupin. But I don't reallly believe that, because if he had been, he would have been more ready for an attack and quicker on the draw.

============================================================

(Sorry folks, if I seem to be ignoring the last few posts _ I'm not, but am (once more !!) running out of log-in time and can only post up the replies to what I was able to absorb.)
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 731 to 760

Post  Mona Wed Jun 01, 2011 12:11 am

journeymom - Nov 13, 2006 12:59 pm (#731 of 2959)
"I say "apparent" because it is just posssible, based on the Marauders' comments about him in Book 3, that his absorption was faked, and that he was really snooping around trying to overhear something about Lupin. But I don't reallly believe that, because if he had been, he would have been more ready for an attack and quicker on the draw. "

I came to this same conclusion after reading the passage with a stronger eye for detail. (Basically, after coming here and learning to look deeper and rethink everything in JKR's books.) Snape was a snoop. It's why he made a good spy. Was Snape surreptitiously tagging along, or was he simply in the wrong place at the wrong time? It could go either way. Tricky Jo! It's been a while since I read that passage, but I remember thinking Snape -was- particularly quick on the draw, almost like he was expecting an attack. That could simply demonstrate he was used to this behavior from James and Co. Or that he was perfectly aware of his surroundings.

However, regardless of Snape's reason for being there, James' and Sirius' treatment of him seems unfair and beneath expectations. That's what shocks and upsets Harry so much. Even though Snape was a snooping, hexing git, Harry didn't think his father was capable of such unfair behavior. Again, we're not being asked to think that Severus Snape is really a sweetie. In this particular instance Harry's impression of his sainted father was changed, not of Snape,particularly.


wynnleaf - Nov 13, 2006 2:10 pm (#732 of 2959)
And let's not forget, if Snape was snooping that day, and was listening in on the Marauder's really quite uncircumspect comments about activities at the full moon, then he would have been listening in on clues about what they were in fact doing -- running around every month endangering the whole countryside.

Sometimes those comments about Snape snooping and following them around trying to find out something to get them expelled make it sound like some nasty guy just trying to get these sweet and innocent, fun-loving guys expelled. That may have been the Marauder's view of it, but they weren't exactly sweet, or innocent, and for all their fun, they were engaging in activities that were terribly dangerous for others. Did Snape care about that? We don't know. But I can hardly blame him for wishing them miles from Hogwarts -- and from him.

However, as regards the location of other Slytherins -- I really don't think JKR is going to re-examine this particular aspect of the Snape's Worst Memory scene. We'll likely find out why it was his worst memory, but I don't think we're going to get some new info about "why all the Slytherins were actually on the other side of Hogwarts at the time..." or that sort of thing. So I think we have to take that particular part on face value. Lots of students were there. There was no mention of it being only Gryffindors, or Slytherins not being present. No one came to his defense other than Lily. Therefore most likely, he had no friends in his year that would come to his defense.


Thom Matheson - Nov 13, 2006 5:49 pm (#733 of 2959)
Remember that it is not just that the Slytherin house is nasty, but as was stated by the sorting hat, they are sneaky, and will do everything they can to take care of good ol' number one first. That is how I see Slughorn. Not nasty, or evil, or even mean to others of lesser heritage, but he sure is sneaky. He also does things to advance himself. From the Slug Club to Aragogs funeral, in order to extract the venom, for free.

Snape is no different. He is a Slytherin.


Saracene - Nov 14, 2006 1:53 am (#734 of 2959)
wynnleaf:

---Because of that, most readers seem to accept the idea that Snape is actually a traitor and it was obviously proven by the fact that he killed DD on the tower. I think most readers will need a lot of convincing that the insulting, sarcastic guy that seemed to AK Dumbledore in hate and rage, is really loyal.---

Well, for starters I think that neither readers nor Harry will change their opinions about Snape while they still believe that Snape betrayed DD. IMO any change has to start from there: while Harry still thinks that Snape murdered DD he won't care if Snape loved his mother or if Lily liked or admired Snape or whatever DD's reason for trusting Snape was. So first things first JKR has to make Harry see, without any doubt, that what really happened on the tower that night was not the betrayal and murder. Which I think can only be achieved by providing Harry with solid facts about the events of that night.

I also think that the important thing for Harry to find out is not as much the reason DD trusted Snape, but that the trust DD had in Snape was absolutely justified and Snape is truly loyal to DD whatever else he might be.

---I agree in part. The problem is Harry. Harry knew of all of those "good" things about Snape prior to the end of HBP, and it didn't create any trust for Snape. Harry still hated Snape.---

Well, the problem I think is that none of those things T Vrana listed are 100% conclusive. They IMO can only be seen as hints on Snape's true allegiances, and obviously JKR simply couldn't have given Harry (or readers) a direct, beyond-all-doubt evidence that Snape is on the good side because that would rather undo the whole mystery she constructed around him.


Laura W - Nov 14, 2006 3:48 am (#735 of 2959)
T. Vrana wrote: "I think we already have some insight into Snape: 1) saved Harry in PS/SS, 2) 'saved' Harry, Ron, Hermione in POA "

Now I'm *really* going to get in trouble, but I am going to say it anyway. Before I got on this Forum, I interpreted point 1) exactly as you wrote it above, but not point 2).

When I read GoF the first time, my belief was that the reason Snape went out to the Shrieking Shack was primarily to catch the murderer Black and to take him back to Azkaban; not to save the children. And each time I read it that way, for the most part.

Not only was Sirius an escaped convict, he was Snape's personal enemy. And when Snape saw both Sirius' and Lupin's names on the Map, it must have seemed like Christmas to him. It was like he was finally going to do what he had wanted to do all those years ago: get the Marauders "expelled." And this time, it was all legitimate and legal. They wouldn't be able to talk their way out of it or get off with just detentions, as they obviously had while boys. Not only legal but approved by the highest authorities. The fact that Sirius and Lupin were together "proved" that the DADA teacher was helping his old friend. A friend who had killed 13 people, was on the loose from the wizard prison, and had gained entry into the Gryffindor boys' dormitory. That is honestly how I read the motivations of Snape as it was written in that part of GoF.

Believe it or not, it never even occurred to me that Snape said to himself, upon looking at the Map and seeing who all was at the Shrieking Shack, "Merlin's Beard! Ron, Hermoine and Harry are alone with the murderer Black! They are in danger! I must go and save them!" I don't know why that motivation never entered my mind, but I think it has something to do with the way the first page of Chapter 19 is written.

Snape has just revealed himself (ironically doffing James' cloak). He explains how he went to Lupin's office with the Potion, saw the Map, and figured out what was going on. And what does he say immediately after that? Does he say, "Kids, are you all right?" or "Thank Merlin that I got here before Black hurt anybody or worse!" or some such? No, he does not. What he comes out with as his first reaction is, "Two more for Azkaban tonight. I shall be interested in how Dumbledore takes this ...," and then a bit later, " 'Vengence is very sweet,' Snape breathed at Black. 'How I hoped I would be the one to catch you.' ".

I am not, of course, saying Snape wanted Sirius to kill anybody (except maybe Lupin - not joking) . The fact that he has saved Harry's life more than once is indisputable. I just would not put saving The Trio as his primary motive here.

Laura


T Vrana - Nov 14, 2006 4:43 am (#736 of 2959)
Laura- That was part of the reason for the quotes in that one. I agree there can be double motives for all that Snape does. Waiting patiently for Jo to finish up and clear it up....


wynnleaf - Nov 14, 2006 8:12 am (#737 of 2959)
First Saracene,

I agree with your post, at least in so far as I understand your meaning. I think JKR has a lot of work to do to get Harry, and most readers, to think Snape is worthy of trust. And of course, Harry and most readers won't think that if they think Snape killed DD. So that has to be dealt with. But that doesn't take Harry to a place where he'll trust Snape. All those things that those of us who search for clues of Snape's trustworthiness point out, are almost all known by Harry and they do not convince him to trust Snape.

Therefore, if JKR wants Harry to come to trust Snape, it will first take proving to Harry that Snape isn't a murderer and is loyal to DD, and then somehow making Harry see something about Snape other than mean, sarcastic, insulting guy who hated his parents (Harry thinks both of them), and caused them to be targeted by LV -- and goaded Sirius to his death, to boot.

Laura,

You points are well taken. When I first read the first three HP books, I did not see anything that Snape did that was in his favor other than saving Harry's life in PS/SS, which I thoroughly accepted as trying to pay a life debt to James and probably just a one-time thing. I did sort of like Snape's attitude toward Lockhart, mostly from the perspective of "oh look, even the hateful Snape hates Lockhart," which was fine with me. And in POA I totally bought into the notion that Lupin was a pure as the driven snow with just a slight problem of being embarrassed to confess his teenage misdeeds to DD; while Snape was just totally hateful and couldn't get over a childhood prank and wanted to see Sirius die just because he hated him.

I thought of Snape as a bit of a 2-dimensional nasty guy.

It was the pensieve scene of GOF, where Harry learned that Snape was a spy, when I really started to rethink Snape. But even then, I didn't go back and re-evaluate the earlier books.

In OOTP was probably when I started to have more interest in Snape's actual character, rather than just basic plot facts about him.

But without reading any of the fan discussion about Snape, I didn't get very deep in my search for clues. So I still assumed he was pretty much only what Harry saw. It wasn't until I got on the Lexicon Forum and started to really think back, and re-evaluate scenes that I started to think that who and what Snape was might be quite different from Harry's assumptions.

Yes, I'll agree that most readers know that JKR is holding back information about Snape. But I don't think most readers who aren't reading discussion groups or other fan analysis are getting particularly deep in their search for clues.

And although the fan-sites for HP are some of the most popular in fandoms, it's by no means the majority of readers taking part in those sites.

JKR has to make whatever revelations she's got about Snape, and Harry coming to see Snape's loyalty and possibly trust him without relying on readers to have already gleaned those many tiny clues in the earlier books. She's got to write for all the people that are like I used to be -- just reading the books through a couple of times, giving them some thought, but no deep searches, and basically accepting most of Harry's point of view as the way things are.


T Vrana - Nov 14, 2006 9:50 am (#738 of 2959)
wynnleaf-

I think JKR has a lot of work to do to get Harry, and most readers, to think Snape is worthy of trust.

I disagree that it will take a lot of work, more like two things:

1) Harry sees the Memory of Snape's return and it contains enough information, and believable emotion from Snape to convince Harry of Snape's remorse.

2) Harry learns what really happened on the tower.

But, Harry may not discover anything until after he forgives and/or spares Snape. In all 'reality' (), Harry saved Pettigrew, and may be put to the test to repeat his act of mercy without getting much of a reason to do it.


Saracene - Nov 14, 2006 1:44 pm (#739 of 2959)
wynnleaf:

---I agree with your post, at least in so far as I understand your meaning. I think JKR has a lot of work to do to get Harry, and most readers, to think Snape is worthy of trust. And of course, Harry and most readers won't think that if they think Snape killed DD. So that has to be dealt with. But that doesn't take Harry to a place where he'll trust Snape. All those things that those of us who search for clues of Snape's trustworthiness point out, are almost all known by Harry and they do not convince him to trust Snape.---

Hmm. So you don't think that, if Harry learns the true meaning of the events that he'd witnessed on the tower, it will change his opinion of Snape at all? The main point I made about those things that can be seen as clues of Snape's trustworthiness is that none of them is *conclusive* - they still leave a room for doubt. But if Harry somehow gets an incontrovertible evidence that Snape truly, really is on the good side, well, wouldn't that make him see Snape in a rather different light, for instance as someone who is capable of extreme loyalty?

My main point I guess is that I think JKR will show Snape's trustworthiness primarily through his *actions*, and not just actions which "hint" on his allegiances but which leave no room for doubt that he really does deserve trust.


S.E. Jones - - Nov 14, 2006 4:22 pm (#740 of 2959)
I think you're both right, wynnleaf and Saracene, JKR will need to show us some part of Snape that is trustworth, as wynnleaf suggested, and then show Snape performing some action that proves those seemingly trustworthy characteristics are viable, as Saracene suggested (which also may have been suggested by wynnleaf in her Darcy/Snape comparison). We have Dumbledore's "I trust Snape, end of discussion" comments but we're going to need to rationalize them with a why, why did Dumbledore trust him so completely. Once we get the why, we're still going to need to get over the fact that Snape did something so horrid as murder Dumbledore, so then JKR will show us how that is rationalized to show Snape was in fact loyal, then we may even have to see (and I personally think we will) Snape perform some act that then proves, beyond a doubt, that Snape wants what's best for his world through some act that undermines Voldemort in some way and helps Harry get to the point where he can defeat him.

wynleaf --We have remember that most readers do not read the books numerous times sifting through the details for all the clues about Snape's motivations. Nor do most readers have long in-depth discussions about it. JKR is writing mostly for those people, not people like us.--

T Vrana--Um, despite the fact that we are really a bunch of clever folks here (big, big smirk), I think you are underestimating the average reader.--

I really don't think it's an underestimation of the average reader. I've talked to a lot of graduate school students who are HP fans who don't look any deeper than what's written, who don't overanalyze, overthink, and second guess the way we all do. Also, considering the "is HP children's fiction" discussion that has taken up so much time on the "Dd's Death, what really happened" thread, I think it an odd suggestion. So, is it underestimating the average reader to assume the average reader of something so many people classify as "children's literature" are children? Wouldn't JKR then want to take into account that a child would have to be able to follow the storyline.


T Vrana - Nov 14, 2006 4:40 pm (#741 of 2959)
SE- I don't think you have to look very deep to see that Snape is ambiguous, and possibly still on the right side. I have two non-analyst types in my family, one a young teen. Both think Snape can't possibly be evil. My husband hates all the analyzing (that's how I ended up on the Forum!) and just went with his gut reaction "DD isn't dead and Snape didn't kill him". (We may all be wrong, analyzers and non-analyzers!).

My other child is 9, and he's just starting HBP, so I'll let you know what he thinks later. But children are quite insightful and clever, and sometimes see things we adults miss, because we over analyze.


S.E. Jones - - Nov 14, 2006 5:05 pm (#742 of 2959)
Oh, I agree that he's ambiguous and still on the right side, and I agree that anyone who has any kind of background in reading, especially of certain genres, will see that plain as day. (I'm guessing, probably wrongly, that you've read a fair bit of heroic epic from your comments on other threads.) However, I'm just saying that not everyone sees what we see here on the forum after reading over the books four plus times. A lot of people are just going to take Harry's word for it that Snape is a traitorous git until told otherwise by JKR in Book 7.


T Vrana - Nov 14, 2006 5:18 pm (#743 of 2959)
Agreed. My only point was that it won't be that difficult for Jo to accomplish this as all the groundwork is done in 1-6.


S.E. Jones - - Nov 14, 2006 5:34 pm (#744 of 2959)
I agree with you in part. I still think JKR is going to have to do something to bridge what we already know (the groundwork you refer to), what we saw in HBP, and where she needs Snape to end up. Right now, we have all this conflicting evidence, Snape saved Harry from Quirrell and yet he AKed Dumbledore. JKR will need to provide proof, probably in terms of background information, of Snape's motives, show how the tower scene in HBP is reconcilable with this, and then show some action that knits all these threads together to form one unified perspective. Once this is done, the things he's done in Harry's favor in the past six books will fit together to provide part of the overall picture of Snape's character.


T Vrana - Nov 14, 2006 6:11 pm (#745 of 2959)
Agreed.


Laura W - Nov 14, 2006 7:27 pm (#746 of 2959)
"Yes, I'll agree that most readers know that JKR is holding back information about Snape. But I don't think most readers who aren't reading discussion groups or other fan analysis are getting particularly deep in their search for clues. And although the fan-sites for HP are some of the most popular in fandoms, it's by no means the majority of readers taking part in those sites." (wynneaf)

Based on people I have talked to about the Harry Potter books, I agree with this. And even those who do check fan sites on occasion may just do so to see what's happening with the latest movie or to post a "Dan is so cute!" type-comment. Remember, without putting any fan site down - because not all fans are so obsessed or analytical as some of us, thank goodness! -, a lot of these websites do not see the HP novels or deal with them in the same way (ie - ridiculously serious, indepth analysis) as Lexicon.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"JKR has to make whatever revelations she's got about Snape, and Harry coming to see Snape's loyalty and possibly trust him without relying on readers to have already gleaned those many tiny clues in the earlier books. She's got to write for all the people that are like I used to be -- just reading the books through a couple of times, giving them some thought, but no deep searches, and basically accepting most of Harry's point of view as the way things are." (wynnleaf)

I totally agree with this. Although I would say rather, " if the last book is going to reveal Snape as trustworthy and loyal to Dumbledore and the Order, and if Harry ever comes to trust him ...". It still *may* do the opposite. But I do basically agree with the point you made.

I think she has to write for the average - and that isn't a put down - fan. It is only fair. To assume that all or most or even a majority of her readers have analyzed each and every word and nuance of all the books (as many on Lexicon Forum have), and that the majority or even a goodly number of her readers have been playing Great Detective (as many on Lexicon Forum have been) and have *not* taken that which she has revealed to date at face value would, in my view, be a ridiculous assumption on her part. One which I am thinking she won't make.

To write Book Seven aimed at people like us would be cheating the majority of her loyal and adoring Harry Potter series fans. Which is exactly why, regardless of how Jo chooses to make Snape turn out, she cannot assume her readers have seen that which she has not explicitly shown them so far. And why she will now have to spell it out in clear and credible terms which are not totally contrary to the Severus Snape her readers have lived with for six books - albeit she can and will uncover much more information about him. (Same with Lupin (wink), and every other character.)

Even as a member of HP Lexicon, I will have a lot of difficulty with a scenario where Harry forgives/likes/trusts Snape without a VERY GOOD and VERY PLAUSIBLE reason spelled out to me as to why it happened!! Don't tell me that six years of growing hatred (and I do not believe that too strong a word) for the Potions Master - culminating in the knowledge that Snape told V about the prophecy which killed his parents, and finally exploding in what he saw Snape do(?) on the Tower - can be washed from Harry's mind, no matter what Snape might say or do from now on.

At the end of HBP it says that Harry now hates Snape "as much as" he hates Lord Voldemort. That is rather foolish of Harry, in my opinion. No matter what Snape has done and how he has treated Harry and Harry's friends, he can never come close to the Evil that is Tom Riddle. But Harry sees him that way. Again, I, like that average fan I have been referring to, am going to need a really good logical step-by-step diagram of how Harry comes to forgive and trust Snape if that is the plan. And just having Severus do valiant things for the Order will not do it for me. Harry is very stubborn when his mind is made up! Lupin says it in OoP and *we* have seen it from the first book on.

Laura

Please note - I am responding explicitly to wynnleaf's comments as quoted above and have not read any posts after that (#737) at this juncture.


T Vrana - Nov 14, 2006 7:58 pm (#747 of 2959)
I don't think Harry will ever LIKE Snape, pity him, maybe.

I was not on the Forum, or any other fan site, until after HBP, and I have to say, again, I don't think it takes a rocket scientist, or a Forum member, to see that Snape may not be an evil git. Isn't Jo a tad annoyed at how many fans really like Snape?


S.E. Jones - - Nov 14, 2006 9:50 pm (#748 of 2959)
She's annoyed about girls liking gits like Snape and Draco, but I think that has more to do with the fact that so many women and girls seemed to be developing a romantic investment with a bad guy.
No, you don't have to already be a member of the Forum to see clues that lead to something, but do keep in mind this Forum attracts certain people. The people who are members here are people who are intelligent, a bit obsessive, and nitpicky by nature anyway. The forum didn't make us this way, but it is why it has kept our attention. In other words, the Hogwarts library didn't make Hermione the way she is, but it is an obvious place for Hermione to be drawn to, isn't it? Just replace "Hermione" with "obsessive reader" and "Hogwarts library" with "Lexicon Forum".


Laura W - Nov 15, 2006 6:09 am (#749 of 2959)
T Vrana, I really hate being on the opposite side of you because I think we agree so often, but what is even stranger - considering our history - is when I am on the same side as wynnleaf on an issue. (very big grin)

I never looked at a fan site - including Lexicon - until I had finished reading HBP either. About a month after, actually.

As with any book, there are obviously going to be readers who like certain characters for many different reasons. I do not think that the majority of ordinary fans who love the HP books and like Snape do so because they think he is a good guy (or will be revealed to be so). I think there are some readers who will like Severus Snape precisely because they see him as a bad guy. (Again, I am not talking about the pro-Snape faction on this Forum who, after careful examination and consideration, see his behavior over the books as not so bad and see all kinds of evidence that he is really on the good side.) Bad guys in literature, movies, and history itself have always had their fans. They are such colourful personalities, after all.

So it isn't that these fans do not see Snape as "an evil git" that has formed their opinion of him. Exactly the opposite.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And, by the way, wynnleaf and T. Vrana, call me unsophisticated or lacking in imagination or what have you, but I will state categorically that I consider Snape to be "an evil git." Whatever happens in Book Seven, I have been watching him for six books and I am going by that. This does not mean I believe he is still a DE, this does not mean I believe he has not been spying for Dumbledore (ie - the good guys) to his potential peril, or that I believe everything he has said about his encounters with the Marauders is untrue, or that I believe those against him are lily-white (pun not intended), or that I believe he has not suffered in his childhood.

Allowing for all the above, I still think he is a terrible human being because of his treatment of the young students in his care. I know there is much debate on this Forum about whether he has been "prickly" or outright cruel in this area. I do not wish to reopen that discussion except to give it as my reason for my feelings about Snape. Whatever he does or does not do in Book Seven. I thank him for saving Harry's life when he did so and, if he suffers greatly or sacrifices himself for Harry or Dumbledore's vision of what the WW could be for all its magical and non-magical inhabitants, I will also appreciate it and thank him. But this will not change how I feel about what he said and did to students as young as 11 when he had power over them.

Even if Snape turns out to have come from the most horrid abusive family situation, was friendless at school, and could only find acceptance - at age 19 - among the Death Eaters. It is too bad *any* child should have to have that as a life, but isn't this book largely about choice.

Pity? Harry had a horrible childhood. I'm sure it affected his personality negatively. Even in his beloved Hogwarts he was stared at and whispered about and was unable to be just a normal wizard boy. Then there was what he had to endure from Rita Skeeter's work. Harry is very far from perfect, but he didn't allow his misfortunes to turn him into a self-pitying bully. (And I won't even go into what Sirius Black has had as a life from childhood on.)

This is yet another of many places where the Harry Potter books reflect real life. I myself know of adults who have had horrendous childhoods and teenagehoods. Some have used it as a model of what kind of adults to be; others have used it as a model of what kind of adults not to be. Dumbledore would love both groups - becuase he's Dumbledore - but would say each became what they are because, "It is our choices, Harry, that ..." etc.

Snape did not pity Harry's situation in life. And Snape was the adult in that relationship - supposedly the mature one.

So, I may not be a rocket scientist, V (I did once temporarily work in the physics department of my local university however (hee, hee) ), but unless Jo does an almost magical job of completely reversing my thinking in Book Seven - which I'm not saying cannot possibly happen -, I will still be one of those unsophisticated unimaginative fans who see Severus Snape as, if not an evil git, a bully at least. Perhaps a bully who saves the WW, but a sadistic bully nonetheless.

(I apologize for going on so long about this.)

Laura


wynnleaf - Nov 15, 2006 8:57 am (#750 of 2959)
Laura,

Believe it or not, I do agree with you -- with an exception.

My guess is that JKR will "reveal" Snape in book 7 to be more like what you describe -- all those unfortunate things in his past (the reasons for why he is as he is), loyal to the order, no longer a DE, etc., but still a really mean git evidenced by his nastiness and cruelty to students.

And that is the way I viewed Snape up until HBP.

It dawned on me, after HBP, that of all the people I knew who actually talked and acted like Snape -- sarcastic, cynical, insulting, over-the-top threats, witty-but-mean comments -- turned out to be people I liked. Some were people I liked a lot, but I never ever made the connect of Snape's character with people I liked, because I was so inclined to believe Harry's viewpoint of Snape.

I thought of the several teachers I knew who were like that and who, in addition to the above characteristics, were intimidating to their students, strict, etc. -- and the strange thing was, all of those teachers had a large portion of their students who really, really liked them. These were not universally hated teachers. It dawned on me (and I had never made these real-life connections before), that my favorite college teacher was like that and a favorite teacher of my kids in 5th grade was like that -- my 16 year old daughter recently described this 5th grade male teacher as "ruthless."

I realized that one of my 18 year old daughter's best friends was like what one might imagine a teenage Snape to be -- all those witty, awful insults, bitter and cynical, geekishly brilliant, always making unpleasant remarks, almost seeming to intentionally push away potential friends -- and that our family considers him one of our favorites of her friends.

It occurred to me that while JKR probably means for Snape to really be a mean, nasty git and a real bully to his students -- the teachers that I've actually known that talked that way were generally liked by their students (even the 10 year old students), because the kids came to realize rather quickly that the over-the-top threats wouldn't really happen, and that the highly insulting remarks were just the person's style and you didn't have to take them personally, no matter how personal they sounded. (I know that doesn't make sense, but I have tried especially in the case of the 5th grade teacher, to understand why so many liked him regardless of the awful stuff he said and how strict he was.)

Once I realized that real people actually talked like Snape on a regular basis, and that they could still be people that were honorable, often strangely humorous to those who appreciate it (even though some really disliked it), and people with deep positive feelings and convictions, I could no longer just assume that Snape was the hateful person that JKR has us see through Harry's eyes.

Yes, JKR will likely have Snape really be the hateful, mean nasty git. But once I saw that real people could talk like Snape without being awful people, I could no longer just assume that JKR would definitely have Snape turn out to be truly so mean and nasty.


T Vrana - Nov 15, 2006 9:37 am (#751 of 2959)
Laura

"So, I may not be a rocket scientist, V (I did once temporarily work in the physics department of my local university however (hee, hee) ), but unless Jo does an almost magical job of completely reversing my thinking in Book Seven - which I'm not saying cannot possibly happen -, I will still be one of those unsophisticated unimaginative fans who see Severus Snape as, if not an evil git, a bully at least. Perhaps a bully who saves the WW, but a sadistic bully nonetheless."

I wasn't trying to say Snape is good and if you don't see it you are unimaginative or unsophisticated. Snape may be evil or he may be good. I think he's flawed, but not evil.

What I "was" trying to say is that Jo has laid the groundwork to go either way, and whatever she does, no one can say the evidence wasn't there to support the conclusion. (At the time I said the possibility of good,I think). I was trying to say IF Snape turns out to be 'not evil' (I won't say good), most readers will have seen that Jo left that possibility open. It will take some clarification whichever way she goes, but there will be no big shock either way.

Snape is a bully, and I can't be as generous as Wynnleaf. He's mean, petty, vindictive and a rather horrible person, but, evil is another matter entirely.

As for Harry pitying Snape. Snape would never pity Harry. Snape is too damaged and self-involved. Harry, however, may come to feel pity for Snape. It must really stink to be Snape. Can you imagine going through life as Snape? So when I say pity, I don't mean, poor Snape, he's had it rough and he would be a swell guy if only...I mean, wow, it must really be awful to be such a nasty, friendless, bullying git.


journeymom - Nov 15, 2006 10:14 am (#752 of 2959)
"Snape is a bully... but evil is another matter entirely." I completely agree. Voldemort and probably Bellatrix are the only ones who are truly evil. And even Bella had her moment with Narcissa. She wanted Cissy to do what she thought was best, and to stay out of trouble with LV.

Sorry, I digressed. But the thought developed and I wanted to get it down.

It's impressive how JKR has left Snape's allegiance completely open.


T Vrana - Nov 15, 2006 10:32 am (#753 of 2959)
Umbridge is evil. She tried to have Harry's soul sucked from his body, and nearly accomplished same for Dudley.


Thom Matheson - Nov 15, 2006 2:58 pm (#754 of 2959)
The difference to me is that to be mean one has to do something that is not necessarily premeditated. Taking a kids lunch is spur of the moment stuff. If no kid and no lunch the mean person might not even think to do anything at that moment.

An evil person would plan out how to meet that kid and then steal the lunch, or Premeditation.

You are correct to me that Umbridge, Voldemort, and Bella, and possibly Lucius are evil. Snape is just plain mean. He reminds me of someone who is just always in a bad mood. I don't think that he stays awake at night thinking of ways to get Harry, in fact I don't think that he pays much attention to Harry unless he is dealing wioth Harry at the time. Like I said, just plain mean. Of course if he were a Pit Bull we would just put him down, or call Ceasar and just go for a walk.


Solitaire - Nov 16, 2006 7:18 am (#755 of 2959)
People like Lucius are not only evil but dangerous, because they keep their evil personae hidden from the general public. In the case of Lucius, people in the Ministry (like Fudge) or institutions like St. Mungo's do not want to hear the truth about him, because they benefit from the Luciuses of the world. Acknowledging that he is evil means they must either sever ties (and lose that funding) or openly accept support from Voldemort's follower. It does not exactly inspire confidence to know that the Hospital and Ministry are beholding to one of Voldemort's honchos, does it?

Umbridge? I am with the "she is evil" camp. I do not think she is Voldemort's patron, as I believe she has too many aspirations for herself. Somehow, she has managed to escape punishment for her behavior in OotP, and that worries me ... a lot. I believe sending Dementors after Harry should net her a lengthy stay in Azkaban. I think she also deserves punishment for The Evil Quill. I often wonder if--when Harry held up his hand to Scrimgeour--the MoM had a clue of what he was seeing. Does anyone think Rufus knows about our dear Dodo?

Snape is different. The parents of most of the current Hogwarts kids were probably his schoolmates ... or they were older and do not really know him. I doubt many of them could have had him as a teacher. Those who do remember him probably consider him unpleasant at best and certainly not dangerous or lethal. Time alone will tell us the truth there.

Solitaire


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 16, 2006 10:52 am (#756 of 2959)
If the book is about choice, why is so much attention paid to Snape's choices, even his choices from his school days, when the majority of us seem to accept that Riddle was doomed from birth to be irredeemably evil because of what his parents did?

I know a few people say it's the choices Riddle made after Dumbledore came for him, but can we really say an eleven year old child is responsible for making such serious choices? Most fans here don't blame Ginny for getting involved with the diary when she was eleven, and that was a bad choice. Why does so much hinge on how the choices Voldemort, and Snape when he was younger, come to think of it, made?

If it's your choices that matter, should we apply this univerrsally, or only to characters that the majority of fans see as "good" characters?


wynnleaf - Nov 16, 2006 11:09 am (#757 of 2959)
Die,

First, I think it's noteworthy when JKR said that because Snape had been loved, he was more culpable than Voldemort. The way I take that is that I see Tom Riddle as a kid who was never, ever loved even from birth. I think of him as having a severe case of attachment disorder -- basically completely unable to empathize with other human beings. Empathy is a learned trait and it is learned in very early childhood through the care given the baby/toddler by its caregivers. Children raised without this kind of personal care can develop attachment disorders and do not develop the ability to empathize with others.

I see Voldemort as being, from early childhood, unable to empathize with anyone and therefore -- given his bent toward the Dark -- an ability to become truly evil without any consideration for others. To a certain extent, an inability to care for others makes his choices not completely free choices.

Snape, on the other hand, is not like that. He probably is able to care for others and knows what it is to empathize with others. The fact that he may shut off this aspect of himself, or has shut it off in the past in order to follow LV, is his own choice, even if outside circumstances acted as catylists for his choices.

However, in my opinion, too much is made of the choices of an 11 year old. If an 11 year old Snape already knew a lot of curses and was interested in the Dark Arts, why should this follow him forever? But this is not where it ended. He continued to make choices in an ongoing way, to pursue an interest in the Dark Arts and eventually follow LV.

By the time he was in his late teens and made a choice to become a death eater, he was certainly at a point in life where people often make life-changing decisions. He may have left LV and turned to Dumbledore, and be working for the Order, but he would continue to be haunted by those choices he made in his late teens.


journeymom - Nov 16, 2006 11:18 am (#758 of 2959)
Yes, that's exactly my impression, that JKR intends us to see all her characters as culpable for their choices, except LV. She's said as much about Snape specifically, when she mentioned that he had been loved. He is therefore more culpable than LV. In regards to choices, Lord Voldemort seems to be a plot device. He is evil through and through. By the time Dumbledore meets 11 y.o. Tom Riddle, it's clear he is a creepy, abnormal little kid, already manipulating the other kids, scaring them and he even killed a pet rabbit. . He was treated roughly the same way Harry was. If anything, Harry was treated with outright hatred by the Dursleys. Tom was raised indifferently by the Orphanage. But Tom turned out worse. I think he is fundamentally different from everybody else.

Though, to be honest, Merope having died immediately after Tom was born seems not to be a good enough explanation why Tom is the way he is. That's a chink in my theory. We're obviously supposed to compare Tom, Snape and Harry. Merope cared enough about Tom to give him a name. Was her dying on purpose? Tom seems to think so.

Please, take aim and fire! I'm certain I've missed something.

By the way, both Tom and Harry had revelations about a parent. Tom discovered it was his mother, not his father, who was magical. Harry discovered that James was not so saintly. I wonder if Severus made a similar discovery about a parent that changed his perspective?

Maybe he became a Death Eater to annoy his dad? Like children voting Republican to annoy their liberal parents...

=======================================================

Cross post! You beat me to it, wynnleaf. My "yes" is in response to Die Zim's final question,"If it's your choices that matter, should we apply this univerrsally, or only to characters that the majority of fans see as "good" characters?"

Great point about attachment disorder and empathy.


T Vrana - Nov 16, 2006 12:01 pm (#759 of 2959)
He was treated roughly the same way Harry was. If anything, Harry was treated with outright hatred by the Dursleys. Tom was raised indifferently by the Orphanage. But Tom turned out worse. I think he is fundamentally different from everybody else.

Harry knew his parents' love for a year or so, and his mom died to protect him.

Tom never knew love, and his mother would not live to protect him.


Anna L. Black - Nov 16, 2006 12:07 pm (#760 of 2959)
"Tom was raised indifferently by the Orphanage. But Tom turned out worse. I think he is fundamentally different from everybody else." - journeymom

Well, I was really surprise to see, in HBP, the orphanage as a place where it is actually not THAT awful to grow up. When I read in COS about Riddle not wanting to go back to the orphanage, and Harry identifying with him, it seemed to me as though the orphanage was this abusive, horrible place - well, at least like the Dursleys are to Harry.

But it actually isn't the same at all - the orphanage was a gloomy place, no doubt, but the staff actually seems to care for the children (at least to some extent). And this, I think, is where JKR shows us that it really were Riddle's choices that determined who he was. He wasn't raised to hate (you could say that Harry was - how can you not hate people like the Dursleys, when they treat you the way they treated Harry?); he wasn't bullied (at least, we have no indication of that); and yet - he became an abusive person at a pretty young age... And then, when he had the chance for a fresh start, he didn't use it at all.

So, between Voldemort, who grew in a sad but not hurtful environment and became totally evil; and between Harry, who grew in a very hurtful environment but turned out to be pretty much on the good side - there is Snape. And he is somewhere in the middle - because his environment seemingly wasn't all that supportive for a child. But he, as opposed to Tom and Harry, at least had a family. So, how did that influence his choices? He started out bad (in his DE days, and even before - inventing stuff like Sectumsempra, which he himself defines as a very Dark magic), but had the ability to change for the better (assuming he's loyal to the "good" side etc.).

I'm not even sure what I was trying to say. But I do think there was at least some amount of coices in young Tom Riddle's actions. Maybe I just can't accept him being the contradiction to the "It is our choices" theme... (And maybe I should move some of this post to LV's thread... )
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 761 to 800

Post  Mona Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:03 pm

wynnleaf - Nov 16, 2006 12:07 pm (#761 of 2959)
Harry knew his parents' love for a year or so, and his mom died to protect him.

If I was going to give real life reasons for Harry's ability to love, versus Voldemort's inability to love, it would be those first 15 months of Harry's life where he learned the beginnings of love and empathy from caring parents.

Still, Dumbledore's comment that Harry's ability to love is really amazing makes sense. At 15 months, he was removed from the loving environment and placed with people who show him no love and probably only the most minimal care.

However, if we assume that Tom Riddle's orphanage home was really pretty terrible, with little personal care given to babies, then it's easy to imagine that he never received the kind of personal care that infants need to learn to care for others in return.


Colette - Nov 16, 2006 12:26 pm (#762 of 2959)
journeymom

I agree with your statement that both Harry & Tom Riddle had similar miserable upbringings. I think Tom's character differences have alot to do with the genetics of the Gaunt family tree. He behaves alot like both his material grandfather and uncle. All three are prone to violence as a first response. Tom also shared the superiority trait with Marvolo. Tom's was based on a belief he was superior to others because of his abilities rather than bloodline. We were only shown a snippet of what life was like under the Gaunt roof. I bet there are quite a few more traits in Tom that will be recognizable in his material relatives actions.

I am using the term genetics because it is quite clear that Tom Riddle didn't learn his violent steak and superiority complex in a conditioned environment. I do believe he learned a bit of indifference from life in the orphanage. Orphanages are not set up to be nurturing places so Tom would lack the conditional enviromental background of any form of nurturing. Add this to his inherited traits, throw in a bit of magical ability with above average intellegence and you've got a monster on your hands.

It's interesting that he views dying as a weakness. I think he came up with this view at a young age. I know many sociopaths enjoy "watching" people die slowly. The thrill of seeing the terror in their victims eyes as they are tortured and then finally watching their life force leave their bodies can be quite intoxicating for them. I cannot help but think that the extent of Tom's early victims is vastly understated at one pet rabbit and torturing a few children to have developed such satisfaction for him by the time DD meets him for the first time.


Anna L. Black - Nov 16, 2006 1:22 pm (#763 of 2959)
Colette, I posted a reply to the last paragraph of you post on the Lord Voldemort/Tom Riddle thread.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 16, 2006 6:48 pm (#764 of 2959)
The is Voldemort the excpetion to the rule about your choices determining what you are? That kind of stinks. It's such a noble thought, but it gets cast aside so the villian can be irredeemably evil from birth in an almost cartoonish way. It WOULD Make him different from Snape, but I still think it's weird. Going to Voldemort thread...


Choices - Nov 17, 2006 9:28 am (#765 of 2959)
I think we have to realize that all people do not have the same ability to make choices. Sometimes circumstances make the choices for us. I think people who are well to do have far greater choices in life than do less fortunate people. Of course, we all have the ability to make moral choices for ourselves - choices about good and evil, but lots of other choices are made for us by various events or circumstances in our lives. There are things in all our lives over which we have no control, and therefore, can make no choices about.


T Vrana - Nov 17, 2006 9:39 am (#766 of 2959)
I do think LV has choices. He knows what he does is wrong, as he hides it. But this is also about mothers' choices and the long term effects they have. So, LV was more prone to make the choices he made, because of his mother's choice, to give up and leave him. How sad.

But he's still an evil git...


S.E. Jones - Nov 17, 2006 12:16 pm (#767 of 2959)
T Vrana --I do think LV has choices. He knows what he does is wrong, as he hides it. But this is also about mothers' choices and the long term effects they have. So, LV was more prone to make the choices he made, because of his mother's choice, to give up and leave him. How sad.--

Very well put, T Vrana. I'd say it's still all about choices all around. You have the choices of Merope choosing not to live for her son and Lily dying for hers. Harry and Voldemort both made a choice on how they'd see their parents and their parents' deaths. Harry knew they were taken by something that they couldn't prevent (he thought it was a car crash though) and chose to see them as people who would've stayed around if at all possible, people who had loved him. Tom knew that his mother died in childbirth and he may have assumed his father had died before that, but he almost seemed to assume that they died to spite him or something. He seems to take a very negative view of them. Harry chose to never see himself as special (think of the "I'm just Harry" line from the SS movie), Tom chose to see him self as extraordinary (think his "I knew it" line from HBP). Harry had a chance for a new start at Hogwarts and he chose to embrace it, to move forward and not look back, even though his past follows him. Tom had, not just one chance for a fresh start, but two chances, when he went off to Hogwarts and when he graduated from school (think of all the offers he had from professors to set him up here or there), but he still chose not to embrace the opportunities he was given, but rather to surround himself with his past even though he had a chance to leave it behind completely. And they're still making the choices that label them as "good" or "evil", respectively; even with the Prophecy, they both have a choice. Whether they had an abundance or a lack of love at a tender age was their mothers' choices, but such choices can, and have, been overcome throughout history, so I'd definitely agree that it's still about their choices. Whether they were loved or not is a good explanation for why they are the way they are, but it's far from an exuse, which is where I think JKR was heading with her comments that, since Snape was loved as a child, he's almost even more culpable for his actions than Voldemort.

I reposted my above comments to the Lord Voldemort thread. Let's try take up any further commentary on Voldemort and his choices there.

Anyway, back to Snape... it would be interesting to learn more about Snape's background. From what we saw in the Occlumency lessons, and from what we know about his personality from the last six books, it's quite possible that he grew up in an environment where he watched someone he viewed as a male rolemodel (his father or uncle or whatnot?) bully his mother, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't loved by his mother, or by his father for that matter (even though that would make watching such abuse even worse on a child). I find it very interesting to ponder how this could have affected him. I've already put my thoughts on how the bullying he witnessed affected Snape, but I'm interested in hearing others' views.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 17, 2006 12:32 pm (#768 of 2959)
I still think the bully we saw may have been a relative who was angry with his mother for marrying a muggle. The bullying might not have affected him, if it was a one time incident, but knowing he was born a second class citizen in the wizarding world might have. Of course, then you have to explain why he ws so proud of the HBP title.


Steve Newton - Nov 17, 2006 12:37 pm (#769 of 2959)
Or, perhaps, it was his father yelling at his mother for teaching him dark magic.


S.E. Jones - Nov 17, 2006 1:15 pm (#770 of 2959)
I really don't think this was a one-time event simply because it fits his pyscology so well. His need to appear in a position of power, he hatred of James (who would symbolize his father to him), his hatred of situations (the DADA OWL memory) and references (being called a "coward") in which he appears weak and victimized, his inability to empathize with those who are bullied as he was (Neville, Hermione) which likely stems from him wanting to identify with the bully-parent so as not to be in a position to be like the victim-parent, etc. It just all fits so well.

I also don't think it's a one-time thing because of the description of the woman. She's cowering, not looking upset or ashamed or angry or anything like that, but she's showing something that is connected to fear, often of bodily harm, which suggests a pattern of abuse, beit physical, mental, or whathaveyou.

(Again, I'm referring to explanations, not excuses. There is no excuse for the way Snape treated his students.)


wynnleaf - Nov 18, 2006 8:40 am (#771 of 2959)
My feeling about the tiny clues that JKR has given about Snape -- not the big obvious stuff, but the small clues -- are very unlikely to be red herrings or meant to put us off track. She has eeked out information about Snape so slowly that I tend to think what she has given us is meant to actually inform us, not trick us.

Therefore, I think the man in the memory is most likely what we would expect -- Snape's father. Because JKR is so careful about the tiny bits of information that she gives us, I think we are meant to actually glean info from it. Therefore, I don't think the man shouting at the cowering woman is going to turn out to be something quite different from what it appears. I don't think we'll find out that it's really a memory of an awful mom who was teaching her son Dark Arts and the loving father pushed to fury at the discovery.

JKR has kept so much hidden about Snape, I don't quite see the point in eeking out this type of misinformation. It's one thing to perhaps trick us into believing Snape's a traitor, but what's the point in tricking us into thinking his mother was afraid of his father?

Similarly, I doubt that JKR has given us clues of Snape coming from a lower economic level, only to show us later that really his father died early on and he and his mom went to live with her family in the lap of luxury, or at least the wizarding equivalent of Privet Drive. I mean, what's the point in that kind of misinformation?

But back to the shouting man, it seems clear that the woman, by "cowering," is showing her fear of the man.

JKR has admitted that there's a theme in her books of bad fathers and the way they affect their children.

In Time Magazine: Much of Rowling's understanding of the origins of evil has to do with the role of the father in family life. "As I look back over the five published books," she says, "I realize that it's kind of a litany of bad fathers.

"Bad fathers" include Tom Riddle's father, Malfoy, Sr., and Uncle Vernon. It would be in keeping with that if Snape's father was another in that same theme.


S.E. Jones - Nov 18, 2006 12:10 pm (#772 of 2959)
Don't forget Barty Crouch, Sr in that list. Isn't that one of the things that attracted young Barty to Voldemort? "The Dark Lord and I have much in common. Both of us, for instance, had very disappointing fathers... very disappointing indeed. Both of us suffered the indignity, Harry, of being named after those fathers. And both of us had the pleasure... the very great pleasure... of killing our fathers to ensure the continued rise of the Dark Order!" There's also the comment from Barty, "I will be his dearest, his closest supporter... closer than a son...." and from Voldemort, "My true family returns." I could see a similar hatred of a loathsome father and need for acceptance and a father figure drawing Snape to the DEs as it seemed to do with Barty, Jr.


journeymom - Nov 18, 2006 1:22 pm (#773 of 2959)
Great points about the parallels between Crouch Jr and Riddle.


Solitaire - Nov 18, 2006 6:52 pm (#774 of 2959)
Interesting parallels, S.E. Jones ... Kinda makes me wonder about the fathers of Bella and Narcissa, Lucius, and some of the other DEs.

Solitaire


rambkowalczyk - Nov 18, 2006 6:56 pm (#775 of 2959)
My feeling about the tiny clues that JKR has given about Snape -- not the big obvious stuff, but the small clues -- are very unlikely to be red herrings or meant to put us off track. She has eeked out information about Snape so slowly that I tend to think what she has given us is meant to actually inform us, not trick us. wynnleaf

If we accept what we see at face value, that is the man yelling at the cowering woman is Snape's father yelling at his mother cowering in fear, we need to ask Is it correct to conclude that Snape hates his father?

I tend to believe that the man may not be Snape's father, but his mother's brother or Snape's grandfather based on the fact that Snape calls himself the Half-Blood Prince and this seems to be something he takes pride in. Someone else in another forum pointed out that Tobias in the bible marries a princess Sara, and that maybe the choice of his name might indicate that he is a kinder person. If the father were abusive would he not be given a more terrible name, say Vladimir, or some ancient Roman name like Augustus?

If JKR has Tobias being abusive, I think it would be kind of boring. Been there done that with Tom. Not great literary proof but...


wynnleaf - Nov 18, 2006 7:44 pm (#776 of 2959)
I tend to believe that the man may not be Snape's father, but his mother's brother or Snape's grandfather based on the fact that Snape calls himself the Half-Blood Prince and this seems to be something he takes pride in. (rambkowalczyk)

I don't get why you base this on the idea that Snape takes pride in being a Prince. In other words, because Snape is proud of being half a Prince, the man his mother (a Prince) is cowering in fear of must be a Prince? One would think this might make him think less of the Princes, wouldn't it?

Sorry, I don't think I agree. Either that or I don't get what you mean.

The man in the memory may possibly not be Tobias. But between the cowering woman and the shouting man, I think we're meant to learn something, not just be tricked. Because the memory comes to the forefront, it leads me to think it was not a particularly lone occurrence, but a memory which had many other similar memories. Just like Harry's memories that Snape sees of Harry being persecuted by the Dursleys are not the lone examples of their cruelty.

It that's true, then the scene of the man and woman indicates that Snape was around at least verbally abusive situations fairly frequently, just as Harry's relatives were regularly cruel.

If Snape was regularly subjected to situations of verbal abuse, then what we saw in the memory wouldn't be a relative coming to visit and verbally abusing Snape's mom. There would instead have been some situation where the abusive man was regularly around Snape. That would most likely be Tobias.


Solitaire - Nov 18, 2006 9:46 pm (#777 of 2959)
I consider a lot of Snape's comments to be verbally abusive. Often those who verbally abuse others come out of environments where verbal abuse was common. I think it could be Snape's father.

Solitaire


S.E. Jones - Nov 18, 2006 10:26 pm (#778 of 2959)
ramb --If JKR has Tobias being abusive, I think it would be kind of boring. Been there done that with Tom.--

I don't really see how we've been there, done that with Tom, Sr. Voldemort was never around his parents, he never saw his father abuse his mother, never had to see a mother who loved him cower in fear, never had to know them one way or the other. Snape did endure this, if we take the memory snippet at face-value. That is a completely different set of circumstances; although, as I pointed out with Snape may have been driven to Voldemort for the same reasons as Barty, Jr. (a need to be accepted as a "beloved" son, even if that affection isn't real).


rambkowalczyk - Nov 19, 2006 8:12 am (#779 of 2959)
In other words, because Snape is proud of being half a Prince, the man his mother (a Prince) is cowering in fear of must be a Prince? One would think this might make him think less of the Princes, wouldn't it? wynnleaf

The pride would come from the fact that he is a half-blood not a full blood prince. That is he is glad that his father is so different.

After I read OOP I had no problem believing that the man yelling at the cowering woman was Snape's father.

But after I read HBP I questioned it, mainly because I was surprised that Snape had a Muggle father.

Snape is sorted into Slytherin,a house that practically worships Purebloods, so the question is how did Snape survive his seven years. It seems reasonable to suppose that he either lied about his father or simply never mentioned him.

We know that Snape never advertised the fact that he referred to himself as the Half-Blood Prince because the name didn't ring any bells with Lupin when Harry questioned him. The question I have is how did Snape feel about his father privately.

If Snape's father was a tyrant that is as a Muggle he managed to intimidate Eileen maybe to the point of her losing her magic similar to what happened to Merope,(my reference to the been there done that) then obviously Snape would hate his father and be very attracted to Voldemort. Here Voldemort would see in Snape a reflection of himself and would know how to manipulate Snape. But Voldemort to my knowledge never refers to himself as a half blood, yet Snape does. Why?

If Snape's father was an ordinary man who happened to love Eileen and his child, then Snape should feel strong love for his father and might be resentful at being in the Slytherin House. Ideally he would have defended his father and gotten into many fights with his Slytherin brothers,although it is possible he could have taken the cowards way out and said nothing and let it be implied that he was a Pure Blood with an unknown father.

It's just that what little facts we are given about Snape seem contradictory.


Choices - Nov 19, 2006 10:19 am (#780 of 2959)
I think how a misfit kid survives his 7 years at Hogwarts is by being bigger and badder than all the rest. But, does that really fit the image of Severus that we have? We know he was fast with a hex or jinx, but otherwise he seemed rather withdrawn to me as a student.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 19, 2006 5:06 pm (#781 of 2959)
If I had been in Snape's shoes, in Slytherin, at Hogwarts, I would have hidden ANY evidence or indication that I was a half blood. It's not the Prince part of the owner's page in the book that interests me. It's the half blood part.


wynnleaf - Nov 19, 2006 7:13 pm (#782 of 2959)
If I had been in Snape's shoes, in Slytherin, at Hogwarts, I would have hidden ANY evidence or indication that I was a half blood. It's not the Prince part of the owner's page in the book that interests me. It's the half blood part.

Die, I agree. It wouldn't be that big a challenge to come up with a cool name that used "Prince," but never said "Half Blood." To me, it seems more like an indication that Snape is not rejecting his half-blood ancestry. I've pointed out before that the use of a cool sounding name from one side of one's family (like "wynn") in no way means one is rejecting the other side of the family. Snape didn't have to include the half-blood part, but he did.

By the way, we don't really have any indication that being a half-blood is a huge rarity in Slytherin house. Yes, Slytherin himself wanted to take on the purebloods. But we don't have any particular indication that non-purebloods were a big exception to the rule, at least by the 20th century.


TomProffitt - Nov 19, 2006 7:45 pm (#783 of 2959)
Some kids, no matter how hard they try, just don't have the ability to fit in. Some of those kids stop trying and sort of revel in being different and outcast.

Severus seems to have been one of those. He made a place for himself in Slytherin House by hard work and the invention of nasty spells. It seems perfectly in character that he would take perverse pride in throwing his half-blood origins in the face of his House mates while he left them dangling upside down suspended by an ankle. (EDIT: And still be resentful towards his parents for the very same half-bloodedness.)


journeymom - Nov 19, 2006 7:49 pm (#784 of 2959)
Amen, Tom, Exactly! That thought has been simmering in my mind for a while. I can see Snape using the title Half Blood Prince defiantly.

Snape was a Goth. All moody and broody, wearing black.


S.E. Jones - Nov 19, 2006 10:36 pm (#785 of 2959)
ramb --Snape is sorted into Slytherin,a house that practically worships Purebloods, so the question is how did Snape survive his seven years. It seems reasonable to suppose that he either lied about his father or simply never mentioned him.--

He probably survived it the same way Tom Riddle, Jr. did, by making a new name for himself (the Half-blood Prince; we don't see many Slytherins say anything about "half-bloods" only "mudbloods"/muggle-borns, so it probably isn't as big a prejudice as we might initially think) to get rid of references to his Muggle relative (I know some disagree with me on this, but I think Snape was showing pride in his Prince-half, not in being a half-blood), showing that he is every bit a Slytherin in spirit (making up his own spells, being quick on the draw with his wand), and showing that he has some power to back himself up so he's not an easy target (coming to school knowing more curses than most seventh years, attacking people with his own spells). Hanging out with an older group of students who almost all ended up as DEs helped too, I'm sure.


Laura W - Nov 20, 2006 2:50 am (#786 of 2959)
"By the way, we don't really have any indication that being a half-blood is a huge rarity in Slytherin house. Yes, Slytherin himself wanted to take on the purebloods. But we don't have any particular indication that non-purebloods were a big exception to the rule, at least by the 20th century." (wynnleaf)

As a matter of fact, we have canon that being a half-blood is *not* a rarity in Slytherin house and that non-purebloods were *not* a big exception to the rule. In the Mudbloods and Murmurs chapter of CoS, Ron tells Harry (and us), "Most wizards these days are half-bloods anyway. If we hadn't married Muggles we'd've died out."

There simply are not enough full-blood wizards around to populate Slytherin house - even if *every* full-blood wizard child was put in that house, which does not happen. (The Weasleys have all been in Gryffindor, as has pure-blood Neville Longbottom. Ernie Macmillan - pure-blood back nine generations - is in Hufflepuff. And those are only the ones we know of. Oh yeah, a certain Sirius Black was a Gryffindor boy.)

In fact, *most* of Slytherin students must be half-blood, although I don't imagine they bring attention to that fact too much. Salazar Slytherin would be so disappointed, I'm sure!

On the other hand, I don't imagine any actual Muggle-borns (ie - *both* parents having been Muggles) would be sorted into Slytherin house. Therefore, both Snape and Draco could feel properly superior using the term "filthy little Mudblood" on Lily Evans and Hermoine Granger respectively.

Laura


rambkowalczyk - Nov 20, 2006 3:55 am (#787 of 2959)
Being a half blood may not be a big deal in the Slytherin house because it could just mean that one of your great grandparents might have been a Muggle. But in Snape's case it was his father. That makes him more closer to a Muggleborn (if only in his eyes)than someone who has a Muggle in his family tree.

Does Snape hate his father because of this? or because his father was abusive? If so would he still refer to himself as the half blood prince in only in private?


Vulture - Nov 20, 2006 5:41 am (#788 of 2959)
Sometimes those comments about Snape snooping and following them around trying to find out something to get them expelled make it sound like some nasty guy just trying to get these sweet and innocent, fun-loving guys expelled. (wynnleaf)

No, I would say "nasty guy just trying to get these far-from-innocent, fun-loving but thoughtless and reckless, guys expelled" _ for his own grudge-based and selfish reasons, not for any concern for the greater good of the school, wider society, or indeed of anyone other than Severus Snape.

I've pointed out before that people have a general tendency to react against tale-bearing and snooping _ "ratting", as it's often called _ even when what's being ratted about is worse than the ratting.


wynnleaf - Nov 20, 2006 6:20 am (#789 of 2959)
Some kids, no matter how hard they try, just don't have the ability to fit in. Some of those kids stop trying and sort of revel in being different and outcast.

Of course, everyone is different, but I know personally that sometimes the revelling in being "different and outcast," is often just a defense mechanism. The idea is that if you can't find a way to fit in, you eventually tell yourself it doesn't matter, because the other people -- those with whom you can fit in -- don't count anyway. It's purely a defense mechanism. I've especially seen very, very bright kids do it and reach a point where they tell themselves nobody else matters anyway, so who cares if they can't fit in? These kids don't really truly believe this, but if they admit that what other people think of them does matter, it just increases their pain, because they really don't know how to fit in and get people to accept them.

Snape was a Goth. All moody and broody, wearing black. (journeymom)

Yeah, he strikes me that way, too.

He probably survived it the same way Tom Riddle, Jr. did, by making a new name for himself (the Half-blood Prince; we don't see many Slytherins say anything about "half-bloods" only "mudbloods"/muggle-borns, so it probably isn't as big a prejudice as we might initially think) to get rid of references to his Muggle relative (S.E.Jones)

Well, except that he didn't get rid of references to his Muggle relative. In fact, one might say that he referenced his Muggle heritage in the name, calling particular attention to it -- which is completely different from LV, who got rid of his name and any reference to his half-blood background.

We don't really know if Snape told anyone this name for himself. Lupin didn't seem to know it. Slytherins could have known, but we have no canon, or really even any hints that they did.

Does Snape hate his father because of this? or because his father was abusive? If so would he still refer to himself as the half blood prince in only in private? (rambkowalczyk)

While I think it's fairly safe to guess that his father was abusive, we don't yet have any evidence that he hated his father. If he did, why reference being a half-blood in his name for himself?

No, I would say "nasty guy just trying to get these far-from-innocent, fun-loving but thoughtless and reckless, guys expelled" _ for his own grudge-based and selfish reasons, not for any concern for the greater good of the school, wider society, or indeed of anyone other than Severus Snape. (Vulture)

I don't think we've got any real evidence for why Snape was trying to get the Maruaders expelled -- bad reasons, good reasons, or simply a wish to get rid of people who were regularly bullying him. In fact, we don't even know that he was always trying to get them expelled. Sirius and Lupin seemed to think so, but on the other hand, Harry probably thinks Snape is always trying to get Harry expelled, though as I've pointed out before, he only ever really pursued that course one time. A lot of times people attribute the worst of motives to someone they hate -- sometimes they're right and often they're wrong.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 20, 2006 6:24 am (#790 of 2959)
One Riddle knew his father was not magical, he distanced himself from the name, and created a new one. He never looked back,and resented it when someone like Dumbledore did.

Snape never did that. He did not respond the same way Riddle did. He kept the name, and the book, which stated flat out "Half Blood Prince".


journeymom - Nov 20, 2006 8:09 am (#791 of 2959)
But Prince is his witch mother's name, not his father's.

I really don't know what to think about this. I strongly suspect Snape really isn't a muggle hater. I"m 60% sure the man in his memory is his father, but could easily believe it's a Prince relative. I've been thinking that since Snape kept the HBP title to himself he used it to bolster his self esteem. Bellatrix didn't know Voldemort is a half-blood until Harry told her. We've never seen one way or another whether Snape knew. Perhaps he learned early on about L'v;s status, and took hope from that. Maybe he thought to himself, "I'll prove to those Slytherins I belong with them just as much as Lucius!". I can imagine when he had his conversation with the Sorting Hat, he said, "Not Gryffindor! Not Gryffindor!" Notice he claimed to Harry that he is the Half Blood Prince, not to any Death Eater.

Once again, JKR has given us so many conflicting hints we cannot come to any conclusion about Snape.


T Vrana - Nov 20, 2006 9:49 am (#792 of 2959)
I had always assumed Snape took a sort of vicious pride in the fact that he was halfblood and talented. Why else keep half-blood in his self proclaimed title? Which I think is what TomProffit and Journeymom were saying.


Lina - Nov 20, 2006 10:15 am (#793 of 2959)
The way I see it: the book belonged to his mother, that's why she wrote "Prince" in it, so that someone wouldn't take it by accident, the same way as any of us write down our names on our books or note-books, especially when there are many people around us having the same book, like in school.

He used his mother's book. One of the reasons might be because his parents didn't have the money to buy a new book. But it could have been because his mother kept a book in very good shape, the contents of the book hasn't changed in all those years, as we saw that it hasn't changed in as many years later neither, and there was no need to buy a new book. It could have also been because he liked to study and he started to investigate that book much before he needed it at school, and he scribbled around it long before the 6th year at Hogwarts. He didn't want a new book, he was much more attached to this one.

So, to mark that book as his, he could have just written "Snape" next to "Prince". Or he could have left the "Prince" in it and just explain that it was his mother maiden name if someone would ask him. But he added the "Half-blood". He really didn't have to do it to make it obvious that it was his book. That just sounds to me that it was important to him that he was half-blood.


S.E. Jones - Nov 20, 2006 10:33 am (#794 of 2959)
Or it could be him distinguishing that he's a "half-blood" not a "Muggle-born". As I said, I know others will disagree, but it seems to me that instead of trying to classify himself as non-pureblooded, he was trying to classify himself as non-mudblooded. His father was a Muggle, which could have classified him as a "Mudblood" except for the fact that his mother was a witch, thus he's proclaiming "I'm half-blooded, not Mudblooded". To someone like Lucius, a Muggle-born's as bad as a Muggle, so Snape having a Muggle father would lower him in the eyes of Slytherins like Malfoy, but by embracing his wizarding side (and pointing out that he's half-blooded) he somewhat raises his status to something more "befitting" a Slytherin. The rest would be taken care of in the ways I've previously suggested. That's the way I took it.

As per earlier, I already know others don't agree, and I'm willing to accept their points of view.


TomProffitt - Nov 20, 2006 10:50 am (#795 of 2959)
I think Slytherins might spend a lot of time talking about whose blood is more pure, but I'd bet that real status in the House is determined by who can out bully the rest.


wynnleaf - Nov 20, 2006 12:08 pm (#796 of 2959)
Lina,

I don't recall the word "Prince" being written in a different handwriting. Why do you think she wrote that part?

I had always assumed Snape took a sort of vicious pride in the fact that he was halfblood and talented. Why else keep half-blood in his self proclaimed title? (T Vrana)

Exactly what I think, too.


journeymom - Nov 20, 2006 12:32 pm (#797 of 2959)
Sarah, great point.


Lina - Nov 20, 2006 2:41 pm (#798 of 2959)
You are right, Wynnleaf, there is no mention of the different handwriting. It is the Hermione's remark "It might have been a girl. I think the handwriting looks more like a girl's than a boy's." at the beginning of The House of Gaunt chapter that confused me.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 20, 2006 7:40 pm (#799 of 2959)
Can someone explain something to me about Snape possibly being a die hard Death Eater? Why do they want him in the first place? Compare him to Malfoy, Greyback, Bellatrix, or some of the others.

He's got a muggle father. He isn't wealthy from what we know. He doesn't have connections that we know of. He isn't very good looking. If he's got some amazing secret powers, what are they? He has had his own agenda for a long time, and doesn't take anything at face value. He can do occlumency, when most of them probably don't want him poking around in their minds. Why, then, do they want him anyway? Just because he's a Slytherin?

He's smart, but I doubt if Riddle takes all his Death Eaters for their brains. If he does, he's a poor judge of character because a lot of them seen kind of dimwitted, or at least unable to think quickly on their feet.


T Vrana - Nov 20, 2006 8:06 pm (#800 of 2959)
He's smart and talented, I think. He saved DD from an LV curse...

Plus, as you say, he does seem to take just about anyone who wants to be a DE (Amyscus, Alecto...please).
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 801 to 840

Post  Mona Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:06 pm

Thom Matheson - Nov 20, 2006 9:30 pm (#801 of 2959)
I have a few ideas about his worth. First he is a very good spy. Both sides utilize that talent. Granted he didn't have much to do for 13 years while Voldemort was gone, but ..... He seems to be one of the better potions masters. The man knows his herbs. But most of all he makes a great antagonist for the other good guy characters.

Actually, I would put his "book skills" right up there with Hermione.


journeymom - Nov 20, 2006 10:10 pm (#802 of 2959)
Voldemort wants him to spy on Dumbledore. He might just be dancing a little jig because the only one he's ever feared is now dead, seemingly at Snape's hands.

He's smart, and as Sirius pointed out, was already up to his eyeballs in dark arts by the time he got to Hogwarts. That's some talent. I know Flitwick is supposed to be this dueling champ with a wand, but I think Snape's pretty handy with a wand, too. "Foolish wand waving" aside. He's an expert with occlumency, meaning he can hide his thoughts and memories, not that he's delving into the minds of fellow DE's. It's never mentioned whether he's particularly good at legilimency, though both Dumbledore and Snape say Voldemort is the best, or something like it.

The other DE's respect him. See how they fell back when he arrived on the Tower.


Thom Matheson - Nov 21, 2006 7:43 am (#803 of 2959)
He has been able to fool Voldemort and or Dumbledore for a long time. That certainly takes skills


haymoni - Nov 21, 2006 9:06 am (#804 of 2959)
Snape is a lot like Tom Riddle - witch-mom, Muggle-dad. Tom chooses to be alone. Doesn't seem like Snape goes out of his way much to socialize.

Perhaps Snape felt connected to him somehow. I could see Snape being curious about who Lord Voldemort really was and doing a ton of research ala Hermione, finding out that they had similar backgrounds.


T Vrana - Nov 21, 2006 9:36 am (#805 of 2959)
He might just be dancing a little jig because the only one he's ever feared is now dead, seemingly at Snape's hands.

I wonder....if LV feared DD, and it was known, what does that say about Snape? LV is afraid, but Snape was able to kill DD? I would think LV will need to put Snape in his place, unless Snape does some fast talking and explains that he never would have succeeded if DD had been in prime heath etc.


Colette - Nov 21, 2006 10:01 am (#806 of 2959)
T Vrana, "+ Severus Snape" #805, 21 Nov 2006 9:36 am

T

I think LV purposely gave the task of killing DD to Draco because he knew Draco wouldn't be able to do it. I think LV counted on his mother begging Snape to do the task rather than have Draco finishing it and himself off. I really believe this because LV needed to determine Snape's loyalty once and for all.

Having someone kill DD other than himself wouldn't bother LV as much as having someone else kill Harry.


T Vrana - Nov 21, 2006 10:16 am (#807 of 2959)
If it is known that LV feared DD? It may not be quite as big as someone killing Harry, because LV tried to kill Harry and failed, and was 'defeated' himself. I don't think LV ever tried to kill DD until the MoM, and no one was there to tell the DEs he failed (Bella wouldn't). But he was afraid of DD, so he will need to affirm that Snape only accomplished this because DD was weak, or his supremacy is in question to himself (most importantly), and to his DEs.


TomProffitt - Nov 21, 2006 11:34 am (#808 of 2959)
"Having someone kill DD other than himself wouldn't bother LV as much as having someone else kill Harry." --- Colette

I assume that the reason Tom Riddle has instructed his Death Eaters not to kill Harry is Trelawney's prophecy. This gives a whole new twist to reasons for Severus to have worked to keep Harry alive. It may be that Severus isn't keeping Harry alive out of any sense of debt to James Potter, but one to Tom Riddle. And of course Severus tells his lies not just to Harry and Dumbledore, but to Narcissa & Bellatrix, because both Dumbledore and Riddle want the exact nature of the prophecy kept secret.


Laura W - Nov 21, 2006 12:05 pm (#809 of 2959)
"Harry probably thinks Snape is always trying to get Harry expelled, though as I've pointed out before, he only ever really pursued that course one time" (wynnleaf)

Twice at least, actually.

1. From CoS, chapter five --

" 'Silence!' snapped Snape again. 'Most unfortunately, you are not in my House and the decision to expel you does not rest with me. I shall go and fetch the people who do have that happy power.' "

Then, on the next page.

" 'Well, you're expelling us, aren't you?' said Ron.

Harry looked quickly at Dumbledore.

'Not today, Mr. Weasley,' said Dumbledore. ...

Snape looked as though Christmas had been cancelled. He cleared his throat and said, 'Professor Dumbledore, these boys have flouted the Decree for the Restriction of Under-age Wizardry, caused serious damage to an old and valuable tree ... surely acts of this nature ...'"

2. From PoA, chapter 21--

(Fudge): "Ah well, Snape ... Harry Potter, you know ... we've all got a bit of a blind spot where he's concerned.'

(Snape): "And yet - is it good for him to be given so much special treatment? Personally I try to treat him like any other student. And any other student would be suspended - at the very least - for leading his friends into such danger. ..."

And possibly also falling into this category.

3. CoS, chapter 11 --

"Harry ducked swiftly down behind his cauldron, pulled one of Fred's Filibuster fireworks out of his pocket and gave it a quick prod with his wand. ... Knowing he had only seconds, Harry straightened up, took aim, and lobbed it into the air;it landed right on target in Goyle's cauldron. ...

'If I ever find out who threw this,' Snape whispered, 'I shall *make sure* that person is expelled.'

Harry arranged his face into what he hoped was a puzzled expression. Snape was looking right at him ...

'He knew it was me,' Harry told Ron and Hermoine, 'I could tell.' "

Laura


wynnleaf - Nov 21, 2006 12:12 pm (#810 of 2959)
It is only at the beginning of COS that Snape actually discusses (that we know) expulsion with the person empowered to do it -- Dumbledore.

The example you mention from chap. 11 of COS is simply a threat. Snape did not find out, with proof, who created the explosion in the cauldron, therefore he did not attempt to get Harry expelled. If he had discovered it, Harry's action was probably worthy of expulsion considering that innocent students were injured and based on McGonagall's comments that the sectumsempra episode merited expulsion.

POA doesn't count at all because suspension is by no means the same thing as expulsion.

The one time Snape actually was recommending expulsion, there was at least enough agreement from DD and McGonagall that Harry and Ron were told that if they did anything like that again they could be expelled.

But after early in Harry's second year, Snape never again actively tried to get him expelled. He occasionally mentions suspension, but as I said, that's not the same thing. Expulsion is when a student is removed from the school permenantly. Suspension can be (in real world schools) either a home suspension when a student is sent home for a few days, or an in-school suspension when the student simply is removed from classes for a few days without the possibility of making up the work.

When Snape finally gets the perfect opportunity to recommend expulsion over Sectumsempra, when even McGonagall told Harry that his actions merited expulsion, Snape didn't even bring it up.


Laura W - Nov 21, 2006 1:15 pm (#811 of 2959)
"POA doesn't count at all because suspension is by no means the same thing as expulsion."

Suspended, *at the very least*. He didn't just say "suspended", but was definitely putting the bug in Fudge's ear that something more that just suspension was an appropriate punishment.

By the way, wynnleaf, I was not arguing whether Harry *deserved* to be expelled. Just that there is at least some validity in his feeling that Snape was trying to find - in *at least* two incidents (I know you don't see it that way, but I do) - reasons to get him expelled.

Same with James et al. When Sirius says in PoA, "Sneaking around, trying to find out what we were up to ... hoping he could get us expelled." I completely believe him - based on everything we have been told about the hate/hate relationship between the Marauders and Snape. I am not arguing whether James and Sirius *deserved* to get expelled; just the case that Severus *did* try to gather incriminating evidence against them to achieve that end.

So, the fact that DD was close to expelling Harry (and Ron) in CoS is not the point. The issue is whether Harry is correct - using canon, of course - that Snape has a) threatened to Harry that he will get him expelled or b) argued the case with someone in power that Harry should be removed from the school.

Laura


wynnleaf - Nov 21, 2006 3:29 pm (#812 of 2959)
My original comment was:

"Harry probably thinks Snape is always trying to get Harry expelled, though as I've pointed out before, he only ever really pursued that course one time" (wynnleaf)

"Putting the bug" in Fudge's ear by saying, "And any other student would be suspended - at the very least - for leading his friends into such danger. ..." in no way (in my opinion) constitutes "pursuing" expulsion for Harry. Not much of a "pursuit," if he had any intention of convincing Fudge that this was something Harry should be suspended over. And remember, he even said Harry and the others had surely been confunded.

By the way, wynnleaf, I was not arguing whether Harry *deserved* to be expelled. Just that there is at least some validity in his feeling that Snape was trying to find - in *at least* two incidents (I know you don't see it that way, but I do) - reasons to get him expelled. (Laura)

Yes, I realize that you weren't arguing about Harry's deserving or not deserving expulsion. But that does play a role in whether or not one would consider Snape's comments about expulsion (or suspension) as pursuing something against Harry in particular, or simply bringing up the possibility of a merited punishment. In other words, because Harry and Ron do appear to have possibly deserved expulsion in the COS example, it doesn't seem to me like Snape was sort of "out to get" Harry by bringing it up -- any more than McGonagall was out to get Harry expelled by telling him he deserved it over Sectumsempra.

My point about Harry probably thinking Snape is trying to get him expelled is not to say that Harry has absolutely no reason to think this. What I was trying to say is that Harry puts his own spin on what's going on and it wouldn't be surprising if he assumed that Snape was trying to get him expelled, and because Snape was sort of "out to get" him -- not because of anything where he may have actually deserved it.

In a similar way, I think that Sirius and Lupin's assumption that Snape was trying to get them expelled has to be taken as possibly being from a similar perspective. In other words, they'd think "We hate him, he hates us, and he's following us around trying to see what we're up to (and what we know we could get expelled over). Therefore, Snape is trying to get us expelled just because he hates us and he's a mean git."

We don't actually know for certain that Snape was really trying to get the Marauders expelled, or -- if he was -- that he was trying to do it just because he hated them and was a mean git.


TomProffitt - Nov 21, 2006 4:10 pm (#813 of 2959)
"In a similar way, I think that Sirius and Lupin's assumption that Snape was trying to get them expelled has to be taken as possibly being from a similar perspective. In other words, they'd think 'We hate him, he hates us, and he's following us around trying to see what we're up to (and what we know we could get expelled over). Therefore, Snape is trying to get us expelled just because he hates us and he's a mean git.'" --- wynnleaf

It occurs to me as I read this analysis that Severus could have been doing the complete opposite.

From what I remember of being in my early teens and more or less on the outside looking in, I really didn't have a clue how to get accepted into one group or another. It could have been that Severus was following them around because he was hoping for acceptance and an opportunity to become a "Marauder." And then the whole thing breaks down when James & Sirius are confrontational towards Severus, because then Severus can't save face & not retaliate.

There's no proof in canon for this, of course, but it seems plausible to me. It's not the way I see Severus, or have before, but it's something to think about.


Laura W - Nov 21, 2006 4:17 pm (#814 of 2959)
PER POST #812 -

Again, I wasn't even addressing the reason Snape would have been trying to get the Marauders expelled by catching them at something so bad that it deserved that particular punishment. That is not germane to the discussion here. Not on my part, at least. *Whatever* the reason, I am saying that I happen to believe Sirius that that is exactly what Severus did. (Whereas someone else - you, or whomever - might argue the position that Sirius was not telling the truth about that.)

Of course, to Harry and Sirius it would be important to see what Snape did - if one believes it - as being unfair because they (Harry and Sirius) see it as that mean Snape "out to get them." I don't disagree with you there. Maybe that was Severus' motivation or maybe it wasn't.

That doesn't change the fact that he did or didn't - depending upon your position, and mine is that he did - do things or say things to those who had the power to expel Harry in order to get them to do so or that he did or didn't (did - LW) personally threaten Harry with the possibility. Likewise, his motivation doesn't change the fact that he did or didn't - again, I believe he did - follow those mischievous Marauders around in the hope of being able to tell those in authority about something *they* did which would get Potter and Black out of his hair permanently, and make his life at Hogwarts easier.

Just as an aside, I also think Sirius and Lupin would look at Severus spying on them (hmmm, early training?) differently, as befits the differences in their personalities. Sirius would say Snape did it because he was/is a mean, spiteful petty git. Lupin would say Severus did it because both Severus and James did whatever they could to annoy or cause problems for each other, and this was one of the things Snape did in the conflict between him and James Potter, as there were things James did to Snape to further *his* side of the battle - so Lupin would think of it and put it. In my opinion, anyway.

Laura


Laura W - Nov 21, 2006 4:43 pm (#815 of 2959)
If I may just add this as separate post, because it deals with the same issue as the one above but kind of makes another point.

Of course, to Harry and Sirius it would be important to see what Snape did - if one believes it - as being unfair because they (Harry and Sirius) see it as that mean Snape "out to get them." Maybe that was Severus' motivation or maybe it wasn't.

I do happen to believe, however, based on Snape's comments to, attitude towards and behavior towards Harry from the first Potions class of the first year, that Snape does everything he can and takes particular pleasure in making Harry look and feel bad. This includes telling him, in front of the class how stupid he is in Potions and giving him zeros; in sneering at and making cutting comments about the fact that Harry is famous - albeit Harry didn't ask for it, and his fame came at the price of his losing his parents - and thinks himself better than others - which Harry doesn't -; in taking points from Gryffindor whenever Harry does the least little thing wrong in class while never taking points from the Slytherin side of the room; in humiliating Harry in front of the other students by reading the Witches Weekly article about him and Hermoine in front of the whole class; by giving Harry detentions which will not only punish him (which is the purpose of detentions, of course) but will knock him down a peg or two (ie - such as having him view his dead father in an unfavourable light (which I find to be exceedingly cruel, even if it's true about James) and making him miss Quidditch); and by allowing the Slytherin half of the class to wear Potter Stinks badges in the schoolroom instead of telling them to take the badges off while in his dungeon.

Remember, we are not talking here about two boys or two men (ie - the situation between Severus and Sirius). We are talking about a man in his thirties needing to repeatedly humiliate and demean a boy who is anywhere between 11 and 16 years old at the time. Expelling aside, and allowing that Snape did once save Harry's life and that he may again do so in Book Seven, he WAS "out to get him."

Laura


wynnleaf - Nov 21, 2006 8:22 pm (#816 of 2959)
Tom said,

From what I remember of being in my early teens and more or less on the outside looking in, I really didn't have a clue how to get accepted into one group or another. It could have been that Severus was following them around because he was hoping for acceptance and an opportunity to become a "Marauder."

That's an interesting thought. It may seem hard to believe that Snape would really want to join James and Sirius' group, as much as they bullied him. However, I have been very often practically shocked at hearing from kids that are bullied how much they actually want the acceptance of the kids doing the bullying. You would be amazed at how many times I've tried to tell a bullied kid, "look, it's not worth the trouble trying to be accepted by those bullies. Wouldn't it be better to make friends with other kids?" And I get arguments which basically revolve around why the kid just has to be accepted by that group. There's a book on girl bullying called "Odd Girl Out," in which one of the points made is that part of the power the bullies hold is that the victim so much wants to be accepted by them.

Another interesting question is how Sirius got Snape to follow Lupin. Wouldn't Snape have thought Sirius was going to try to attack him or set him up? Certainly Sirius didn't say, "here's a way to get Lupin expelled," or "come find out what rulebreaking we're involved in." Sirius had to say something to tempt Snape to do it. What could have done that?

Again, I wasn't even addressing the reason Snape would have been trying to get the Marauders expelled by catching them at something so bad that it deserved that particular punishment. That is not germane to the discussion here. Not on my part, at least. *Whatever* the reason, I am saying that I happen to believe Sirius that that is exactly what Severus did. (Laura)

There isn't much point in wondering why Sirius would have perceived it that way, or wondering if he could possibly have perceived it incorrectly, if one already believes that Sirius saying it means that it is correct. After all, other than Sirius or Lupin's opinion about it, we have no other canon that Snape was trying to get them expelled all the time. We can choose to simply believe them, or we can question whether it's possible that it was only their belief, but not necessarily accurate.

I questioned it because their having an inaccurate perception about what Snape was doing would be so similar to Harry's probable notions about Snape, and his likely inaccurate perceptions of what Snape is doing.

That doesn't change the fact that he did or didn't - depending upon your position, and mine is that he did - do things or say things to those who had the power to expel Harry in order to get them to do so or that he did or didn't (did - LW) personally threaten Harry with the possibility.

Threats are quite different than active attempts to make something happen. Snape has threatened students with drinking a poisoned potion. He makes a lot of over-the-top threats that he never carries out. That seems to be his manner. Lots of kids catch on to this kind of thing pretty quickly and disregard those kinds of threats, although Harry and the Gryffindors seem to always believe that Snape will poison them, give them veritaserum, kill Trevor's toad, etc., even though no such thing has actually happened.

We can point to only one example where Snape clearly attempts to convince the authority in charge that Harry deserves expulsion (COS). In POA, I don't consider suggesting "suspension at least" tantamount to pursuing expulsion. Are you implying that there's nothing more that can be done besides suspension other than expulsion? And that saying "at least" is trying to convince Fudge to expel Harry? It's certainly not a very good attempt at convincing Fudge is it? Fudge barely pays any notice to the suspension possibility, much less makes the leap you feel Snape is pressing for to consider expulsion.

Snape does everything he can and takes particular pleasure in making Harry look and feel bad.

As far as I know, there is very little disagreement on this.

But insulting and critising Harry, and trying to make him feel bad is completely different from trying to get him expelled. Especially for Harry. Harry is not safe outside of Privet Drive and Hogwarts.

Dumbledore appears to consider the abuses Harry receives at the Dursley's to not be (although bad) on the same plane of importance as the degree of physical danger he would face outside of Privet Drive.

That's why it's important that Snape isn't trying to get Harry expelled. If Snape was actively year-to-year actually trying to get Harry expelled, we would have a big reason to question how much he truly wants Harry to be safe, or if he really wants Harry to be vulnerable to those wishing to kill him. After all, if Harry were expelled, he'd go back to Privet Drive year round, and the dangers of school away from Hogwarts. He wouldn't be getting the education he needs to ultimately face LV, either.

By the way, Snape has saved Harry's life once directly -- in PS/SS, but also in OOTP, when he sent the Order to rescue him.


Laura W - Nov 22, 2006 2:59 am (#817 of 2959)
T. Vrana wrote: "As for Harry pitying Snape. Snape would never pity Harry. Snape is too damaged and self-involved. Harry, however, may come to feel pity for Snape. It must really stink to be Snape. Can you imagine going through life as Snape? So when I say pity, I don't mean, poor Snape, he's had it rough and he would be a swell guy if only...I mean, wow, it must really be awful to be such a nasty, friendless, bullying git."

Yesterday morning I was thinking of what you wrote here as I listened to a radio interview with Dr. Wesley Wark, T. Wark is an associate professor in the Dept. of History at the University of Toronto, Canada. He is an expert on international intelligence and security issues. He was talking about how spies are portrayed in literature and movies, and what their lives are *really* like.

At one point he was telling the radio host about a real man who was a spy some years ago - I forget for which country - and who got caught. Wark said this was "a complex and tortured man, but that's the nature of the spy business."

I immediately thought of ... (no need to finish that sentence - wink)

Laura


Vulture - Nov 22, 2006 11:49 am (#818 of 2959)
Remember that it is not just that the Slytherin house is nasty, but as was stated by the sorting hat, they are sneaky, and will do everything they can to take care of good ol' number one first. That is how I see Slughorn. Not nasty, or evil, or even mean to others of lesser heritage, but he sure is sneaky. He also does things to advance himself. From the Slug Club to Aragogs funeral, in order to extract the venom, for free.

Snape is no different. He is a Slytherin. (Thom Matheson )

My take on Slytherin is a bit different _ I think that, when Slughorn is introduced, it reinforces the idea that Slytherin House doesn't have to be evil, but is given a strong push towards that because of the blood-purity thing and what I see as 'the curse of Salazar'.

It's all there in Harry's first meeting with Slughorn _ he sees that Slughorn is "pleasant enough in his way", but is shaky _ no more than that _ on the question of Muggle-borns.

And yet _ Slughorn's regard for Lily is heartfelt and genuine.

So _ "Snape is no different" ? _ as always, the jury is still out.

I think JKR has a lot of work to do to get Harry, and most readers, to think Snape is worthy of trust. And of course, Harry and most readers won't think that if they think Snape killed DD. (wynnleaf)

Well, Harry, yes _ but "most readers" ? _ if the video of JKR's appearance with King and Grisham is anything to go by, most readers are absolutely determined to believe that Snape will turn out to be a good guy in the end. When Salman Rushdie made the case that Snape must be good, there wasn't a dissenting voice in the house (except possibly JKR's !!).


wynnleaf - Nov 22, 2006 12:42 pm (#819 of 2959)
Well, Harry, yes _ but "most readers" ? _ if the video of JKR's appearance with King and Grisham is anything to go by, most readers are absolutely determined to believe that Snape will turn out to be a good guy in the end. When Salman Rushdie made the case that Snape must be good, there wasn't a dissenting voice in the house (except possibly JKR's !!).

I don't think that the strongest fans (and those that bought tickets to the Radio City Music Hall event were pretty strong fans) -- those who read the books over and over and over, pour through details, etc., are necessarily a good cross-section of the average reader of the books. JKR has to not only write for the fans who know all the details and are working out all the tiniest clues, but for the average reader who isn't reading in such depth.

Another thing is that adult readers seem a bit more likely to enjoy Snape's character and think he's on the good side. Most of the people I knew that went to the Radio City Music Hall event were adults. I'm not saying there weren't plenty of kids there, too -- but I had the impression that there was a greater percentage of adults than were representative of the overall readership. Just an impression, of course. It's not like anyone was out taking a poll.


TomProffitt - Nov 22, 2006 12:45 pm (#820 of 2959)
"Well, Harry, yes _ but "most readers" ? _ if the video of JKR's appearance with King and Grisham is anything to go by, most readers are absolutely determined to believe that Snape will turn out to be a good guy in the end. When Salman Rushdie made the case that Snape must be good, there wasn't a dissenting voice in the house (except possibly JKR's !!)." --- Vulture

Vulture & Laura W, "most" is a very inclusive word. It's one I hesitate to use without significant facts to back me up, especially when making generalizations. I imagine that Rowling's readers run a pretty wide range of opinions on Severus Snape. That's what makes her such a good writer, we can all see the potential for Severus to be either a good guy or a bad guy. Why don't y'all try using the word "many" instead of "most," I'm not inclined to agree with either of you on your use of "most" and you seem to be on opposite ends of the spectrum.


Laura W - Nov 22, 2006 3:53 pm (#821 of 2959)
Tom, you seem to be addressing a comment I made but have not quoted it, so I have no idea what specifically I said that you are referring to. Please specify. You have the right, of course, to skewer me as much as you want - as you have above -, but I'd at least like to know what I am being skewered for saying: the exact quote. Otherwise, it is impossible to defend myself (if I choose to).

If, by chance, you are referring to the quote at the beginning of Vulture's last post (818), it is not mine! I never wrote that, and am *highly offended* that you would criticize me so roundly without checking to see if you have the right person.

If, on the other hand, you are directing your comments at something I *did* say in one of my posts on this thread, I say again, tell me - and everyone else who is reading this - exactly what I said that necessitated your post above. Then we will all know.

Laura


TomProffitt - Nov 22, 2006 4:43 pm (#822 of 2959)
"Tom, you seem to be addressing a comment I made but have not quoted it ...." --- Laura W

Laura W,

I am in error, I apologize. Vulture was quoting wynnleaf. I did not verify that his quote was correct. When I scrolled up to see who he had been conversing with I made the mistake of thinking he was quoting from the previous poster which was you. There is no excuse, in my view, for me making such a mistake, particularly because it was laziness on my part which caused it. Please, forgive me.

Vulture & wynnleaf, Laura W characterized my previous post as "roundly criticizing" and "skewering." It was not my intention to come across that strongly.


wynnleaf - Nov 22, 2006 6:41 pm (#823 of 2959)
Tom,

That's okay, Tom. I knew you meant me instead of Laura, and didn't think you were skewering me at all. You're right -- using words like "most readers," can be a big generalization.

However, I don't think it's a generalization, or even incorrect, to say that most readers -- and we're talking literally millions of readers total, after all -- aren't scrutinizing the books as much as those who frequent fan discussion sites on the books.

Think of 10 million plus books sold of HBP. Consider that it is very likely that most of those books will be read by more than one person. Then think how many people the primary fan sites have on their lists of members -- people with logins. Remember that many strong fans will probably have multiple memberships on those sites. It's not too hard to start coming up with some sort of round (give or take a million - ) guess at the number of readers who would be giving the books the kind of in-depth analysis attempted by those of us on sites like the Lexicon forum, or HPforGrownups, or Mugglenet, the Leaky Cauldron and others.

I think it's fairly safe to say that even with millions of readers searching out all the clues of what's going on, or who just have a gut feeling Snape's on the good side, JKR has a huge readership that she'll need to assume didn't see all the clues and hints about Snape being on the good side, or are convinced that regardless of the clues, he's just too mean and nasty to be believably on the good side.


TomProffitt - Nov 22, 2006 6:56 pm (#824 of 2959)
wynnleaf,

Severus is such a complex character it's hard to quantify him as either "good" or "evil."

I'm of the opinion that "most" people who have a strong opinion about Severus made up their minds in PS/SS and aren't interested in being confused with the facts. I see enough of that on The Forum (in regards to many topics) that I don't think Forum users are significantly different.

My objection to the "most" statement has less to do with its accuracy than that it's a silly thing to be arguing about. Being of the majority opinion isn't a guarantee of being right anyway. Of course, now I'm starting to think I misunderstood exactly what you and Vulture were arguing about. (EDIT: part of the reason I'm confused is my original post (the one in which I misattributed remarks to Laura W) crossposted with wynnleaf. Which I just now realized.)


Saracene - Nov 23, 2006 2:05 am (#825 of 2959)
I'd really really love to know what the majority of people who had read HP books - everyone from obsessive fans to casual readers - think about Snape and his allegiances.

I agree that the fans who hang around internet forums analysing and discussing the books in-depth aren't the best representatives of the general readership because, like with any fandom, they constitute a small minority. Speaking from personal experience, my younger sister who's a HP fan but doesn't care much for analysis said immediately after reading the book that she didn't think Snape was really evil.


Mrs Brisbee - Nov 23, 2006 5:07 am (#826 of 2959)
My husband, who I'd characterize as a casual fan who doesn't analyze, also had the immediate reaction that Snape was not evil, he and Dumbledore had some plot together, and Dumbledore's death was faked. I too would like to know how widespread that opinion is.


wynnleaf - Nov 23, 2006 5:43 am (#827 of 2959)
My husband thought that Snape was evil. Now he's willing to at least entertain the notion that Snape may be on the good side, but still thinks he's evil and will certainly be one that takes some convincing by JKR if Snape is on the good side and to be trusted.

My kids (the 4 that read HBP), were split, with my older daughters thinking he was on the good side still and thought that DD ordered him to kill him. My son (13 at the time) originally thought Snape must be evil, but later changed his mind after talking to me and his older sisters. My son talked about it once or twice with his friends, many of whom assumed Snape was evil and had murdered DD, but were interested in my sons ideas about why that might not be the case. My 10 year old daughter thought Snape had murdered DD, too, and must be on LV's side, but then later listened to her older sisters and started to change her mind. The younger kids haven't had the book read to them yet.

My four kids who read it don't appear to have discussed it much with friends, although we've talked about it a lot in the family. They all love HP, but only occasionally talk with friends about the series. From what I can tell, their friends (who seem to have all read the series), don't talk about it much or try to analyze much of it, so first impressions may be more likely to be their long-term impressions. I'll have to ask the kids if they know what their friends think of Snape.


Vulture - Nov 23, 2006 5:58 am (#828 of 2959)
Hi, Folks: First _ apologies to Laura, because I sort of unintentionally provoked Tom's mistake by interrupting the discussion ye were all having with a thought of my own about earlier stuff: my only excuse is that I'm on limited login time and am frantically running to keep up.

By the way, Tom, I'm not offended: I realise that "most" is a bit of a generalisation _ I was really just indulging in my own personal hunch. It surprises me that some of ye think there are loads of people out there who believe Snape is definitely on Voldemort's side.

The reason I say that is what I call the "Agatha Christie principle" of writing _ i.e. in most of her books, if a guy was found beside a corpse, holding a blood-dripping knife and shouting "I'm glad I killed the !!££*&&&*!!", it was a pretty sure bet that he wouldn't turn out to be guilty. Ever since her (and possibly before), in both films and books which involve any sort of mystery, modern audiences have a tendency to distrust the obvious _ at least in fiction.

I've seen a lot of arguments about Snape in here, from all sorts of angles, which rake over (a) his teaching style, (b) his childhood and schooldays, (c) his Order role, (d) Dumbledore's trust in him, and many, many other topics. Yet, I have seen not one post which suggests that the events in "The Lightning-Struck Tower" are exactly as they seem _ i.e. exactly as Harry now believes them to be. Yes, I accept Wynnleaf's point that all of us Lexicon veterans are hardened nit-pickers, but I still think that the absence of even one such post is significant.

(Mind you, I have to rush so much that there may be one I've missed.)

P.S. I wrote this before I saw Wynnleaf's post about her husband !!

P.P.S. I went into this before, long ago, but my own hunch is that, whatever side Snape is on, he may have not intended to kill Dumbledore and hoped to avoid the consequences of the Vow. He may have hoped that (a) Dumbledore, of all wizards, had the power to dismantle the Vow, and (b) failing that, that he could avoid it by avoiding knowledge of any situation leading to its fulfilment. But in the final analysis, he either would not or could not make the moral choice to break the Vow.

This scenario explains two things for me: (a) he "pushed Malfoy roughly out of the way", and (b) he struck Flitwick but didn't kill him.

Point (a) I can't defend with evidence _ it's just a feeling I have of Snape's frustration and exasperation at being trapped.

Point (b), however _ if he wasn't going to kill Flitwick, why strike him at all ? It achieves no object for any of Snape's possible allegiances. Whoever he's truly working for, it would have made more sense to let Flitwick guide him to the spot. My feeling is that what Flitwick came to tell Snape is exactly what Snape didn't want to be told _ and that he lashed out in fury and exasperation.


wynnleaf - Nov 23, 2006 8:07 am (#829 of 2959)
however _ if he wasn't going to kill Flitwick, why strike him at all ? (Vulture)

Remember that it is only Harry's and Hermione's assumption that Flitwick did not actually collapse, but was stunned by Snape.

Following their assumption in the hospital wing, we never get to hear from Flitwick, nor are given any indication that anyone got Flitwick's explanation of events. However, it is interesting that in later chapters, the narration continues to refer to Flitwick's "collapse" rather than his being stunned.

Hermione was quite willing to believe, as long as she thought Snape loyal, that Flitwick had truly collapsed in the room. It was only after thinking Snape a traitor that she assumed Flitwick had been stunned. Yet it's interesting that readers in general (even the ones who thoroughly believe in Snape's loyalty), assume Snape must have stunned him.

I wouldn't be surprised if in book 7, one of the first tiny clues Harry gets that events were not as he assumed, will be some comment or another that reveals that Flitwick really did simply collapse, and was not stunned at all.

I'm of the opinion that "most" people who have a strong opinion about Severus made up their minds in PS/SS and aren't interested in being confused with the facts. (Tom Proffitt)

That wasn't true of me. I had a pretty bad opinion of Snape in PS/SS. I enjoyed his comments to Lockhart in COS, but still thought he was a pretty nasty guy. In POA, I was completely convinced he was just holding onto a petty grudge and wanted to kill Sirius just because he hated him. I didn't start a major shift in my opinion until GOF in the pensieve scenes and when Snape showed Fudge the Dark Mark.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 23, 2006 5:11 pm (#830 of 2959)
I think it's possible Flitwick actually collapsed and Snape did not stun him. Flitwick seemed to squeak and fall over once or twice previously in the books, if I recall correctly. I see him as being an extremely nervous type. Why couldn't he have collapsed?


Saracene - Nov 24, 2006 12:28 am (#831 of 2959)
Well, personally I'd be somewhat annoyed if we found out that Flitwick really did collapse in Snape's office. No matter how excitable he might be as a person, it's just a bit unbelievable to me that he'd collapse like some corset-wearing Victorian maiden the minute there was an attack on Hogwarts.

I've no real idea on why Snape stunned Flitwick, but what if he did it because he was aware of Hermione and Luna hanging around his office and this was a quick way of making sure they didn't follow him?

Vulture:

---Yet, I have seen not one post which suggests that the events in "The Lightning-Struck Tower" are exactly as they seem _ i.e. exactly as Harry now believes them to be. Yes, I accept Wynnleaf's point that all of us Lexicon veterans are hardened nit-pickers, but I still think that the absence of even one such post is significant.---

Maybe, but I find that this Snape thread on Lexicon is an exception rather than a rule. At all the other HP sites, there're plenty of HP nitpickers who believe that Snape is either as evil as they come or that he was on the good side but then betrayed DD anyway.

And even here, I do remember a few posters from waaaay back who did think that the events at the tower were exactly as Harry believes them to be.


Laura W - Nov 24, 2006 5:35 am (#832 of 2959)
"Laura W, I am in error, I apologize. Vulture was quoting wynnleaf. I did not verify that his quote was correct. When I scrolled up to see who he had been conversing with I made the mistake of thinking he was quoting from the previous poster which was you. There is no excuse, in my view, for me making such a mistake, particularly because it was laziness on my part which caused it. Please, forgive me." (TomProffitt)

I accept your sincere apology, Tom. Thanks.

Laura


Mrs Brisbee - Nov 24, 2006 5:59 am (#833 of 2959)
Well, personally I'd be somewhat annoyed if we found out that Flitwick really did collapse in Snape's office. No matter how excitable he might be as a person, it's just a bit unbelievable to me that he'd collapse like some corset-wearing Victorian maiden the minute there was an attack on Hogwarts.-- Saracene

I agree, that would be just lame. Plus, Rowling had plenty of opportunity to set the record straight at the end of HBP. Flitwick was up and about, and well able to tell his side of the tale. Since he did not, the conclusion stands that Snape Stunned him.

There are indeed plenty of good reasons to get Flitwick out of the way. It prevents him from fetching more help-- like Hagrid, the other teachers, or Aurors. And it keeps Flitwick from accompanying Snape back upstairs and directing his actions.


wynnleaf - Nov 24, 2006 6:24 am (#834 of 2959)
Well, personally I'd be somewhat annoyed if we found out that Flitwick really did collapse in Snape's office. No matter how excitable he might be as a person, it's just a bit unbelievable to me that he'd collapse like some corset-wearing Victorian maiden the minute there was an attack on Hogwarts.-- Saracene

I agree, that would be just lame. Plus, Rowling had plenty of opportunity to set the record straight at the end of HBP. Flitwick was up and about, and well able to tell his side of the tale. Since he did not, the conclusion stands that Snape Stunned him. (Mrs Brisbee)

Hm, I don't get why it would be lame.

"I was so stupid, Harry!" said Hermione in a high-pitched whisper. "He said Professor Flitwick had collapsed and that we should go and take care of him while he -- while he went to help fight the Death Eaters -- " She covered her face in shame and continued to talk into her fingers, so that her voice was muffled. "We went into his office to see if we could help Professor Flitwick and found him unconscious on the floor... and oh, it's so obvious now, Snape must have Stupefied Flitwick, but we didn't realize, Harry we didn't realize, we just let Snape go!"

"It's not your fault," said Lupin firmly. "Hermione, had you not obeyed Snape and got out of the way, he probably would have killed you and Luna."

Hermione and Luna believed Snape that Flitwick had collapsed as long as they believed Snape was loyal. It was only when they heard he'd killed DD that Hermione concluded that Snape stupified Flitwick. The only reason everyone thinks that's so plausible is because they're seeing Flitwick's collapse from the perspective of "Snape's a murderer and a traitor." It is only within that context that they believe Snape stunned Flitwick.

Why should we assume that a notion born completely out of the assumption that Snape is a traitor is correct?

Further, as regards JKR having " plenty of opportunity to set the record straight at the end of HBP," that would be completely counterproductive. JKR wouldn't want to "set the record straight" in HBP. She could have set the record straight about Snape's loyalty (if he's loyal to DD), or set the record straight about RAB, or set the record straight about any number of other mysteries left to us at the end of HBP. That's the whole point -- to leave us with a lot of mysteries and misconceptions and reveal the truth in the "second half" -- in book 7.

Later in the Phoenix Lament chapter it says,

"We must consult the governors," said Professor Flitwick in his squeaky little voice; he had a large bruise on his forehead but seemed otherwise unscathed by his collapse in Snape's office.

Interesting that the narration does not say "by his being stupified in Snape's office," or "unscathed from being stunned." The narration is continuing to refer to it as his collapse.

Besides, why would Snape stun Flitwick? He was about to do (in Flitwick's eyes) exactly what Flitwick wanted and expected -- he was going to go directly to where the fighting was and then try to go up the tower. So it's not like Snape was about to do something that Flitwick shouldn't see. And moments later, Snape saw no need to stun anyone else, did he? No attempts on any other staff, Order members, or students. As for the one person that even a loyal Snape might have had a reason to stun -- to stun Harry so he'd stop pursuing him -- he doesn't even attempt to stun Harry.

So why should we have any reason to think he'd stun Flitwick?

The only reason to think he'd stun Flitwick is if Snape is a traitor. That's why Hermione assumed he'd done it, and why Lupin agreed with her. If he's not a traitor, there's no reason to think he stupified Flitwick.

And Saracene, I agree that on other HP sites, like Mugglenet and Leaky Cauldron, I don't see nearly the level of belief in Snape's loyalty as there is here on the Forum. And in the first few months after HBP's release, there were many on the Forum that were completely convinced of his treachery. HPforadults, the yahoo group that I read and very, very occasionally post on, has a number of strong loyal-Snape supporters, but also a large contingent of Snape-is-a-traitor or Snape-is-evil-and-out-for-himself (supports whichever side wins) readers, too.


Mrs Brisbee - Nov 24, 2006 6:46 am (#835 of 2959)
Further, as regards JKR having " plenty of opportunity to set the record straight at the end of HBP," that would be completely counterproductive. JKR wouldn't want to "set the record straight" in HBP. She could have set the record straight about Snape's loyalty (if he's loyal to DD), or set the record straight about RAB, or set the record straight about any number of other mysteries left to us at the end of HBP. That's the whole point -- to leave us with a lot of mysteries and misconceptions and reveal the truth in the "second half" -- in book 7. --wynnleaf

Neither Snape nor Dumbledore was available at the end of HBP to set the record straight. RAB was not there at the end of HBP to set the record straight. Flitwick was there at the end of HBP to set the record straight. His being Stunned by Snape was an important element to the presumption of what occured. This is a matter that Flitwick, McGonagall, Lupin-- everyone!-- will have had an express interest in, and attempt to verify or refute immediately. So I'll stick with my opinion that it will be lame if Rowling tells us in book 7 that it was otherwise.

Besides, why would Snape stun Flitwick?

Saracene and I gave several good reasons that Snape would do such a thing. Keep people out of the way, prevent him from fetching more help, prevent him from returning to the battle.


wynnleaf - Nov 24, 2006 7:07 am (#836 of 2959)
Saracene and I gave several good reasons that Snape would do such a thing. Keep people out of the way, prevent him from fetching more help, prevent him from returning to the battle.

Snape didn't feel the need to keep anyone else out of the way -- I mean he didn't try stunning any of the Order members, staff or students in the castle. "Prevent him from fetching more help..." why would he need to prevent Flitwick from getting more help? For all Snape knew, any number of staff, Order members or students could currently be fetching help from around the castle. "Returning to the battle." Why would Snape not want Flitwick to return to the battle -- that is if Snape is loyal? Flitwick could help out, after all. And if Snape was loyal, he wouldn't want fewer people helping to fight the DE's would he?

Snape had no reason to think Order members, staff or students would be attacking him so he didn't need fewer people around to protect himself. The only reason for fewer people, less help, etc., would be if he was disloyal and didn't want people fighting the DE's.


Mrs Brisbee - Nov 24, 2006 7:29 am (#837 of 2959)
Right, I agree that if Snape Stunned Flitwick, it endangered the Order, the students and teachers, Hogwarts, and the Wizarding World in general. Therefore, it is evidence of Traitorous Snape.


rambkowalczyk - Nov 24, 2006 7:29 am (#838 of 2959)
In COS, Flitwick was considered an expert in dueling, so that his skills might rival that of Snape's. But I think it had more to do with keeping Hermione out of harm's way.


Vulture - Nov 24, 2006 7:38 am (#839 of 2959)
I'm on about 60 seconds here, so excuse my hurry. I start from the belief that Flitwick was stunned by Snape (I'll expand on why some other time). Accepting that, I go from there to believing that there was no real rational reason for Snape to do so, whichever side he was on. Therefore I believe it was out of frustration and fury _ because of the Vow.

But please note _ this applies regardless of what side Snape turns out to be on.


Thom Matheson - Nov 24, 2006 8:12 am (#840 of 2959)
Well this could go both ways couldn't it. I believe that Rowling left this out to create the ambiguity of the conformation of Snape's guilt towards the Order. Both sides of the issue have valid points that could be argued favorably.

Wynnleaf, a have to agree that without a statement from Flitwick at he meeting of heads it is tough for us to believe that Snape is innocent. The fact that he has taken part in the disolution of the school year and funeral answers suggests that everyone in the room at the time felt that Dumbledore died at the hands of Severus. There was no contradiction by anyone. Without help from Rowling, which I believe, won't come, this will have to remain a mute point.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 841 to 870

Post  Mona Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:09 pm

wynnleaf - Nov 24, 2006 10:45 am (#841 of 2959)
First, I should have been more clear in my last answer. There could be reasons for why a loyal Snape would have stunned Flitwick. However, they aren't the sort of reasons to make us believe -- if we hadn't had Hermione's assumption -- that Flitwick's collapse in Snape's office simply must mean Snape stunned him.

The problem, is that we have no reason to think a loyal Snape did it in the first place. We have absolutely no evidence to contradict Snape's statement to Hermione and Luna that Flitwick collapsed.

So what I don't understand is why readers who think Snape is loyal just assume that he lied to Hermione and Luna and assume that Hermione's assumption that he stunned Flitwick is correct. Hermione did not think Snape was lying at first. She only thought he was lying after she thought he was a triator. So why should we (if we don't think Snape a traitor) agree that he was lying?

If you don't think he's a traitor (as many readers do not), why do you think he must have stunned Flitwick? That's not the same as saying you think there could possibly be reasons for him to do it, if indeed he did do it. The question is, why do you think Flitwick was stunned? Based on what evidence? Hermione's assumption is no evidence at all -- it's just her assumption.

In the scene in DD's office, with Flitwick present, no one is discussing the events of the fighting, Flitwick going to get Snape, etc. In fact, there's no point where anyone even says, "hey, Professor Flitwick, hope you're feeling okay," or anything that would lend an opportunity for Flitwick to even be aware that anyone thinks he was stupified. Everyone from the hospital wing assumed he'd been stunned. Flitwick, as far as we know, has no knowledge of the fact that those people think he was stunned. So there's just no reason for anyone to ask "Professor, did Snape stun you?" because they already assume he did. And there's no opportunity to Flitwick to deny it, because no one's mentioning it to him.

Thing is, it's so unimportant to the characters who already believe this (they assume he was stunned and so don't bother to ask), that it wouldn't come to light if Flitwick had said to some other character -- perhaps to Pomfrey -- "that was some crack on the head I got when I fell" or whatever. Pomfrey wouldn't bother to say to Harry, "remember when you thought Flitwick had been stunned? It turns out he wasn't," even assuming she knows Harry thinks this. She wouldn't probably go out of her way to tell Harry, or anyone else, because Snape not stunning Flitwick doesn't really appear to bear (for the characters) on the fact that Snape is now considered to be a traitor and murderer.

But, for the readers, it would be a perfect tiny clue early in Book 7 if Harry was talking to someone, for instance Hermione, and she mentioned that Flitwick thanked her for helping him out after he collapsed, so Snape must not have stunned him. And Harry (and the reader) gets a first little hint that all those assumptions he made that night may actually unravel.


Mrs Brisbee - Nov 24, 2006 12:36 pm (#842 of 2959)
It just strikes me as violating The Rules Of Fair Play for Rowling to use such an easily verifiable event to trick the readers. Now, if Flitwick was lying around in the hospital wing in a coma from hitting his head and so couldn't confirm or deny the assumption that he was Stunned, then I'd say fair play. But to lead us to the conclusion that Flitwick was Stunned, when Flitwick is around and could easily dispel any incorrect conclusion, then it's just a silly and unnecessary trick.


TomProffitt - Nov 24, 2006 2:38 pm (#843 of 2959)
I think people are missing the boat on this is Snape good or evil business.

Rowling has one completely evil character, Tom Riddle. She has one completely good character, Dumbledore. Everyone else is somewhere between.

We might want to conclude that everyone in the D.A. was good, but how come some so few were available for the fight on 7th floor? We might want to conclude that all members of the inquisitorial squad are evil, but Draco couldn't murder & involved only Crabbe & Goyle in his task. Why doesn't Narcissa have a greater role among the Death Eaters?

The simple answer is that each of Rowling's characters have different goals and motivations.

I believe that Severus is playing both sides against the middle. His hand has finally been forced. I find it patently obvious that he has not been working for Dumbledore for altruistic reasons. I think that Severus is a Peter Pettigrew with the brains to avoid being trapped on one side or the other. I do not like Severus. I would never refer to him as a "good person." I believe that it is still possible he is working for the "good side."

When we try to pin characters down as one or the other we are missing Rowling's brilliant character design. Think of Mr. Ollivander, he's a man clearly in awe of "The Dark Lord" and a man who seems just as clearly sorry "The Dark Lord" ever existed. Just how willing was Ollivander to be led away by the Death Eaters? I'm reluctant to describe the Olivander as either good or evil, so why should we force Snape into one role or the other?


Thom Matheson - Nov 24, 2006 8:29 pm (#844 of 2959)
Though I can much more agree with your assessment TomProffitt, there are other things to my interpretation of the read that concern me. Wynnleaf, the same goes with your assessment.

As I have said, a lot, in the past, Snape to me is the perfect definition of a Slytherin. Cunning, clever, and as you said Tom, very able to play two ends against the middle, for his own good. Your description of Wormtail with brains is pretty good. That being said, in regard to the stunning, I read it as he did do the deed. I just read the part in the headmaster's office as something that was already discussed and nothing more was to be said.

Wynnleaf, the whole discussion with the heads had to do with Minerva wanting to close the school. Why? Because the headmaster had been murdered by one of the staff. She says something about Dumbledore was ready to close the school over the Chamber of Secrets, but a murder by a fellow teacher was certainly bigger then that. That and the Death Eaters gaining entry into the school. If Flitwick wasn't attacked by Snape, I am sure that he would have had dialogue at that point regarding Snape's guilt or not. The lack of conversation about it from Flitwick points to Snape's guilt rather then not guilty. Anyway that is how I read it. Granted I have nothing but the feeling any more then any one can point to not guilty for the same reason, but the context of the conversation lead by Minerva tells me more.


TomProffitt - Nov 24, 2006 8:48 pm (#845 of 2959)
" ...in regard to the stunning, I read it as he did do the deed." --- Thom Matheson

I agree. Snape would stun Flitwick whether he's on the good side or the bad.

First, he really doesn't care if he causes Flitwick pain and suffering, he's working to complete a plan.

If Snape is "good" and will need to appear to be "evil" he can't do nothing to Flitwick.

If Snape is playing two sides he cannot afford to kill Flitwick and burn all of his bridges behind him, but nor can he allow Flitwick to continue on to fight the Death Eaters.

If Snape is "evil" we are forced to conclude that Snape is not a wanton killer like some of the other Death Eaters. He'll kill when necessary and choose not to kill if he doesn't have to.

Lastly, Snape must have stunned Flitwick, because why would Flitwick have collapsed if Snape didn't do anything?


wynnleaf - Nov 24, 2006 9:00 pm (#846 of 2959)
If Flitwick wasn't attacked by Snape, I am sure that he would have had dialogue at that point regarding Snape's guilt or not. The lack of conversation about it from Flitwick points to Snape's guilt rather then not guilty. (Thom)

Why would Flitwick have had a dialogue to tell the rest that Snape didn't really stun him, when he probably has no idea that any of them assume Snape stunned him? Why should anyone have told him, "Professor Flitwick, you were stunned by Snape?" They wouldn't tell him, because they assume he was stunned and therefore already knows he was stunned.

But if he wasn't stunned, he has no reason to bring it up because he has no idea they think he was stunned.

Snape would stun Flitwick whether he's on the good side or the bad. (Tom)

But you didn't give any reasons for why a loyal Snape would need to stun Flitwick. This reason: If Snape is "good" and will need to appear to be "evil" he can't do nothing to Flitwick. (Tom) doesn't work, because if Snape has to stun Flitwick in order to pretend to be a loyal DE (when nobody else was even in the room), then why didn't he "need" to stun anyone else?


TomProffitt - Nov 24, 2006 9:26 pm (#847 of 2959)
" ... then why didn't he "need" to stun anyone else?" --- wynnleaf

(Working from memory) When Flitwick arrived in Snape's office and told him Things were happening Snape knew what those Things were. Whatever side Snape is on he has enough information to conclude what is happening even if he doesn't have all of the information.

If Snape is "good" he is intending to appear to join the Death Eaters. This must be the pre-arranged plan with Dumbledore otherwise there is no reason for the AK on the top of the tower much less stunning Flitwick. Because of the reaction of the faculty it appears that no one else was in on this plan, the staff seems to concur that Snape "has gone bad."

Back to Snape's office. Snape knows that Flitwick is not in on the plan. Snape knows that Flitwick's next task could be to join with the order in the battle. Snape cannot allow Flitwick to join the battle. There are only three ways to keep Flitwick from the fight, misdirect him (give him a "useless task"), stun him (I suppose he could hit with a chair instead), and kill him.

I imagine the Death Eaters would have been unhappy with Snape if he had let a prior dueling champion into the battle when he had a chance to "take him out" earlier. So, Snape has no choice. Knock him out or weaken his credibility with the Death Eaters. Remember at this point Snape doesn't know if things are going to go to plan or not, this is not a time to take chances.

I can't think of any scenario in which "not stunning Flitwick" makes sense. I've assumed that was the case from the first read and haven't seen a reason to change my mind since.

Second part. I just proof read and realized I didn't answer the question.

He didn't need to stun Hermione & Luna (those are the right two?) he could distract them and be unconcerned whether or not they would join the battle. Also they had taken some of the Felix so it magically wouldn't occur to Snape to stun them.

He didn't need to stun anyone on the battle on the landing, the Order was apparently neutralized and the important task was on the Tower. Stunning there might have kept him from getting to Dumbledore, because he would have to stop and fight.

Following the AK on the tower he stuns no one, because he is taking advantage of the fact that both Order and Death Eaters think that he is one of them. It is only Harry he refuses to attack, and that does seem odd.

All in all, a very confusing scene. Sorry to run the post so long.


Steve Newton - Nov 24, 2006 9:39 pm (#848 of 2959)
A slight correction. I don't believe that Luna had any of the Felix.


Gina R Snape - Nov 24, 2006 9:44 pm (#849 of 2959)
:jumps in:

No, but Luna would benefit from the others' who had taken the felix as any one of the kids alongside them would be part of the good luck scheme. It's questionable whether Harry would benefit as he was with Dumbledore. Nonetheless, Snape's attention would have been diverted from the kids because of the Felix and also because he was following Dumbledore's a plan.

I think Tom laid out a very clear and reasonable explanation of this topic.

So, I was thinking today, what if the hooked nose man in the OOTP pensieve scene wasn't Tobias Snape but Grandpa Prince? What if he were yelling at Eileen for her choice of a muggle husband? I imagine if they were a "proud" pureblood family that she'd get an earful on a regular basis unless they cut off all ties, or if Eileen took young Severus and moved back in with her parents.


Saracene - Nov 24, 2006 10:19 pm (#850 of 2959)
wynnleaf:

---So what I don't understand is why readers who think Snape is loyal just assume that he lied to Hermione and Luna and assume that Hermione's assumption that he stunned Flitwick is correct. Hermione did not think Snape was lying at first. She only thought he was lying after she thought he was a triator. So why should we (if we don't think Snape a traitor) agree that he was lying?---

Thing is, as a reader of the story rather than a character in the story I look at the situation from a totally different perspective to Hermione. Because she is a character in the story, Hermione doesn't look at what's happening from the point of view of, "does this make bad writing" or "is it a bit too convenient that Professor Flitwick would collapse at the moment he did".

Whereas I do look at it from that perspective. And to me, Flitwick collapsing just like that in Snape's office seems lame and awfully contrived writing. I'd find it a bit more likely if it was indicated earlier on that Flitwick had a history of passing out or that he was a fragile sort of person, but I can remember no such things.


Thom Matheson - Nov 25, 2006 6:11 am (#851 of 2959)
Wynnleaf, You are correct that I have no written proof. Then again neither side to this topic has either. My thinking is that once the heads are together, Flitwick certainly knows what Harry has said regarding Snape by now. He is the only one in the room who could come to Severius' aid, but didn't. I take that to mean guilt.


wynnleaf - Nov 25, 2006 6:19 am (#852 of 2959)
Tom,

No DE's were ever going to know that Flitwick came down to get Snape, so they wouldn't have a chance to judge why Snape might allow Flitwick to return to the fighting. Other than that reason, there's no other reason why Snape would need to prevent only Flitwick, Hermione and Luna from joining the fight, yet didn't attempt to take anyone else out of the fight. There's no reason Flitwick shouldn't be in the fight, while it's okay for McGonagall, Order members, and the other students to stay in.

At the time Snape supposedly stunned Flitwick, he has no indication that anyone, but Order members know that Flitwick is sent to get him. Why would Order members need to find out that Snape stunned Flitwick?

Why would JKR need Snape to stun a faculty member? Who does she need to convince with this event? She already has the AK of DD to convince all the good guys that Snape is a traitor. The bad guys don't even know that Snape supposedly stunned Flitwick. There is no purpose to stunning Flitwick from a literary point of view. Why did she have this incident occur?

And to me, Flitwick collapsing just like that in Snape's office seems lame and awfully contrived writing. I'd find it a bit more likely if it was indicated earlier on that Flitwick had a history of passing out or that he was a fragile sort of person, but I can remember no such things. (Saracene)

Saracene, I really think this is the best objection to a theory that Snape didn't stun Flitwick -- the possibility that it would otherwise seem contrived for Flitwick to have collapsed in the office. But why does JKR have the supposed stunning take place at all? What is the point? How does it further the plot?

If she had Flitwick come down and alert Snape without the collapse, then she could still have had Snape race to the tower, and simply have had Flitwick, Hermione and Luna make it through fighting unscathed. Nothing would be changed. All the good guys would still think Snape a traitor, the bad guys would still have seen Snape AK DD and exit the castle with Snape, and everyone would still have ended up in the hospital wing reviewing the proof that Snape was evil and DD was dead.

So why did JKR have this occur?

However, it has a purpose, if she will eventually show that it didn't occur at all. Because it can be the start of showing that what everyone assumed occurred that night, didn't really happen exactly as they thought.

My thinking is that once the heads are together, Flitwick certainly knows what Harry has said regarding Snape by now. He is the only one in the room who could come to Severius' aid, but didn't. I take that to mean guilt. (Thom Matheson)

I don't see that Flitwick would have any reason to doubt that Harry was correct in telling everyone that Snape AK'd DD. Why would his collapse in Snape's office convince him that Snape was innocent??

Last, why, if Flitwick was really stunned, does the narration continue to call it his "collapse?"


haymoni - Nov 25, 2006 6:29 am (#853 of 2959)
The guy fell off a stack of books just reading Harry's name - I don't think it is too far-fetched to think that he collapsed on his own after running to tell Snape that something was going on.


Thom Matheson - Nov 25, 2006 6:47 am (#854 of 2959)
The other thought I had is that Snape needed a witness to the coming event. He didn't know that Harry would be on the tower as an eye witness. Flitwick make the foil plausible. Of course I must bite my lip with this thought as I have thought that Snape is the dark sided kind of guy, and thus lend credence to the Dumbledore-Snape plot but there you go.


TomProffitt - Nov 25, 2006 6:47 am (#855 of 2959)
wynnleaf,

I think we're just viewing what Snape needs to do tactically from different perspectives.

The first question is what does Snape think Flitwick will do if he is not stunned? The second question is how will that affect the plan?

Presuming that Snape is working for the good guys (which I am far from convinced is the case) I don't think that anyone else knows the plan. This seems odd to me for so many people to be in the dark on Dumbledore's plans, but that seems to be the way Dumbledore worked.

When it comes to Snape stunning other characters he is in a different tactical situation.

For me the difficulty with the whole scene is that Snape does not seem to be making the best choices from any perspective, good, evil, or playing two ends against the middle. This makes me think that everyone's plans, Dumbledore's, Malfoy's, the Death Eaters (who seem to have a different agenda from Draco), the D.A.'s, and Snape's all seem to have gone wrong. I think that there are at least four or five plans of action all messing with each other in this scene.

wynnleaf, I don't think we're going to come to agreement on the issue, but I don't think it's a significant difference. Jo's plot will work no matter which of us is correct. And no matter which is correct I don't believe we can draw any significant conclusions from it.


rambkowalczyk - Nov 25, 2006 10:42 am (#856 of 2959)
wynnleaf, isn't it possible that if Snape Stunned Flitwick it was because he did NOT want Hermione and Luna to follow him. I'm sure at some point he knew that they were lurking around his office and based on past experience he knew he might be followed.

Whether Flitwick was Stunned or not may never be told to us. If he fainted, it's possible he doesn't remember what happened before he fainted. And if Snape used a nonverbal spell to Stun him Flitwick may have no proof as to what Snape did.


Solitaire - Nov 25, 2006 10:49 am (#857 of 2959)
I think that there are at least four or five plans of action all messing with each other in this scene.

And I think this sounds like one of the best explanations I've heard for what happened that fateful night.


Gina R Snape - Nov 25, 2006 1:00 pm (#858 of 2959)
I can think of at least 6 simultaneous plans in action that night:

1. Dumbledore (with or without Snape)
2. The DA kids
3. The DEs on their own
4. Draco's plans involving the DEs
5. The Hogwarts staff
6. Snape's plans and the probable integration of multiple orders underneath his own agenda


wynnleaf - Nov 25, 2006 1:05 pm (#859 of 2959)
The first question is what does Snape think Flitwick will do if he is not stunned? (Tom Proffitt)

This seems to assume that Snape's default response to anyone coming to alert him that night would be to stun them. Can't see why he'd need to do that. If he wants everyone to think he's a traitor later, AKing DD will certainly do the trick.

wynnleaf, isn't it possible that if Snape Stunned Flitwick it was because he did NOT want Hermione and Luna to follow him. (rambkowalczyk )

If Snape did stun Flitwick, there are any number of reasons why he could have done so. But since Snape said he collapsed, and we already know that Flitwick was "ancient" (POA), given to strong emotion, had fallen off books, etc., it isn't all that surprising that he collapsed from another reason. What I don't understand is why the automatic assumption of readers who think Snape is loyal is that he must have stunned Flitwick.

As for not wanting Hermione and Luna to follow him -- Snape didn't know they were there until he came out of the room, so it couldn't be a reason to stun Flitwick.

It's a little amazing that if Snape is on the good side he'd stun a wizard that is apparently so old. But maybe Flitwick is pretty hardy.

I have wondered that if Snape did stun Flitwick, perhaps he did it because he expected Harry to be the one running through the door and was prepared to immediately stun Harry in order to keep him from returning to DD. DD had, after all, attempted to send Harry to Snape twice, and it seems to me that it's likely that Snape was expecting Harry to arrive at some point. I thought that DD had been trying to get Harry out of the way when he tried to send him to Snape. A patronus, after all, would have been a much faster way to send a message to Snape, as well as being possibly safer than sending Harry, especially after DD knew that DE's were in the castle.

Still, I am curious as to why others think JKR included this supposed stunning of Flitwick, since she had no need of it to establish Snape's "guilt" in the eyes of the characters or readers.

Further, I am curious as to why others think the narration continues to say Flitwick's "collapse" rather than his being stunned.

As for whether or not we'll learn the truth -- if Flitwick was not stunned, then JKR probably put this in specifically so that she can use it to start unraveling the truth of that evening's events in the next book. So if Flitwick didn't really get stunned, I feel certain we will learn about it later.

Gina,

You're right. Many plots and plans going on -- and we don't know them all yet! I've begun to suspect that what Snape felt DD took "for granted" was that he (DD) would be able to predict and plan for how all of the events that night would fall out.


TomProffitt - Nov 25, 2006 1:56 pm (#860 of 2959)
"You're right. Many plots and plans going on -- and we don't know them all yet! I've begun to suspect that what Snape felt DD took "for granted" was that he (DD) would be able to predict and plan for how all of the events that night would fall out." --- wynnleaf

wynnleaf & Gina, I can think of a few more going on, for example Harry (he has his own because he doesn't know Dumbledore's) & The Order because they don't seem to know Dumbledore's full plan.

I read an Anne McCaffrey book a while back in which her characters had come up with an amazingly complex and detailed plan. There was room for things to go wrong everywhere. When they set off to complete the plan I remember thinking, "This is going to be good." Then the plan went off with hardly a hiccup to it at all. I've never been more disappointed in a book in my life.

That has not happened to Rowling. I think in that scene that not only were there a half dozen plans, all of them went horribly wrong. I doubt we'll ever fully understand what happened, much less what was supposed to happen. There was just too much happening and supposed to be happening for Jo to explain all of it to us.


Gina R Snape - Nov 25, 2006 2:01 pm (#861 of 2959)
I did not include Harry because he had no plan as far as I can see. He was with DD and was following along, not knowing what would come next. Then he was stunned frozen.

I considered the Hogwarts staff members the same as the Order members. But yes, there might have been a separation there.


TomProffitt - Nov 25, 2006 2:27 pm (#862 of 2959)
Gina, I included Harry as having a separate "plan" because he didn't know what was happening or what was supposed to happen. "Winging it" isn't much of a plan, but it is one.

Perhaps it might be better to stay that there are a half dozen objectives or goals that different characters are trying to achieve and all of them seem to conflict, at least in some parts.

EDIT: And put all of that together and try to figure out, with our limited information, just what Severus Snape's goal was and I think your are destined to be frustrated. The only goals we can be confident we know the majority of details to are the goals of Harry & the D.A.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 25, 2006 8:38 pm (#863 of 2959)
I agree that if Snape did stun Flitwick, it was a good way to get the kids out of his hair and keep them out of the way.


Saracene - Nov 25, 2006 11:50 pm (#864 of 2959)
wynnleaf:

---As for not wanting Hermione and Luna to follow him -- Snape didn't know they were there until he came out of the room, so it couldn't be a reason to stun Flitwick.---

How do we know for sure that Snape wasn't aware that the girls were hanging around outside his office? Other characters can make guesses, but Snape is the only person with a definitive say on the matter and nobody asked him.

---But why does JKR have the supposed stunning take place at all? What is the point? How does it further the plot? ---

It doesn't further the plot, but it helps to complete the extremely negative picture JKR built of Snape at the end of HBP. For Harry, Hermione and all the stunning of Flitwick is just another evidence of Snape's evilness.

I also think that she'll come back to that incident in the final book, but I think it will be revealed that Snape had a totally different reason for stunning Flitwick than what the rest of the characters believed. I doubt that the final book will show that Snape didn't stun Flitwick at all.


wynnleaf - Nov 26, 2006 11:37 am (#865 of 2959)
I also think that she'll come back to that incident in the final book, but I think it will be revealed that Snape had a totally different reason for stunning Flitwick than what the rest of the characters believed. I doubt that the final book will show that Snape didn't stun Flitwick at all. (Saracene)

I agree that regardless whether Snape really stunned him or not, the incident will come up again.

Why do you think the narration, pages after Hermione and the rest conclude that Snape must have stunned Flitwick, once more refers, not to Flitwick's being stupified, but to his "collapse?"

If JKR really intends Flitwick to have been stunned, and this is a definite thing, why does the narration not confirm it?


Saracene - Nov 26, 2006 11:41 pm (#866 of 2959)
wynnleaf:

---Why do you think the narration, pages after Hermione and the rest conclude that Snape must have stunned Flitwick, once more refers, not to Flitwick's being stupified, but to his "collapse?"---

Well, it was physically a collapse because Flitwick had fallen unconscious to the floor, which resulted in a large bruise.

Personally, I don't think that JKR has some big hidden meaning to *every* single description she uses. I mean, I've seen intricate theories about DD in the cave really being Slughorn because some fans think that JKR wouldn't have DD say "Oho" for no reason, Smile


rambkowalczyk - Nov 27, 2006 4:01 am (#867 of 2959)
---So what I don't understand is why readers who think Snape is loyal just assume that he lied to Hermione and Luna and assume that Hermione's assumption that he stunned Flitwick is correct. Hermione did not think Snape was lying at first. She only thought he was lying after she thought he was a traitor. So why should we (if we don't think Snape a traitor) agree that he was lying?--- wynnleaf

Hermione has a tendency to believe a teacher can do no wrong. She believed Lockhart was competent, in spite of overwhelming evidence or at least she always made excuses for him. So when Snape told her that Flitwick collapsed she had no reason to doubt his word. That is I assumed that Hermione was just naively believing Snape whereas if Harry or Ron were in that situation they might have initially doubted Snape at his word. Only when Harry told her that Snape killed Dumbledore did she revise her opinion. As a loyal Snape fan, I was not enchanted by Lockhart's good looks, I also do not take what Snape says at face value. I have no problem believing that Snape Stunned Flitwick because Snape always acts ambiguously and this is no exception.

Also in a previous post you gave a plausible reason for Snape Stunning Flitwick. He thought it was Harry.


T Vrana - Nov 27, 2006 9:38 am (#868 of 2959)
But Flitwick had time to tell Snape was was happening, so I think Snape would have known it was not Harry.


Vulture - Nov 27, 2006 10:44 am (#869 of 2959)
Besides, why would Snape stun Flitwick? He was about to do (in Flitwick's eyes) exactly what Flitwick wanted and expected -- he was going to go directly to where the fighting was and then try to go up the tower. So it's not like Snape was about to do something that Flitwick shouldn't see. And moments later, Snape saw no need to stun anyone else, did he? No attempts on any other staff, Order members, or students. As for the one person that even a loyal Snape might have had a reason to stun -- to stun Harry so he'd stop pursuing him -- he doesn't even attempt to stun Harry. (wynnleaf )

I absolutely agree _ yet I still think Snape stunned Flitwick. So why do I think he stunned him when he had no reason to ? _ I think so because I think he reacted with fury and frustration because Flitwick had (unwittingly) triggered the Vow and now Snape was caught by it. Actually, seen in this light, Snape's stunning of Flitwick and then not hurting anyone else, except Dumbledore, is good evidence for his defence. My feeling is that he didn't want to fulfil the Vow, but did not feel able to break it when it came to the moment. (That would be a pretty good reason for Dumbledore's last words, by the way.)

Why am I so sure that Snape stunned Flitwick when we've only Hermione's word for it (based on her thinking that Snape is a murderer) ? Well, while I agree that JKR likes to mislead us, she usually does so in ways whereby any of us, in Harry & Co.'s situation, would be misled. For example, everyone got it wrong about Sirius in Book 3, and about fake Moody in Book 4. I don't think that she would simply feed us a misconception based on evryone conveniently forgetting to ask Flitwick for his story. JKR doesn't cross all the T's and dot all the I's for everything which we can take for granted _ sometimes we have to use common sense.

(I just know that someone is going to bring up the Snape-Harry mis-communication about stolen Polyjuice ingredients in Book 4, but I don't feel that it's in the same category as something we can assume Flitwick fills everyone in on.)

The only reason to think he'd stun Flitwick is if Snape is a traitor. That's why Hermione assumed he'd done it, and why Lupin agreed with her. If he's not a traitor, there's no reason to think he stupified Flitwick. (wynnleaf )

That's not the only reason, as I hope I've shown. I agree that it's the only reason he would deliberately and intentionally stun him. But lashing out in momentary fury is quite another matter.

It just strikes me as violating The Rules Of Fair Play for Rowling to use such an easily verifiable event to trick the readers. Now, if Flitwick was lying around in the hospital wing in a coma from hitting his head and so couldn't confirm or deny the assumption that he was Stunned, then I'd say fair play. But to lead us to the conclusion that Flitwick was Stunned, when Flitwick is around and could easily dispel any incorrect conclusion, then it's just a silly and unnecessary trick. (Mrs Brisbee )

I agree 100% _ and you put it much more clearly than I was trying to above !!

A slight correction. I don't believe that Luna had any of the Felix. (Steve Newton )

Why not ? _ Hermione's account to Harry about the fight seems to imply that all of them had some.

For me the difficulty with the whole scene is that Snape does not seem to be making the best choices from any perspective, good, evil, or playing two ends against the middle. This makes me think that everyone's plans, Dumbledore's, Malfoy's, the Death Eaters (who seem to have a different agenda from Draco), the D.A.'s, and Snape's all seem to have gone wrong. I think that there are at least four or five plans of action all messing with each other in this scene. (TomProffitt )

I know I'm going to get howled at for this, but I actually think that it's JKR's plan which has gone off the rails, after Book 5 (where it was going great).

The first question is what does Snape think Flitwick will do if he is not stunned? (Tom Proffitt)

This seems to assume that Snape's default response to anyone coming to alert him that night would be to stun them. Can't see why he'd need to do that. If he wants everyone to think he's a traitor later, AKing DD will certainly do the trick. (wynnleaf )

What if Snape never intended to kill Dumbledore ? What if he stayed in his office because (1) he knew that Dumbledore might require him that night, but also (2) apart from a direct order from Dumbledore (which Harry nearly conveyed), he was to stay away from any danger of the Vow being activated ? When Flitwick burst in, Snape had to choose _ and having to choose is what he wanted to avoid (in my opinion).


wynnleaf - Nov 27, 2006 10:51 am (#870 of 2959)
What if Snape never intended to kill Dumbledore ? What if he stayed in his office because (1) he knew that Dumbledore might require him that night, but also (2) apart from a direct order from Dumbledore (which Harry nearly conveyed), he was to stay away from any danger of the Vow being activated ? When Flitwick burst in, Snape had to choose _ and having to choose is what he wanted to avoid (in my opinion). (Vulture)

While I don't quite think it worked this way due to some other plot points (having nothing to do with Flitwick), I still like this sort of scenario -- lots of drama/angst in it...
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 871 to 900

Post  Mona Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:12 pm

journeymom - Nov 27, 2006 1:57 pm (#871 of 2959)
"I absolutely agree _ yet I still think Snape stunned Flitwick. So why do I think he stunned him when he had no reason to ? _ I think so because I think he reacted with fury and frustration because Flitwick had (unwittingly) triggered the Vow and now Snape was caught by it. Actually, seen in this light, Snape's stunning of Flitwick and then not hurting anyone else, except Dumbledore, is good evidence for his defence. My feeling is that he didn't want to fulfil the Vow, but did not feel able to break it when it came to the moment. (That would be a pretty good reason for Dumbledore's last words, by the way.) "

Well, I like the idea that Snape was forced to Choose once he became aware of Draco's situation. But do we know this is how the Vow works? I kinda figured Snape doesn't have to be there, or even aware, for it to be enacted. Which would stink, he would just fall down dead if Draco tried to AK Dumbledore and failed. Though he didn't die when Harry slashed Draco with Sectumsempra.

In another thread I said, Do we think that Snape was anticipating Draco would make his attempt on Dd that particular night? Why wouldn't Snape stay hot on Draco's tale? If he were to fail to keep Draco safe and if Draco tried and failed to kill Dd, Snape would die. Did Snape know tonight was the night? We've speculated that Dumbledore's mistake was thinking he had more time than he did. What if he was off not just an hour or two, but by a whole day? If Snape was in on a plan with Dd, that would explain why he was sitting in his office, rather than stalking Draco. He didn't know Draco was making his move that night. It's also why he streaked out of his office like a bat out of hell when Flitwick told him what was going on. He needed to get to Draco before Draco screwed anything up. Perhaps Draco let Snape know his plans but didn't tell him when he'd take action, or he tricked Snape. Draco no longer trusted Snape.


T Vrana - Nov 27, 2006 5:09 pm (#872 of 2959)
I think Snape had some wiggle room. First and second part requires Snape to watch over and protect to the best of his ability. Who judges 'best of his ability'? This is why I like the idea that it is not automatic, too much is left to judgement. I think either Cissy or Bella have to invoke the vow if Snape's seems to have failed.


Mrs Brisbee - Nov 28, 2006 10:03 am (#873 of 2959)
First part of Vow: "Will you, Severus, watch over my son, Draco, as he attempts to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes?"

Second part of Vow: "And will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from harm?"

Third part of Vow: "And, should it prove necessary... if it seems Draco will fail...[...]will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?"

Bolds are mine. I agree that there is wiggle room. "attempts", "best of your ability", "seems" all offer some room to maneuver. I don't think that Narcissa or Bellatrix get to decide if Snape is upholding his side of the contract. He's in the best situation to know if he is using the "best of his ability", or if Draco "seems" to be about to fail. I can't see the point of the Vow if someone else gets to decide who isn't even there at the time. It is, afterall, a magical contract. It should know if it is being fulfilled.


T Vrana - Nov 28, 2006 10:22 am (#874 of 2959)
Mrs Brisbee- I see your point, but also can't see how the first two vague parts are enforceable. If Draco is avoiding Snape and hiding what he is doing, then it would seem that Snape is off the hook for parts one and two if he has tried his best, and Draco is impeding his attempts to help. In this case, if Snape had remained in his office and Draco had been killed, would Snape be okay? If it is his state of mind that decides if he did his best, then he may have concluded he had done his best, and he'd be fine.

Why didn't Snape drop dead after two completely lame attempts at DD's life? When he was crying in the bathroom, he seemed likely to fail. How does the magic know when to kick in?

Then again, maybe the vow has nothing to do with killing DD...but that's another thread.


wynnleaf - Nov 28, 2006 10:29 am (#875 of 2959)
T Vrana points out several weaknesses of the Vow. It did, after all "seem" that Draco would fail -- well, he did fail in a couple of his attempts to kill DD. Further, Draco did get harmed. Snape was not able to protect him from being harmed. The vow didn't say, "to the best of your ability, heal him after he gets harmed," it said "protect him from harm." Yet no consequence of the Vow kicked in when Draco was lying on the bathroom floor bleeding all over the place from saber like slashes to the body. Cleary, Draco was harmed, and nothing happened to Snape.

And what is the purpose of the bonder? Just any wizarding body who can hold a wand to activate the spell? Or does the person actually have the responsibility to see that the Vow is carried out? We aren't told.


Mrs Brisbee - Nov 28, 2006 10:30 am (#876 of 2959)
It seems to me that part three is the sticky one. If Draco died, I don't see how it would let Snape off for part three. I'd think part three would kick in and Snape would have to fulfill Draco's task, or die.

Now, if it seems to Snape that Draco has succeeded in his task-- whether or not Draco actually has-- then Snape would be off the hook.


T Vrana - Nov 28, 2006 10:36 am (#877 of 2959)
Wynnleaf has a point with the third party being called 'The Bonder'. It seems that it would entail more than just casting a spell. Snape didn't say "Bella can do the spell for us", he said she could be the Bonder. Does this imply an almost 'legal' title that has more power than just casting a spell?


Mrs Brisbee - Nov 28, 2006 10:37 am (#878 of 2959)
T Vrana points out several weaknesses of the Vow. It did, after all "seem" that Draco would fail -- well, he did fail in a couple of his attempts to kill DD.-- wynnleaf

Snape only has to watch over Draco as he "attempts" to fulfill the task. There's wiggle room there, because "should it prove necessary... if it seems Draco will fail" would indicate absolute, can't-try-again failure. If some sort of attempt by an unknown party is made on Dumbledore's life, and Draco is still in the game, how could that qualify? It is not "necessary" that Snape step in.

Further, Draco did get harmed. Snape was not able to protect him from being harmed. The vow didn't say, "to the best of your ability, heal him after he gets harmed," it said "protect him from harm." Yet no consequence of the Vow kicked in when Draco was lying on the bathroom floor bleeding all over the place from saber like slashes to the body. Cleary, Draco was harmed, and nothing happened to Snape.

Why would anything happen to Snape? He needs to protect Draco "to the best of his ability". I don't see where he is not doing that.

Edit: I suspect that the Bonder can probably release the Vow takers from the Vow if desired. Their job would be to put it on, and take it off. There must be cases where all parties might decide that removing a Vow might be a good idea. I doubt the Bonder has magical control over the terms of the contract.


T Vrana - Nov 28, 2006 10:46 am (#879 of 2959)
because "should it prove necessary... if it seems Draco will fail" would indicate absolute, can't-try-again failure

Not really, 'seems' is very different from 'absolute, can't try again.' It did 'seem' that Draco would fail, that's why he was sobbing in the bathroom. Now, had Sissy used your words....


Mrs Brisbee - Nov 28, 2006 10:50 am (#880 of 2959)
But did it "seem" or "prove necessary" to Snape? That's the question. He could surmise that Draco was behind the failed attacks, but did he know? Draco was free in the school to keep on his task, so how would it seem to Snape that Draco had failed to the point that it was necessary for him to step in? I don't think it mattered how it "seemed" to Draco. He didn't take the Vow.


T Vrana - Nov 28, 2006 11:09 am (#881 of 2959)
With the end of term fast approaching, it did 'seem' Draco would fail, even to Snape, I'm sure. This is the problem with the vow working automatically, or from Snape's point of view. If it is just Snape's opinion, then he can simply remain in a state of denial, unless Draco is dead.

This is another reason I don' think the vow was to kill DD. With Malfoy getting no closer to killing DD and the end of term around the corner, Snape seems quite relaxed, spending time with Harry in useless detentions, even threatening him with more detentions the following year. If the vow is to kill DD, he's one cold character no matter how you look at it. If Malfoy succeeds, school will likely close. If Malfoy fails, he has to do it, and school will likely close. Why threaten Harry with detentions into the following year? Just to tweak him? I don't think so. I think this is a tiny clue that either the vow isn't to kill DD, or Snape doesn't know what the vow is for.


Soul Search - Nov 28, 2006 12:04 pm (#882 of 2959)
Whatever Draco's task was, there seemed to be a time limit. At least, Voldemort became displeased with Draco as time passed and the task went undone. Any time limit would be part of the "task" referenced in the vow.

Yet, no harm came to Snape as time passed. I am thinking Narcissa's wording of the vow made it largely ineffective. Snape would have done the same without the vow. He didn't agree to anything he was unwilling to do. Snape did seem a bit worried at the Christmas party, but whether because he was afraid of the vow or of what Draco might do is hard to determine.

The wording is so loose, Snape would have had to restrain Draco to break the vow.


wynnleaf - Nov 28, 2006 1:22 pm (#883 of 2959)
JKR has said she was very careful with the exact wording of Trelawney's prophecies. Wouldn't she have been just as careful with the wording of the Vow???

If JKR was extremely careful with the wording of the Vow, then I think we'd have to say that she very carefully left it ambiguous and with lots of loopholes. That leads me to believe that she wanted us to think that Snape was bound tightly to a Vow, when in fact he was not bound tightly to much of anything that a loyal-to-DD Snape wasn't already perfectly willing to do.


Soul Search - Nov 28, 2006 2:36 pm (#884 of 2959)
wynnleaf, I think you have come close. The vow was a literary mechanism to push readers towards "Snape is loyal to Voldemort." We were to be surprised when it turns out he remained Dumbledore's man, through and through, just like Harry.


Betelgeuse Black - Nov 28, 2006 2:54 pm (#885 of 2959)
If the vow was to let Death Eaters into the school, then Draco succeeded and Snape was off the hook. I'm sure this is why many believe the tower scene was staged.

On another note, I had the impression that Flitwick ran into Snape's office shouting about Death Eaters in the castle. I don't have the book handy but I'll check it later. If that were the case, Snape would know that Draco succeeded (at least partially) and he probably would want Flitwick out of the way so he couldn't interfere with what he had to do.

Betelgeuse


The Artful Dodger - Nov 28, 2006 3:45 pm (#886 of 2959)
If Draco's task was not to kill Dumbledore, why did he try it three times?


T Vrana - Nov 28, 2006 3:54 pm (#887 of 2959)
First two times, because he wanted revenge for his father's imprisonment, last time because LV found out he was not concentrating on his assignment, and added killing DD as punishment.

Harry was right, throughout HBP, about Malfoy.

From The Slug Club, Harry, trying to explain what Draco is up to...

"Malfoy's father's in Azkaban. Don't you think Malfoy'd like revenge?"

But all this is discussed on Malfoy's Original Task and The Vow Thread, so I'm not sure I should go further here..


Saracene - Nov 29, 2006 3:08 am (#888 of 2959)
wynnleaf:

---If JKR was extremely careful with the wording of the Vow, then I think we'd have to say that she very carefully left it ambiguous and with lots of loopholes. That leads me to believe that she wanted us to think that Snape was bound tightly to a Vow, when in fact he was not bound tightly to much of anything that a loyal-to-DD Snape wasn't already perfectly willing to do.---

Personally, I think it's the opposite. I rather suspect that JKR didn't think through the mechanics of the Vow and its intricacies as thoroughly as we do, but what I think it comes down to is Snape having to either act on the third clause or die in the situation at the tower. It's a classic structure - you have some sort of a setup, and then in due time you have the crunch time.

Then there's also the fact that although we the readers know about the Vow's third clause Harry still doesn't even by the end of the book. If the third clause's function in the story was to make everyone believe in Evil!Snape, then it makes no sense to me to leave Harry unaware of it - heck, that would probably make him despise and hate Snape even more! So I think that the reason the third clause was kept away from Harry was because it will somehow figure in explaining how the events on the Tower were not what they looked to Harry.


wynnleaf - Nov 29, 2006 6:33 am (#889 of 2959)
Saracene,

Of course, you could be right. But I think JKR had a double goal as regards making Snape's treachery convincing -- convince Harry and convince the readers. The readers would be harder to convince than Harry, so I think the Vow plays an important role in convincing the readers that isn't really needed for Harry. I'm not sure how learning about the Vow in the last book could help Harry in any way see Snape's loyalty. I'd think it would do just the opposite.

But the vow was particularly worded and JKR knew she was setting up a magical contract. So, yes, I do think she would have paid particular attention to the exact wording. And if she was paying attention to the exact wording, then she must have intentionally used those loose words and phrases like "seem," and "best of your ability," etc.

I mean, if those words are unimportant, then JKR put them in for no reason and could just as easily have written, "if Draco fails," or "keep him from harm" without the "best of your ability" part.

Besides, JKR is bound to know that readers would pick over that Vow with a fine toothed comb -- just like they have the prophecy. She knows we do it with everything and of course she doesn't choose every word of the books with that in mind. But this is a specific vow and I think she'd have looked closely at the specific wording.


Vulture - Nov 29, 2006 8:41 am (#890 of 2959)
While I don't quite think it worked this way due to some other plot points (having nothing to do with Flitwick), I still like this sort of scenario -- lots of drama/angst in it... (wynnleaf )

Thanks, Wynnleaf !!

Well, I like the idea that Snape was forced to Choose once he became aware of Draco's situation. But do we know this is how the Vow works? I kinda figured Snape doesn't have to be there, or even aware, for it to be enacted. Which would stink, he would just fall down dead if Draco tried to AK Dumbledore and failed. Though he didn't die when Harry slashed Draco with Sectumsempra. (journeymom)

I tend to feel that this is how the Vow works because Narcissa said "if it seems Draco will fail" for the third and most fateful part of the Vow. What I mean is, in order for it to seem that something will occur, it has to seem to someone that it will occur. Narcissa obviously doesn't mean "seems to the readers" (!!), so she must mean "seems to" her, Bellatrix, or Snape. But in the general context, it's obvious that she and Bellatrix aren't going to be around all the time: after all, the whole idea of the Vow is that Snape will be around (i.e. around Draco) a lot.

So without getting even more convoluted (!!), I think we can conclude that "seems Draco will fail" means "seems to you" (i.e. Snape).

I think Snape had some wiggle room. First and second part requires Snape to watch over and protect to the best of his ability. Who judges 'best of his ability'? This is why I like the idea that it is not automatic, too much is left to judgement. I think either Cissy or Bella have to invoke the vow if Snape's seems to have failed. (T Vrana)

I agree that he had wiggle room, but I don't think that was about any power of Narcissa or Bellatrix over the Vow. In fact, Ron's later account of his dad's reaction to the Vow shows that there isn't anything another party can do once someone takes the Vow. No, the reason Snape had wiggle room was because of the particular way Narcissa worded the Vow _ and I think she worded it in a very hesitant, ambiguous way because she was wrestling with strong emotions. (If you read the language of her questions, in the context, it comes across as someone with laboured breathing, recovering from her recent crying fit and at the end of her tether with fear for Draco.) I don't think that, at the time, she was paying close attention to her exact words _ she was just trying to get her meaning across to Snape and get her son off the hook.

Further, Draco did get harmed. Snape was not able to protect him from being harmed. The vow didn't say, "to the best of your ability, heal him after he gets harmed," it said "protect him from harm." Yet no consequence of the Vow kicked in when Draco was lying on the bathroom floor bleeding all over the place from saber like slashes to the body. Cleary, Draco was harmed, and nothing happened to Snape. (wynnleaf )

Well, it depends how you view it. Yes, Draco was harmed the moment the spell hit him, but of course, he'd have been harmed a hell of a lot more if Snape hadn't been around. So I think Snape did protect Draco to the best of his ability at that moment. But you make a good point _ I think that part of Snape's fury was his awareness that for him, it had been a near thing.

(I don't think the Vow works like a legal contract _ it's more like a "geas" in the ancient Celtic legends, which nearly always brings ruin to those laid under it, by the way !!)

Snape only has to watch over Draco as he "attempts" to fulfill the task. There's wiggle room there, because "should it prove necessary... if it seems Draco will fail" would indicate absolute, can't-try-again failure. If some sort of attempt by an unknown party is made on Dumbledore's life, and Draco is still in the game, how could that qualify? It is not "necessary" that Snape step in. (Mrs Brisbee)

I think there was wiggle room, but at that final moment on the Tower, the wiggle room vanished. Amycus even put the tin hat on it by specifically saying to Snape, in effect, that Draco had failed.


Mrs Brisbee - Nov 29, 2006 9:27 am (#891 of 2959)
I think there was wiggle room, but at that final moment on the Tower, the wiggle room vanished. Amycus even put the tin hat on it by specifically saying to Snape, in effect, that Draco had failed.-- Vulture

With that I completely agree.


journeymom - Nov 29, 2006 9:28 am (#892 of 2959)
Well thought-out, all of you. I think I understand the situation better, now.

Saracene's point the the readers know about the third clause of the Vow, but Harry does not puts me in mind of LV's position. Harry, Dumbledore and the readers know the other half of the prophecy but LV still does not. I'm not sure that's significant, though.


T Vrana - Nov 29, 2006 9:38 am (#893 of 2959)
In fact, Ron's later account of his dad's reaction to the Vow shows that there isn't anything another party can do once someone takes the Vow.

I am incredibly suspicious of the whole Ron and the twins unbreakable vow, death, dad's reaction bit. Ron was 5, I think? That makes the twins, at the time, 7? No way they could have performed the Vow, IMHO. Seems like fairly serious magic. They may have been going through the motions, and Dad may have lost it based on principle, but really performing the magic, no way.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 29, 2006 10:57 am (#894 of 2959)
I don' think Snape gets enough credit for the fact that he DID save Draco's life, and probably Harry's backside in the process. If Draco had died on that bathroom floor, it's interesting to speculate what would have happened to Snape AND to Harry. I don't think Harry could have gotten away with actually murdering another student. He's lucky Snape WAS watching over Draco.


The Artful Dodger - Nov 29, 2006 3:16 pm (#895 of 2959)
T Vrana, I think you're having too much faith in JKR sticking to logic. There are situations in the book where she doesn't to that. Take the events at the Department of Mysteries, for example. I didn't expect Death Eaters to be so hesitant. Or think of Dumbledore being lured away from Hogwarts in PS by a Ministry letter.


wynnleaf - Nov 29, 2006 3:48 pm (#896 of 2959)
I agree that JKR doesn't always work things out as logically or rationally as some of us think she should. On the other hand, I do think she'd pay a lot of attention to the word choice she'd use in an Unbreakable Vow. She left herself a great deal of flex room there, and I don't think she just stumbled into it.


The Artful Dodger - Nov 29, 2006 5:40 pm (#897 of 2959)
I agree, wynnleaf, that the wording of the Unbrekable Vow is chosen carefully. However, I do not think JKR paid much attention to the unlikeliness of Fred and George having the magical skills to make Ron swear the Vow when they were just seven, which was the point of T Vrana's post. Plus, I am certain that the Unbrekable Vow causes death when one tries to break it. That is the reason we are given for why it is unbreakable (or, rather, why no one would dare to break it, thus making it unbreakable despite the technical possibility). And I accept that reason, unless JKR were trying to subtly give us a different one, which I do not see her doing.


Laura W - Nov 30, 2006 12:33 am (#898 of 2959)
"Plus, I am certain that the Unbrekable Vow causes death when one tries to break it. That is the reason we are given for why it is unbreakable (or, rather, why no one would dare to break it, thus making it unbreakable despite the technical possibility)."

I believe this too, Artful Dodger.

It was only by asking Snape to take this drastic and absolute measure that the frantically worried Narcissa could put her mind at ease about what was about to happen with her son. Just having Severus say he would protect Draco, etc. wasn't enough assurance for Cissy. She needed to know Snape was dead serious (pun intended) about what he was promising her. Nothing less than an Unforgivable Vow - with the impending consequences to Snape, which he was well aware of and which Artful and I believe *are* the consequences - would satisfy the desperate mother.

That's my opinion, anyway.

Laura


Saracene - Nov 30, 2006 1:04 am (#899 of 2959)
wynnleaf:

---I'm not sure how learning about the Vow in the last book could help Harry in any way see Snape's loyalty. I'd think it would do just the opposite.---

If Harry simply learned about the Vow as an isolated fact, then of course he wouldn't see it as any indication of loyalty. But that's not what I meant when I was talking about the significance of the Vow in the last novel. I think that, at some point in the book, there will be some sort of "explain all" chapter concerning Snape, the tower scene and how it was not what Harry thought it was. Harry I think will learn about the Vow in the course of these explanations, and he will also learn how the Vow's third clause influenced the events of that whole year, such as (I believe) Snape's appointment to the DADA position.

---I mean, if those words are unimportant, then JKR put them in for no reason and could just as easily have written, "if Draco fails," or "keep him from harm" without the "best of your ability" part.---

Well, personally I'm not inclined to give too much thought to the first two clauses at all. I think that they're basically just window dressing and it's really the third clause that's truly important to the story.


Laura W - Nov 30, 2006 2:45 am (#900 of 2959)
Rats! I know I wrote "Unforgivable Vow" above, but I meant "Unbreakable Vow" of course.

(goes off mumbling, "too much to keep track of in the Potterverse.")

Laura
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 901 to 930

Post  Mona Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:15 pm

rambkowalczyk - Nov 30, 2006 4:07 am (#901 of 2959)
Suppose the Unbreakable Vow is about intent, not legalese. In this case the Vow is about protecting Draco from harm as he does this task and that as long as Snape does the best of his ability Snape is safe.

Maybe because Harry wasn't interfering with Draco's ability to do his task but was acting in self defense, the Vow wasn't triggered. Probably far fetched. Actually I think that although Draco was serious injured the Vow didn't kick in because there was always the possibility for a complete reversal. (which happened when Snape did the countercurse.) Perhaps for wizards the standard for harm is more harsher than we Muggles would intuitively expect.

The third part of the Vow says if it becomes necessary... Suppose Snape told Dumbledore the whole Vow and Dumbledore concluded that it was possible that "it would never be necessary". If Draco could conclude that he was not a killer, and that he would be willing to go into hiding and stay in hiding until Voldemort was defeated, then maybe Draco could decide he was not going to try anymore to kill Dumbledore. No lives would be in danger, therefore it would not be necessary.

Maybe this is what Snape thought that Dumbledore took too much for granted.


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 30, 2006 11:23 am (#902 of 2959)
The twins had to do that to Ron, so that Ron would have an easy way to explain to Harry what Snape had done. That's what the Weasleys are for...in my opinion, to interpet the wizarding world to Harry, and by extension, to us. That's how Jo moves the plot, sloppy as it may sometimes be.


T Vrana - Nov 30, 2006 12:08 pm (#903 of 2959)
I've no doubt the twins tried to do it, what I doubt is that they could have succeeded. A also wonder where they learned about it....


TomProffitt - Nov 30, 2006 12:20 pm (#904 of 2959)
"[I] also wonder where they learned about it...." --- T Vrana

There are three older brothers in the family, two of whom are quite likely to have the twins more than Molly wished they knew.


T Vrana - Nov 30, 2006 1:06 pm (#905 of 2959)
Sure. But every spell that ends in death has been associted with Dark Magic. A vow that can result in death must be Dark Magic....


Die Zimtzicke - Nov 30, 2006 9:07 pm (#906 of 2959)
Also, by the time the twins were old enough to learn the kind of spell Snape used,and remember it well, wouldn't Bill and Charlie have been getting ready to go away to Hogwarts? If Ron was was five when the twins tried it, they would have been about seven or eight. The older boys wouldn't have been around much, and I can't see them hanging out with their toddler brothers, teaching then dark arts spells.

I can't even see them discussing them at home where the twins could have overheard it for two reasons...a) they couldn't have done magic outside of school at that age and b) Arthur does not approve of that spell and if they had messed with it, they would have been darned careful NOT to be overheard.

It has to just be a plot device so that Harry can find out what a spell like the one Snape used does from someone he can talk to easily about Snape, and trusts completely.


wynnleaf - Nov 30, 2006 9:55 pm (#907 of 2959)
I'm sure it is a plot device. But whether it's a device to give Harry and the reader some accurate information, or a device to make Harry and the reader assume they've gotten accurate information is another story.

Why, for instance, did JKR write this occurring when Ron and the twins were so young? She could just as easily have made them 11 and 9. It's easy to see the twins pulling a stunt like that at even older ages (although not necessarily Ron falling for it). Yet she set it at a very young age for Ron -- one where few people can remember exact details of much of anything.

Now if JKR had written this as Hermione being the one to give this info to Harry, I'd believe it for certain. Why? Because JKR has said that she uses Hermione for this sort of purpose sometimes -- to give Harry and reader accurate factual information. She has not said that about Ron.


Laura W - Dec 1, 2006 1:25 am (#908 of 2959)
... which brought to my mind something I wrote on another thread on Oct. 24 --

"Perhaps some of you don't believe what Ron says because of his age or for another reason, but I think Jo has put him in to give us - as well as Muggle-raised Harry and Hermoine - insight into and information about the WW. Ron being the only pure-blood, wizard-raised member of the trio, and with a father who works in the MOM besides; I tend to generally believe what he says about the way things are in the WW. (Nobody else has to, of course.)" (Laura W)


Saracene - Dec 1, 2006 3:05 am (#909 of 2959)
Personally, I think it would be an incredibly lame copout if in the next book JKR turned around and said, oops Ron was wrong, in actual fact you don't die if you break the Unbreakable Vow. I'd definitely feel that this would totally violate the rules of Fair Play.


Vulture - Dec 1, 2006 9:31 am (#910 of 2959)
JKR has said she was very careful with the exact wording of Trelawney's prophecies. Wouldn't she have been just as careful with the wording of the Vow???

If JKR was extremely careful with the wording of the Vow, then I think we'd have to say that she very carefully left it ambiguous and with lots of loopholes. That leads me to believe that she wanted us to think that Snape was bound tightly to a Vow, when in fact he was not bound tightly to much of anything that a loyal-to-DD Snape wasn't already perfectly willing to do. (wynnleaf )

I think we need to make some careful distinctions:

(1) JKR was, I imagine, as careful with the Vow's words as with other things _ but Narcissa was not.

(As I've already said, Narcissa's language in the three Vow questions is of someone hesitating and labouring under severe stress, concentrating not on her exact words, but on getting her meaning across and getting Draco off the hook.)

(2) I believe that Snape was bound tightly to the Vow _ but the Vow itself was quite flexible because of its wording. We know how serious Unbreakable Vows are, because of Arthur Weasley's reaction when he found Fred & George trying to lure Ron into one. Incidentally, that incident shows that childish innocence or ignorance is no protection against having sworn an Unbreakable Vow.

================================================================

I am incredibly suspicious of the whole Ron and the twins unbreakable vow, death, dad's reaction bit. Ron was 5, I think? That makes the twins, at the time, 7? No way they could have performed the Vow, IMHO. Seems like fairly serious magic. They may have been going through the motions, and Dad may have lost it based on principle, but really performing the magic, no way. (T Vrana)

... I do not think JKR paid much attention to the unlikeliness of Fred and George having the magical skills to make Ron swear the Vow when they were just seven, which was the point of T Vrana's post. (The Artful Dodger )

Apart from JKR's logic not always being that plausible (think of Book 3), let's bear in mind that we're talking about Fred & George here (as the long-suffering Arthur Weasley would confirm !!). If ever there were kids who would deliberately, on principle, play with an atom bomb marked "DO NOT TOUCH _ AND WE REALLY MEAN IT", these are the ones.

===============================================================

The third part of the Vow says if it becomes necessary... Suppose Snape told Dumbledore the whole Vow and Dumbledore concluded that it was possible that "it would never be necessary". If Draco could conclude that he was not a killer, and that he would be willing to go into hiding and stay in hiding until Voldemort was defeated, then maybe Draco could decide he was not going to try anymore to kill Dumbledore. No lives would be in danger, therefore it would not be necessary.

Maybe this is what Snape thought that Dumbledore took too much for granted. (rambkowalczyk)

Well thought of !! That really fits. It's such a debatable point that I can't decide about it, and it's easy to see (a) Snape and Dumbledore differing about it, and (b) Snape becoming increasingly infuriated, as the year wore on, that his life was supposed to depend on which of them was right.


wynnleaf - Dec 1, 2006 11:42 am (#911 of 2959)
(1) JKR was, I imagine, as careful with the Vow's words as with other things _ but Narcissa was not.

(As I've already said, Narcissa's language in the three Vow questions is of someone hesitating and labouring under severe stress, concentrating not on her exact words, but on getting her meaning across and getting Draco off the hook.)

(2) I believe that Snape was bound tightly to the Vow _ but the Vow itself was quite flexible because of its wording. We know how serious Unbreakable Vows are, because of Arthur Weasley's reaction when he found Fred & George trying to lure Ron into one.

Vulture, that was actually more what I was thinking, but I believe I ended up communicating something different. You said it much better. From what we can tell, a tightly worded vow would tightly bind the person making it. An ambiguously worded vow binds the vow maker to a somewhat flexible vow.

As regards Ron, Fred and George, I'd expect practically anything from the twins. They appear to have been quite precocious. But I wouldn't necessarily expect Ron to recall the Vow so well from an experience at age 5 that he could pass on to Harry "Everything You Need to Know About Unbreakable Vows."


Vulture - Dec 2, 2006 6:56 am (#912 of 2959)
As regards Ron, Fred and George, I'd expect practically anything from the twins. They appear to have been quite precocious. But I wouldn't necessarily expect Ron to recall the Vow so well from an experience at age 5 that he could pass on to Harry "Everything You Need to Know About Unbreakable Vows." (wynnleaf )

Well, my guess (unless JKR later contradicts this) is that Unbreakable Vows, and their perils, are widely known in the regular wizard world _ Harry, who was unaware of the wizard world until he was 11, and whose present knowledge of it is mostly based around Hogwarts, needs Ron's help on information like this from time to time.

So when Ron talks about Unbreakable Vows in general, there's no reason why his knowledge should come only from his age-5 experience. His near-taking of the Vow is simply an example he uses, which is mainly there to warn us of its deadly potential and unbreakability. As for why he remembers the incident so well _ my guess is that, to paraphrase his own words, it was the first (or did he say "only" ?) time he ever saw his dad get as angry as his mum frequently did. (I also imagine that having older brothers with the (literally) lethal sense of humour of Fred & George would tend to produce fairly vivid memories !!)

==================================================================

Besides, why would Snape stun Flitwick? He was about to do (in Flitwick's eyes) exactly what Flitwick wanted and expected -- he was going to go directly to where the fighting was and then try to go up the tower. So it's not like Snape was about to do something that Flitwick shouldn't see. And moments later, Snape saw no need to stun anyone else, did he? No attempts on any other staff, Order members, or students. As for the one person that even a loyal Snape might have had a reason to stun -- to stun Harry so he'd stop pursuing him -- he doesn't even attempt to stun Harry. (wynnleaf )

I absolutely agree _ yet I still think Snape stunned Flitwick. So why do I think he stunned him when he had no reason to ? _ I think so because I think he reacted with fury and frustration because Flitwick had (unwittingly) triggered the Vow and now Snape was caught by it. Actually, seen in this light, Snape's stunning of Flitwick and then not hurting anyone else, except Dumbledore, is good evidence for his defence. My feeling is that he didn't want to fulfil the Vow, but did not feel able to break it when it came to the moment. (That would be a pretty good reason for Dumbledore's last words, by the way.) (Vulture)

The third part of the Vow says if it becomes necessary... Suppose Snape told Dumbledore the whole Vow and Dumbledore concluded that it was possible that "it would never be necessary". If Draco could conclude that he was not a killer, and that he would be willing to go into hiding and stay in hiding until Voldemort was defeated, then maybe Draco could decide he was not going to try anymore to kill Dumbledore. No lives would be in danger, therefore it would not be necessary.

Maybe this is what Snape thought that Dumbledore took too much for granted. (rambkowalczyk)

If I may, I'd like to focus attention on the above quotations to discuss my hunch that Snape didn't want to carry out the murder of Dumbledore (let's assume that this was the Vow's task), but in the end, failed to choose what was right (admittedly, a terrible choice) over what was easier. (I tend to assume that he's not on Voldemort's side, but I should stress that my hunch could still apply if he was.) I say "easier" rather than "easy" because my guess is that Snape will turn out to have been on the good side until the Tower, and that killing Dumbledore was painful for him.

What I'd like to stress is how common-sense this hunch makes many of the events which otherwise demand hard theorizing. Sorry, I'm running out of time .....


wynnleaf - Dec 2, 2006 7:31 am (#913 of 2959)
If I may, I'd like to focus attention on the above quotations to discuss my hunch that Snape didn't want to carry out the murder of Dumbledore (let's assume that this was the Vow's task), but in the end, failed to choose what was right (admittedly, a terrible choice) over what was easier. (I tend to assume that he's not on Voldemort's side, but I should stress that my hunch could still apply if he was.) I say "easier" rather than "easy" because my guess is that Snape will turn out to have been on the good side until the Tower, and that killing Dumbledore was painful for him.

Vulture, is this the theory that DD, when saying "Severus please.." was saying "please do the right thing and die?" Because I really, really disagree with this notion. "Please allow yourself to die and leave Harry up here unprotected and the DE's and Fenrir can kill me instead and then roam over the castle killing more people. Isn't that better Severus, than AKing me and ruining your soul?" Sorry to be so sarcastic, but someone else about a year ago was supporting this theory and I strongly disagree with it.

I hope that's not where you're going with it.


Thom Matheson - Dec 2, 2006 9:09 am (#914 of 2959)
Also remember that Dumbledore is the only one that knows that Harry is even up there on the tower. None of the rest even know that a "witness" even existed.


wynnleaf - Dec 2, 2006 10:24 am (#915 of 2959)
Also remember that Dumbledore is the only one that knows that Harry is even up there on the tower. None of the rest even know that a "witness" even existed.

We don't know that for sure. Draco spotted the second broom and wondered about it, but DD managed to re-direct his attention elsewhere. Snape could have noticed also.

But even if Snape didn't know that Harry was on the tower, if DD was truly unable to protect himself, then Snape's death would accomplish nothing and worse would have occurred. DD would have been killed by the DE's. And Fenrir and the DE's would not have been led quickly out of the castle, but could have instead continued to try to kill and injure people in the castle.

Besides that, Dumbledore knew that Harry was there and that Harry would be left vulnerable if Snape and DD both died. So I don't think that DD would have wanted Snape to give up his life on the tower.


rambkowalczyk - Dec 2, 2006 11:20 am (#916 of 2959)
Vulture, is this the theory that DD, when saying "Severus please.." was saying "please do the right thing and die?" Because I really, really disagree with this notion. wynnleaf

Not to put words into Vulture's mouth, but I think what he might have wanted to say was that in Snape's eyes the choice was kill Dumbledore or assume that Dumbledore was right and that under a narrow set of circumstances it would never be necessary to kill Dumbledore. If Dumbledore was pleading with Snape it was to say that the requirements to circumvent the Vow were met and that Snape did not have to kill Dumbledore to save his (Snape's) life. Snape panicked and in a moment of weakness/cowardness killed him.

If something like this happened, this make Snape definately blamable for killing Dumbledore but not a Death Eater. In a wizarding court of law, he would be guilty of murder, but his sentence might take in to account of the Unbreakable Vow that he took.

In any case in Dumbledore's eyes, Snape was saved from the consequences of the Unbreakable Vow. Dumbledore did not ask Snape to kill him or to not kill him but to keep Draco and Harry safe.


Thom Matheson - Dec 2, 2006 12:49 pm (#917 of 2959)
Wynnleaf, that wasn't my point actually. Snape is up there in front of the DE goons and Draco. How good does Snape look to the DE group that now can report back to Voldemort. With no Order members present up there, do you think that Snape would have been presumed guilty? The only way that we know of that the Order and the Ministry could even suspect Snape is because of Harry's testimony. Without Harry, Snape might have been able to come back to Hogwarts. Now as it is, his entire Order cover is blown. He no longer can play the double agent role. If Snape suspected or even thought that Harry or anyone else ws there for that matter, by pulling his wand, he now made a deciding choice. Sort of a ramble going, but I hope you all get my thought here.


Choices - Dec 2, 2006 5:21 pm (#918 of 2959)
I think the "Severus, please...." was meant to encourage Snape to do what he had agreed to do (Dumbledore was already dying and Snape needed to do it quickly) - that was to appear to murder Dumbledore in front of the Death Eaters and thus solidify his position in Voldemort's camp. Just my take on that scene.


haymoni - Dec 2, 2006 6:50 pm (#919 of 2959)
That's what I think also, Choices.

At least I hope that's what happened.


wynnleaf - Dec 2, 2006 8:24 pm (#920 of 2959)
Thom,

Without Harry, Snape might have been able to come back to Hogwarts. Now as it is, his entire Order cover is blown. He no longer can play the double agent role. If Snape suspected or even thought that Harry or anyone else ws there for that matter, by pulling his wand, he now made a deciding choice. (Thom)

I have mentioned this before also -- that is, that if Harry had not been on the tower, then the only people who would have seen Snape AK DD would be those who would be in no position to give evidence about it. Then Snape could conceivably have "chased" the DE's down the stairs and pretended that he was fighting them all the time. The Order would have assumed (without a priori incantatem anyway), that one of the DEs or Draco had done the deed.

By pulling his wand Snape made a deciding choice? I'd say that the moment he went up those stairs he'd made a deciding choice -- to either fight with the DEs against whatever good guys might be up there, or fight the DEs. If he fought the DE's he'd blow his cover there. If he fought the Order, he would only blow his cover if he really hurt people, but at close quarters a wizard of Snape's expertise couldn't convincingly "miss," so I think he'd have to really hurt a good guy on the tower to be convincing.

Of course, I also believe that Snape knew perfectly well that if no one else from the good side, there would be at least be Dumbledore on the tower.

But I agree that as soon as Snape knew Harry was there, he'd know that whatever went on between he and DD would be reported back to the rest of the wizarding world.

I've wondered if, since DD attempted twice to send Harry away, he did not intend for Harry to ever be around for such a confrontation and perhaps did not intend for this action of Snape's to immediately condemn him in the eyes of the whole wizarding world. Perhaps DD had hoped that if Snape had to AK him, such an action would only win Snape favor with LV, while the rest of the WW would be in ignorance of exactly who had done the deed.


Saracene - Dec 2, 2006 9:09 pm (#921 of 2959)
rambkowalczyk:

---If Dumbledore was pleading with Snape it was to say that the requirements to circumvent the Vow were met and that Snape did not have to kill Dumbledore to save his (Snape's) life. Snape panicked and in a moment of weakness/cowardness killed him.---

But what doesn't make sense to me about this explanation is why DD would start pleading with Snape before Snape actually made any move to kill him. I mean, just a few paragraphs before DD calmly told Draco that he happened to trust Snape - yet, if the explanation above is correct, DD immediately assumed that Snape was going to kill him pretty much the minute Snape showed up?

Besides, if Snape really betrayed and murdered DD, I don't see how it would change anything if JKR revealed in the last book that Snape had really changed sides once and was loyal to DD up to the tower. The betrayal and murder would IMO make all that irrelevant; Harry wouldn't care one bit if Snape had once truly been on the good side and betrayed DD for a different reason than what Harry had thought, he'd hate and despise him all the same no matter how badly Snape felt about what he'd done. And I don't think that this betrayal is something Snape could ever make up for no matter what he does; IMO you can only take your characters that far into the dark territory.


Thom Matheson - Dec 2, 2006 9:20 pm (#922 of 2959)
Wynnleaf, those are my thoughts as well. Dumbledeore could have preserved Snapes cover easily, without Harry being in the picture. My other thought is, as Harry is the only witness, in so much as the Ministry can't take testimony from the DE's or Fenir, might someone start a Harry is crazy again campaign, to try and get Snape back into the school? I'm still concerned about the trustworthiness of Rufus and how he might use this.

[Gong, Regan of]Regan of Gong - Dec 3, 2006 1:56 am (#923 of 2959)
Wynnleaf's last paragraph is a good one.

If we are to assume Snape is indeed good, we need to find evidence throughout HBP which is irefutable by Harry; so if (and when) they meet again, Snape can prove his innoncence and be unchallenged by Harry, who will want to find problems with his story. Unlike a friend or ally, Harry will, and has, assumed Snape guilty until proven innoncent. The only problem is finding this evidence, and that's assuming it exists.


Vulture - Dec 4, 2006 4:19 am (#924 of 2959)
If I may, I'd like to focus attention on the above quotations (click link below) to discuss my hunch that Snape didn't want to carry out the murder of Dumbledore (let's assume that this was the Vow's task), but in the end, failed to choose what was right (admittedly, a terrible choice) over what was easier. (I tend to assume that he's not on Voldemort's side, but I should stress that my hunch could still apply if he was.) I say "easier" rather than "easy" because my guess is that Snape will turn out to have been on the good side until the Tower, and that killing Dumbledore was painful for him.

What I'd like to stress is how common-sense this hunch makes many of the events which otherwise demand hard theorizing. Sorry, I'm running out of time ..... )

Sorry, Folks: Was trying to pack too much into too little time with my last post. What I meant was that what I like about my theory is how well (it seems to me to) fit a lot of debating points.

(1) Forest conversation ? As per rambkowalczyk's #901, that Dumbledore was operating on the hope that the Vow would never become "necessary" (in terms of its 3rd part). Snape would be understandably nervous about this notion ("taking too much for granted"), and probably would be infuriated if it was accompanied by jolly little quips about death being "the next great adventure" :-D

(2) Stunning Flitwick but leaving Hermione and Luna alone ? _ Doesn't make sense as a premeditated action: If Snape is evil, why not kill Flitwick ? And why leave Hermione and Luna alone ? If not evil, and if stunning Flitwick is part of some great Cunning Plan, why not stun or Body-Bind Hermione and Luna for consistency ? In any case, what plan ? _ no, I don't see any purpose behind stunning Flitwick. But what if there was no purpose ? What if it was a spur-of-the-moment piece of fury ? That would be consistent with how he acted to Hermione and Luna _ he comes tearing out, sees them, gives them instructions in a rush (but in detail) and charges off. What other explanation can there be than that (a) he was in a tearing hurry AND (b) that he hadn't truly wanted to hurt Flitwick ?

And why the fury itself ? _ we know why: we know what Flitwick shouted _ and for Snape it was the clang of doom.

(3) We know from Harry that Snape, at Slughorn's party, was watching Draco as if he (Snape) was "(was it possible ?) a little afraid". We also know from Harry that Dumbledore appears to already know everything which he (Harry) overhears. Of course, this can fit lots of theories, but just to say that it fits mine too.

(4) On the Tower: _ "the door burst open and there stood Snape, his wand clutched in his hand as his black eyes swept the scene". It's a real 'here's Mr. Trouble' moment, cue the big music. "Even the werewolf seemed cowed", etc. This is one angry wizard.

(5) Again, on the Tower: Snape "pushed Malfoy roughly out of the way" (my italics). What does this tell us ? Firstly, this is Draco, who used to be a favourite student. Snape pushing Draco roughly is very different from, say, him doing the same to Harry or Ron, which we wouldn't much remark on. In fact, though, it's unusual to see Snape physically manhandle any student, even those he hates.

So _ as with Flitwick _ I don't see that push as long-term normal Snape behaviour: I see it as born of a particular (exasperating) moment which Snape had not meant, or wanted, to happen, even if he anticiapted its possibility.

(6) Dumbledore's pleading. Almost everyone I've read rejects the notion that he was pleading for mercy. Most alternatives seem to go for the Cunning-Plan scenario, whereby he wanted Snape to kill him. But this raises all sorts of problems and inconsistencies with (a) the Avada Kedavra, and (b) Dumbledore's own morals as regards "ends justifying means". It also usually seems to involve lots of theories about Legilimency between Dumbledore and Snape.

But my theory raises no such problems. Under my theory, it's quite consistent that Dumbledore, unafraid for himself, would be horrified _ for Snape's sake _ at his choosing to do an Avada Kedavra rather than break the Vow. Hence his pleas.

=============================================

Out of time again !!


wynnleaf - Dec 4, 2006 6:31 am (#925 of 2959)
Vulture, you said:

But my theory raises no such problems. Under my theory, it's quite consistent that Dumbledore, unafraid for himself, would be horrified _ for Snape's sake _ at his choosing to do an Avada Kedavra rather than break the Vow. Hence his pleas.

I'm very curious why you think DD would want Snape to either 1. do nothing, or 2. try to fight the DE's, when either option would presumably result in Snape's quick death, the DE's being then free to kill DD, Harry vulnerable to attack from the DE's, and the DE's and Fenrir left in the castle to continue to attack. And you're saying DD would want Snape to risk all of this so he wouldn't commit the terrible crime of killing DD?

You know that I think there was a lot more going on there, but under your theory, this is basically what DD was asking Snape.


Die Zimtzicke - Dec 4, 2006 9:46 am (#926 of 2959)
Maybe at first Dumbledore just thought there would be an attack on him personally, and that either the DE's would not be in the castle, or at least not in such large numbers that the aurors on duty could not handle them? He had to have known that the focus would be more on him and he would be the linchpin on which everything else would turn. It definitely seems to have gotten out of hand quickly.


T Vrana - Dec 4, 2006 9:52 am (#927 of 2959)
Vulture- So you are saying DD was saying "Please don't perform an unforgivable curse, drop dead instead."? (If that is how the vow works).

I just can't see this scenario.

I don't see how the 'not necessary' thought works. The third part requires Snape to do Draco's task if Draco seems unable. Draco deciding he's not a killer would fit the 'unable' and Snape would be obligated (if that was what he vowed to do).


wynnleaf - Dec 4, 2006 11:24 am (#928 of 2959)
More about "what if Vulture's theory was correct..."

Let's suppose, for arguments sake, that Draco deciding he just couldn't kill DD somehow let Snape off the hook (assuming that's what the Vow was about). Even then, DD saying, "Severus please, you don't need to kill me to complete the vow," would still be telling Snape to take on 4 Death Eaters in some sort of magical fire fight, while Harry would be frozen and invisible (a highly vulnerable state). And Draco might or might not join either side in the fighting also putting him at risk. So Snape would have to fight 4 DE's, taking care to protect two teenagers, one of whom might be firing on him or being fired upon by the DEs. Snape would likely be overpowered or killed by the DE's. DD would be killed by the DE's. Harry would be exposed (if he hadn't already been hit by a stray curse), and possibly killed. If Draco had sided with Snape, he'd likely be injured or killed by the DEs. Then the DE's and Fenrir could proceed back down into the castle to continue whatever mayhem they wanted to attempt.

And that's what DD thought was preferable to Snape AKing him?


The Artful Dodger - Dec 4, 2006 2:06 pm (#929 of 2959)
The assumption that Dumbledore knew about Snape making the Unbreakable Vow is not necessarily true. Some bits in the text may hint towards the opposite. Plus, I think if the Death Eaters were as competent as the ones in OoP, Snape would have had quite a good chance to win a fight against them. And Harry being frozen isn't too much a problem. Dumbledore could just have lifted the binding spell. Then Harry could have left, after Dumbledore told him so, and Draco, too, so that Snape would have a clear shot.


rambkowalczyk - Dec 4, 2006 5:46 pm (#930 of 2959)
Because I really, really disagree with this notion. "Please allow yourself to die and leave Harry up here unprotected and the DE's and Fenrir can kill me instead and then roam over the castle killing more people. Isn't that better Severus, than AKing me and ruining your soul?" Sorry to be so sarcastic, but someone else about a year ago was supporting this theory and I strongly disagree with it. wynnleaf

This isn't what Dumbledore is saying. He is saying Severus trust me, the Unbreakable Vow will not kill you. Draco has concluded he is not a killer, He and Narcissa will go into hiding, the third part of the vow is not fulfilled because Draco doesn't need to kill me.

just a few paragraphs before DD calmly told Draco that he happened to trust Snape - yet, if the explanation above is correct, DD immediately assumed that Snape was going to kill him pretty much the minute Snape showed up? Saracene

Dumbledore trusts that Snape is not a double agent. Even if Snape was unconvinced that "it would never be necessary" it doesn't make Snape Voldemort's man. A coward maybe.

Besides, if Snape really betrayed and murdered DD, I don't see how it would change anything Saracene

Depends on your definition of betray. A full betrayal would mean that Snape was always on Voldemort's side and that Dumbledore misjudged Snape. A less than full betrayal (which is what I think you are arguing) means Snape killed Dumbledore because he was afraid to die. In Dumbledore's eyes this might not be a betrayal, but more of a I'm so disappointed in you.

And I don't think that this betrayal is something Snape could ever make up for no matter what he does; IMO you can only take your characters that far into the dark territory. Saracene

Here I will agree to disagree. I have stated before that I think the power that Voldemort knows not will be for Harry to forgive Snape.

Snape probably would be infuriated if it was accompanied by jolly little quips about death being "the next great adventure" :-D Vulture

LOL

Let's suppose, for arguments sake, that Draco deciding he just couldn't kill DD somehow let Snape off the hook (assuming that's what the Vow was about). Even then, DD saying, "Severus please, you don't need to kill me to complete the vow," would still be telling Snape to take on 4 Death Eaters in some sort of magical fire fight, while Harry would be frozen and invisible (a highly vulnerable state). wynnleaf

It's agreed that Snape is a powerful wizard. He could have done what Dumbledore did in Book 5 when Fudge confronted him about Dumbledores Army. Dumbledore knocked out 4 people. Snape could have done the same thing. Snape is cunning. He could have thought of a clever explanation to save himself, Draco, Harry, etc.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 931 to 960

Post  Mona Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:18 pm

painting sheila - Dec 4, 2006 6:46 pm (#931 of 2959)
I am jumping in here in the middle - and I must admit that I didn't read the 192 post I fell behind on, but - after reading GoF once more, I think I have to move to the "Snape is a good guy" side.

In the Foe Glass when Crouch was being outed as Crouch and not Mad Eye, the foe glass showed Dumbledore, McGonagall, and Snape all three looking out from the glass.

If Snape was a friend/associate/on the same side as Crouch, and not a "foe".


TomProffitt - Dec 4, 2006 7:25 pm (#932 of 2959)
painting sheila, the difficulty with figuring out which side Snape is on is that there are so many sides. I think Snape has one all to himself.

My opinion on Snape is that he is a man desperately trying not to be forced into choosing a side. Snape is not shallow like Pettigrew making "easy" choices, but he is essentially the same type of person, only with the ability and resolve to take the long view. Pettigrew allowed his fear to force him into an early bad choice. Conversely Snape cleverly plays out his options trying to go as long as possible to keep from being pinned down.

I believe that Severus still has options open to him even now. I don't know what Rowling has in store for us, but I am confident of one thing, Severus would not willingly sacrifice his future freedom for an abstract concept such as "goodness" or "freedom" any more than he would willingly sacrifice his life for Tom Riddle. Sooner or later Snape will run out of "Get Out of Jail Free" cards, but he'll play every one he has in has hands.

That's my assessment of his character. How that relates to the plot is a different matter. I don't think there are enough clues revealed at this time to know for certain which side he'll ultimately end on.


painting sheila - Dec 5, 2006 6:53 am (#933 of 2959)
TomProffitt - After I posted I thought about Snape and Crouch not having a good "working" relationship. Crouch could have tried to force Snape to play his hand and Snape could have been Crouches enemy.

The fact that he showed up in the Foe Glass could be a different reason that why Dumbledore and McGonagall showed up in the Foe Glass.

so, You are Right! I agree. He is way to multi faceted to figure out on one layer alone.

Thanks!

She


Vulture - Dec 5, 2006 10:36 am (#934 of 2959)
I'm very curious why you think DD would want Snape to either 1. do nothing, or 2. try to fight the DE's, when either option would presumably result in Snape's quick death, the DE's being then free to kill DD, Harry vulnerable to attack from the DE's, and the DE's and Fenrir left in the castle to continue to attack. And you're saying DD would want Snape to risk all of this so he wouldn't commit the terrible crime of killing DD? (wynnleaf )

Well, in a way, we're partly (not totally) at cross-purposes, because your statement above is dealing solely with Snape's options on the Tower, whereas my theory largely (but perhaps not totally) ascribes Dumbledore's horrified reaction to the mere fact of Snape showing up at all. In short, once Snape appeared, it was clear what he was there for. I think we can at least agree that, once Snape appeared, there was no way Dumbledore was leaving the Tower alive.

But let's leave that, and deal with your statement as it is. On option 1, it is quite clear to me that the right moral choice was for Snape to break the Vow and refuse to murder Dumbledore, even at the cost of his life. Would I, or any of us, be able to choose thus, in Snape's place ? I really don't know. But the moral choice is quite clear. I've seen many theories which try to get around it and depict Snape's action as morally right, but they can only do so by (a) adopting an "end justifies the means" morality (which Dumbledore never subscribes to in Books 1 to 5), (b) trying to change the nature of Avada Kedavra as we know it, and/or (c) telling us that, as with Pettigrew's fake death in Book 3, we didn't see what we thought we saw.

On option 2, I've seen this stated many times by many people, and _ with no disrespect to you, Wynnleaf, or to them _ I've no patience with it. It is utterly defeatist. Whatever readers think of the Gryffindor code of honour, we know that Harry and Dumbledore, as well as most of the good-side people fighting that night, subscribe to it. I simply will not accept that Dumbledore would throw his life away because he thought that otherwise the Death Eaters would go through Hogwarts like a knife through butter. That would not be self-sacrifice, it would be irresponsibility _ and an abject lack of faith in his followers.

Dumbledore's attitude to fighting evil recalls that of de Gaulle, who made clear that he would have preferred Paris, jewel of cities, to be levelled by the Nazis rather than that France should surrender her soul, or of Churchill, who said that even if Britain were "subjected and starving", there would be no parleying with " that man " (Hitler).

=================================================================

Because I really, really disagree with this notion. "Please allow yourself to die and leave Harry up here unprotected and the DE's and Fenrir can kill me instead and then roam over the castle killing more people. Isn't that better Severus, than AKing me and ruining your soul?" Sorry to be so sarcastic, but someone else about a year ago was supporting this theory and I strongly disagree with it. (wynnleaf)

_ This isn't what Dumbledore is saying. He is saying Severus trust me, the Unbreakable Vow will not kill you. Draco has concluded he is not a killer, He and Narcissa will go into hiding, the third part of the vow is not fulfilled because Draco doesn't need to kill me. (rambkowalczyk )

Ah. I should make clear that I'm with Wynnleaf on just this much: that once Draco failed (or refused, whichever you prefer) to kill Dumbledore, the Vow clearly locked Snape into doing it instead if he was to fulfil it.

===========================

Out of time again !! .........


wynnleaf - Dec 5, 2006 11:04 am (#935 of 2959)
Vulture,

Then if I get your theory correctly, you're saying that DD wouldn't have wanted Snape to come up to the tower. But in fact, when DD and Harry arrived at the tower the first instructions that DD had for Harry was to leave, go get Snape and bring him back to DD. So DD did appear to want Snape to come to the tower.


Mrs Brisbee - Dec 5, 2006 11:15 am (#936 of 2959)
So DD did appear to want Snape to come to the tower.-- wynnleaf

But not after Draco shows up. Dumbledore froze harry when Draco got to the Tower. If Dumbledore wanted Snape to be on the Tower at the same time as Draco, he would have let Harry continue with his mission. Since he did not, it appears Dumbledore didn't want Snape on the Tower once Draco was there.


wynnleaf - Dec 5, 2006 11:42 am (#937 of 2959)
When DD went to the tower it was obvious that some sort of altercation within the castle was taking place. It would be practically certain that it was of Draco's making. Further, the Mark over the tower would make it clear that the tower was some sort of focal point for the night's activities. DD knew all of that when he was up on the tower trying to send Harry to bring Snape back to him. Even without explanations of extra knowledge on DD's part, or an intricate plan of his own, DD must have known that Draco had a high likelihood of turning up on the tower.

Now if DD knew all of that (prior to Draco's appearance), and yet still wanted Snape to come -- how can one possibly fault Snape for going to the tower? Was he supposed to have some link to DD's changing desires? "He wants me; he wants me not," or even "now does, now he doesn't."

As regards DD's decision to freeze Harry... I think it's more likely that DD stopped Harry from going because he knew that once Draco had come up to the tower, there was likely a lot more going on down below. I think he probably initially froze Harry because he wasn't sure what was coming up the tower (who, how many, etc.) and better to stop Harry right then, than to risk Harry deciding he had to somehow stay and protect DD (thereby possibly getting himself killed.)

Does anyone really think that Harry would have left the tower while Draco was holding a possibly sick, weakened, unarmed DD on the tower? And without calling out his name -- letting Draco know Harry was there -- how could DD give any further instructions to Harry?


Mrs Brisbee - Dec 5, 2006 11:50 am (#938 of 2959)
Does anyone really think that Harry would have left the tower while Draco was holding a possibly sick, weakened, unarmed DD on the tower? And without calling out his name -- letting Draco know Harry was there -- how could DD give any further instructions to Harry?

Dumbledore was only disarmed because he chose to freeze Harry, not Draco. Dumbledore could have just as easily froze Draco, or disarmed him, and sent harry on his merry way.

Moreover, both Dumbledore and Hagrid did just fine in CoS, communicating to Ron and Harry under the invisibility cloak while others were about. All Dumbledore would have to say on the tower would be, "I could use Severus Snape here right now".


rambkowalczyk - Dec 5, 2006 1:48 pm (#939 of 2959)
Ah. I should make clear that I'm with Wynnleaf on just this much: that once Draco failed (or refused, whichever you prefer) to kill Dumbledore, the Vow clearly locked Snape into doing it instead if he was to fulfil it. Vulture

A little confused as to your position. A few posts ago you seemed to argue that Dumbledore was arguing with Snape in the forest that there was a way Snape didn't have to kill Dumbledore and still live.

But now you say Snape is clearly locked into it. What then in your opinion was Dumbledore talking about in the forest?

Did Snape convince Dumbledore that the loophole in the Vow was an illusion?


wynnleaf - Dec 5, 2006 2:40 pm (#940 of 2959)
Dumbledore was only disarmed because he chose to freeze Harry, not Draco. Dumbledore could have just as easily froze Draco, or disarmed him, and sent harry on his merry way. (Mrs Brisbee)

Hm. The question I was dealing with was whether or not DD wanted Snape to come and be a part of a confrontation with Draco, and whether or not Snape could in any way be faulted for going to the tower, knowing that such a confrontation was likely.

As regards DD freezing Harry instead of disarming Draco -- that was DD's choice. Why did DD decide it was important to freeze Harry, if he could easily have sent Harry down the stairs? Are you suggesting that DD wanted Harry to view any confrontation between he and Draco? Perhaps that's true. But it in no way speaks to the question I was asking -- if DD had wanted to send Harry to get Snape and bring him back, then he must have wanted Snape on the tower as well, at least at first, even though he must have known that Draco would probably eventually come up there as well. There's no way Snape could have been able to figure out any changing notions that DD might have been having up on the tower.

DD did want Snape brought or sent to the tower, at least at first. DD must have known Draco would likely come to the tower as well. Therefore DD was not attempting to prevent Snape and Draco and himself from being together during a confrontation. If DD ultimately changed his mind and wished Snape wouldn't come -- well, maybe, who knows. But one can't fault Snape for attempting to do the same thing that DD had wanted -- arrive at the place where Draco and DD were likely to confront each other.


Thom Matheson - Dec 5, 2006 5:19 pm (#941 of 2959)
As I see it, DD and Harry flew to the tower to investigate the Dark Mark. The tower is empty. Just as he wanted Severius before flying from Hogsmeade, I think telling Harry to get Severius was for his ability to heal him from the cave. Then they hear footsteps coming up the tower, Dumbledore freezes Harry. I do not believe that Draco or any of the Death Eaters knew that Harry was a witness to the proceedings.


Mrs Brisbee - Dec 5, 2006 7:35 pm (#942 of 2959)
As I see it, DD and Harry flew to the tower to investigate the Dark Mark. The tower is empty. Just as he wanted Severius before flying from Hogsmeade, I think telling Harry to get Severius was for his ability to heal him from the cave. -- Thom Matheson

Thom, that's my take on it too: Dumbledore wants Snape because he is gravely ill, and he is in need of Snape's healing ability.

As regards DD freezing Harry instead of disarming Draco -- that was DD's choice. Why did DD decide it was important to freeze Harry, if he could easily have sent Harry down the stairs? Are you suggesting that DD wanted Harry to view any confrontation between he and Draco? Perhaps that's true. But it in no way speaks to the question I was asking -- if DD had wanted to send Harry to get Snape and bring him back, then he must have wanted Snape on the tower as well, at least at first, even though he must have known that Draco would probably eventually come up there as well. There's no way Snape could have been able to figure out any changing notions that DD might have been having up on the tower. -- wynnleaf

I brought up Dumbledore freezing Harry because it prevents Harry from going to get Snape. It seems to me that if Dumbledore really wanted Snape up on the Tower with Draco, he would have let Harry go get Snape. I also don't see how Dumbledore could have known that Draco was going to come up the stairs.

You are dead right that Snape, down in his office with no means to communicate with Dumbledore, could have known anything about what was happening or Dumbledore's desires for him to come to Hogsmeade or up to the Tower-- until fetched by a third party. Up till then Snape was out of the loop.


Saracene - Dec 6, 2006 3:36 am (#943 of 2959)
Vulture:

---Under my theory, it's quite consistent that Dumbledore, unafraid for himself, would be horrified _ for Snape's sake _ at his choosing to do an Avada Kedavra rather than break the Vow. Hence his pleas.---

Well, my question again is, why would DD plead with Snape *before* Snape had a chance to say or do anything at all? Why would it be clear to DD that Snape was there to kill him?

I'd find your scenario more likely if DD started to plead with Snape after Snape clearly indicated his intention to act on the Vow and kill DD. But DD's pleading comes mere seconds after Snape showed up. Why would DD, who only moments ago re-affirmed his full trust in Snape yet again, assume straight away that Snape was there to kill him?

---(4) On the Tower: _ "the door burst open and there stood Snape, his wand clutched in his hand as his black eyes swept the scene". It's a real 'here's Mr. Trouble' moment, cue the big music. "Even the werewolf seemed cowed", etc. This is one angry wizard.---

I don't really see anything in that description that would indicate Snape's emotional state on his arrival, angry or otherwise. The 'cowed werewolf' bit comes after DD pleads with him. The 'hatred and revulsion', likewise.

---On option 1, it is quite clear to me that the right moral choice was for Snape to break the Vow and refuse to murder Dumbledore, even at the cost of his life. Would I, or any of us, be able to choose thus, in Snape's place ? I really don't know.---

I see it from a totally different perspective. I think Snape (presuming that he really is loyal to DD of course) would have seen death from the broken Vow as an easy option.

rambkowalczyk:

---This isn't what Dumbledore is saying. He is saying Severus trust me, the Unbreakable Vow will not kill you. Draco has concluded he is not a killer, He and Narcissa will go into hiding, the third part of the vow is not fulfilled because Draco doesn't need to kill me.---

And DD fit all of that into that one little "please"? Smile

---Depends on your definition of betray. A full betrayal would mean that Snape was always on Voldemort's side and that Dumbledore misjudged Snape. A less than full betrayal (which is what I think you are arguing) means Snape killed Dumbledore because he was afraid to die. In Dumbledore's eyes this might not be a betrayal, but more of a I'm so disappointed in you.---

Well, personally I think that Snape betraying DD because he was afraid to die is actually worse than him being a loyal DE. That just makes him another Pettigrew and a contemptible coward to boot. IMO a good guy who betrays out of cowardice is worse than a straightforward baddie who's just doing his job really well.


rambkowalczyk - Dec 6, 2006 4:37 am (#944 of 2959)
And DD fit all of that into that one little "please"? Smile Saracene

LOL, I suppose that all that was communicated was "Trust me" The "you don't have to kill me" etc would be implied based on previous conversations.

Well, personally I think that Snape betraying DD because he was afraid to die is actually worse than him being a loyal DE. Saracene

I will agree to disagree on this but let me try to clarify my position a little.

Betray has a number of meanings in the dictionary. Snape fits the one that says "to break faith with, failed to meet the hopes of". Pettigrew's "betray" is more along the lines of "to help the enemy of the wizarding world."

One can argue that Snape does help Voldemort by his action in that Voldemort wanted Dumbledore dead and Snape did it. But as been argued before this evil deed does put Snape in the position of being able to help Harry without Voldemort suspecting anything. (I'm not condoning this but rationalizing what Snape could be thinking).

One can also argue that Pettigrew broke faith with his friends and that he did it for the same reason that Snape did, cowardice. Although Pettigrew's reason may have been originally afraid to die, I think Peter's action went above and beyond that fear. It seems that he has actually made a decision to support Voldemort because he has squandered opportunities to help Harry. Whereas Snape could have captured Harry and brought him to Voldemort, he left Harry at Hogwarts.


T Vrana - Dec 6, 2006 6:23 am (#945 of 2959)
I agree with Saracene. I'll take a true enemy over a cowardly friend any day. If Snape betrayed DD to save himself, after DD took him in, gave him a second chance, kept him out of Azkaban, and TRUSTED him, he's worse than Pettigrew and all the other DEs.


wynnleaf - Dec 6, 2006 7:18 am (#946 of 2959)
I agree with Saracene also. A Snape who betrays DD at the last, simply because he's afraid to die, is pretty awful. And remember, this is after all someone who was willing to court death over and over when he'd spy on Voldemort.

But more than that, I just can't see Dumbledore wanting - at that moment - for Snape to break the vow and die. Now if DD has power that he's not showing up there on the tower (that is, DD can himself help fight the DEs), then DD could stop Snape from AKing him if he wanted. But if DD was truly weakened and vulnerable, then he really wouldn't want Snape to die, since Snape's being alive was the best bet for Harry and Draco to get out of the situation without serious injury or death.

Of course, personally I think DD was not quite as vulnerable as supposed, but he did want Snape to AK him. But that's a separate question and doesn't relate to Vulture's theory.

Now, according to Vulture, DD perhaps didn't want Snape and Draco to be together in a confrontation with himself (DD), because it could end up in a situation where the Vow would come into play, with it becoming clear that Draco will "fail" and Snape will have to act on the Vow or die. So if that was the case, there's no way DD would come back to the castle, see that Draco had obviously started in on his big Plan, and then try to get Snape to meet him (DD) -- right in the most likely place where Draco was going to eventually show up.

DD must have realized that calling Snape to himself would make it highly likely that the three would end up in some sort of confrontation. And yet DD wanted Snape anyway. Therefore, we cannot fault Snape for going to the very place where Dumbledore wanted him to be. And once on the tower with DD, Draco, Harry and the DE's, Dumbledore could not let Snape die and leave Harry and Draco vulnerable.


Die Zimtzicke - Dec 6, 2006 8:50 am (#947 of 2959)
Can it be possible that Snape and Dumbledore WERE communicating through their minds in that last moment, and Snape didn't want to do it, and then Dumbledore said please? I always suspected that. Darn, I wish Harry had gotten good at Occlumency!


haymoni - Dec 6, 2006 9:11 am (#948 of 2959)
That is what I believe, Die, and I am sticking to it until JKR tells me otherwise.


Vulture - Dec 6, 2006 10:03 am (#949 of 2959)
Then if I get your theory correctly, you're saying that DD wouldn't have wanted Snape to come up to the tower. But in fact, when DD and Harry arrived at the tower the first instructions that DD had for Harry was to leave, go get Snape and bring him back to DD. So DD did appear to want Snape to come to the tower. (wynnleaf )

But that's different. Yes, Dumbledore ordered Harry to fetch Snape, and (because Snape was waiting, fully dressed, in his office, and _ if we believe McGonagall _ didn't know the Death Eaters were going to come) we have a strong probability that Dumbledore had warned Snape to be up and ready for orders.

But we know that he hadn't precisely told Snape what orders, because (a) Dumbledore himself didn't predict everything; and (b) if he had given Snape a precise rendezvous, there would have been no need for Harry to fetch him.

Apart from that, we know that Dumbledore never expected Snape to appear on the Tower because we know that Dumbledore himself never expected to be there _ he only went there in reaction to the Dark Mark.

Anyway, my point is that, when Snape showed up on the Tower, of his own accord and without instructions from Harry, Dumbledore understood which choice Snape was making about the Vow, and was horrified.

NOTE THIS _ when Snape showed up, Dumbledore did not react with the relief he would have shown if Lupin or McGonagall had burst through the door. He pleaded _ before Snape had spoken a word or even indicated what he was about to do. Why should Dumbledore react like this if he didn't know what Snape's appearance meant ?

OK, so some will say: oh, he was pleading with Snape to kill him as per The Cunning Plan, because Snape didn't want to do it and was hesitating. But that's making an assumption about what was going on in Snape's head, because there was no outer show of hesitation. In fact, I doubt very much if Snape _ whatever the truth about the Tower events _ did hesitate. Why ? _ because if he was under Dumbledore's own orders to kill him, I believe he would have mastered his feelings long before a moment where disobeying orders could wreck things. He's much more into cold self-will than Harry, remember.

In short, I don't believe the please-kill-me-for-The-Cunning-Plan argument. At least, to believe it, it's necessary to make up theories and add them to what Book 6 actually says. Nothing wrong with that _ but my claim for my theory is that, to believe it, it's not necessary to add to, or change, what Book 6 actually says.

We know that Snape kills Dumbledore, and that minutes later, he seems as if he was "in as much pain as the dog in the burning hut". We know that Avada Kedavra is a spell which cannot be done as an act of good. We know that "you can't break an Unbreakable Vow". To my eyes, that adds up as _ Snape did an act of evil, he made the wrong, evil choice, but he did not want to do so, and hates what he's done.

=========================================================

I'd find your scenario more likely if DD started to plead with Snape after Snape clearly indicated his intention to act on the Vow and kill DD. But DD's pleading comes mere seconds after Snape showed up. Why would DD, who only moments ago re-affirmed his full trust in Snape yet again, assume straight away that Snape was there to kill him? (Saracene )

See my 4th paragraph above ("Anyway, my point is that, when Snape showed up on the Tower ...") for the reply to this one.

==========================================================

Of course, personally I think DD was not quite as vulnerable as supposed, but he did want Snape to AK him. But that's a separate question and doesn't relate to Vulture's theory. (wynnleaf )

Well actually, it does relate to the moral part of my theory _ i.e. it just doesn't fit with the nature of Avada Kedavra. You can't do Avada Kedavra as a good action: JKR is quite consistent on that. In Book 4, the fact that fake-Moody performs it in class is, we later realise, a tiny clue to his real identity.

For Dumbledore to want such a thing would be for him to endorse "the end justifies the means", which in fact would make him, who ordered Snape's deed, as bad as Snape. In fact, if Snape was reluctant to do it (the Forest conversation) and Dumbledore pressurised him into it, it makes Dumbledore worse than Snape !!

============================================================

So if that was the case, there's no way DD would come back to the castle, see that Draco had obviously started in on his big Plan, and then try to get Snape to meet him (DD) -- right in the most likely place where Draco was going to eventually show up. wynnleaf )

Ah, but once again this makes assumptions which might be reasonable, but which Book 6 doesn't actually say. Yes, Dumbledore had a shrewd hunch what Draco was up to all year, but I believe him when he states his surprise that Draco got Death Eaters into the castle. I also believe that his surprise and reactions to the Dark Mark were genuine.

So certainly, Dumbledore expected to have a showdown with Draco at some stage _ but in a context much more under his control than proved to be the case.

==============================================


Vulture - Dec 6, 2006 11:59 am (#950 of 2959)
The third part of the Vow says if it becomes necessary... Suppose Snape told Dumbledore the whole Vow and Dumbledore concluded that it was possible that "it would never be necessary". If Draco could conclude that he was not a killer, and that he would be willing to go into hiding and stay in hiding until Voldemort was defeated, then maybe Draco could decide he was not going to try anymore to kill Dumbledore. No lives would be in danger, therefore it would not be necessary.

Maybe this is what Snape thought that Dumbledore took too much for granted. (rambkowalczyk)

Ah. I should make clear that I'm with Wynnleaf on just this much: that once Draco failed (or refused, whichever you prefer) to kill Dumbledore, the Vow clearly locked Snape into doing it instead if he was to fulfil it. (Vulture )

A little confused as to your position. A few posts ago you seemed to argue that Dumbledore was arguing with Snape in the forest that there was a way Snape didn't have to kill Dumbledore and still live. But now you say Snape is clearly locked into it. What then in your opinion was Dumbledore talking about in the forest? Did Snape convince Dumbledore that the loophole in the Vow was an illusion? (rambkowalczyk )

Hi, Ramboczyylk _ Sorry that I ran out of time before answering your question on the last post. Anyway _ short answer is, I agree with that part of #901 (see above) where you say that Dumbledore might have seen a loophole in the Vow's words about it being "necessary" for Snape to do Draco's deed. But I don't really agree with the necessity being about Voldemort's threats to Draco. In my view, "becomes necessary" is simply another way of saying "if Draco fails to do the task".

As long as Draco hadn’t clearly failed, the Vow didn't bind Snape to do Draco's task. Remember _ Draco hadn't taken any Vow. In short, while Draco was still in a limbo situation (which he was for most of the year) of doing the task but not having completed it, Snape was safe _ as long as he 'watched over' Draco and 'protected him from harm'.

Remember, Dumbledore never tried to confront Draco or bring him over to the right side before Tower Night. Why not ? The reason he gives on the Tower (Voldemort's threats to Draco's family) is hardly a complete one: why didn't he offer Draco and his family the Order's protection before ?

The answer can only be that there was something to gain from leaving things as they were (despite all the dangers, such as nearly killing Katie and Ron). What else can that something be, other than the fact that the status quo clearly left Snape alive and un-committed to any act, whereas no-one could know for certain how any change would affect him and the Vow ?

Now, your question seems to hinge on the Vow binding Snape to its third part "should it become necessary", and on Dumbledore thinking up a way to avoid the 'necessity'. I think it's fair to say that this would all hinge on exact interpretation, and it's most understandable that Snape, the one whose head was on the block, would have arguments with Dumbledore about it, especially as the year wore on.

Anyway, when Draco confronted Dumbledore on the Tower, Dumbledore finally had no alternative but to offer him and his family the Order's protection. (By the way, Dumbledore was clearly not into self-sacrifice just then.) If Draco had accepted, this would have meant that he had failed Voldemort's task. There would still be hope for Snape as long as he didn't know of Draco's failure. But once he knew, he had to choose.

So when Snape arrived on the Tower, of his own accord, not by orders, Dumbledore knew that either (a) someone had somehow triggered the Vow (which is what happened), or that (b) Snape had been evil all along, and had intended all along that either Draco or he himself would fulfil the Vow. Dumbledore would naturally go for (a), but he would also realise that Snape's appearance almost certainly meant that he had made up his mind to keep the Vow.

===================================================

It may be that there's more to keeping the Vow than fear of death; it must be regarded as "unbreakable" for a reason. In any case, Snape was between a rock and a hard place _ performing Avada Kedavra is an unambiguously evil act, but breaking the Vow is a terrifying prospect.

But _ let me stress yet again _ the moral choice was absolutely clear. Hard, yes; terrible, yes; but clear. Would I do any better than Snape ? _ I really don't know.

============================================================

Just a quick word on what would have happened if Snape had fought the Death Eaters: I admit that he was in a very tight place, but the one advantage he would certainly have had was surprise _ they wouldn't have expected an attack from him. Now, in Book 3, Lupin takes Harry, Ron and Hermione by surprise and disarms them of three wands. Yes, they're teenagers, and one is injured, but I don't think that matters _ we've seen from Draco's Tower ambush that "Expelliarmus" is a bit of a leveller in magical combat if you get it fired off before the opponent reacts.

The key point, which I haven't seen discussed (though perhaps it has been on Dumbledore's thread), is _ could Snape have got a wand to Dumbledore ? I think he could, and if he had, we've seen enough to know that Dumbledore could wipe the floor with that second-rate gang of Death Eater losers without blinking.

Of course, I have to admit that all this depends on the Vow not kicking in and sending Snape off to hell in a fiery chariot.


Thom Matheson - Dec 6, 2006 12:10 pm (#951 of 2959)
Vulture, I believe I understand your theory and your examples to verify it, save for one item. You state Dumbledore basically asked for it to happen. I just cannot accept that Dumbledore choose death. That is akin to assisted suicide in my eyes and I just cannot buy into that from any point of view.

His "please" meant to me, you don't have to follow through on the vow, I have another way. I agree that Snape had to mean the AK in order to have it happen, but other things were going on there. When Snape arrives on the tower he sees Dumbledore, Malfoy, Greyback, and the brother sister death eaters (the names escape me). They all seem to be taking orders from Snape, so I deduced that they all expected Malfoy to do the deed, with strict orders to not assist him. I believe that they knew of Voldemort's plan for Malfoy. Snape has a real problem. How do I get through this in front of DE witnesses, save Malfoy(and me) and still play spy? Remember that he admists to Sissy and Bella that the Hogwarts job is pretty cushie. He likes playing both sides. His real problem is one that even he doesn't realize. That Harry is there as well. If he AK's Dumbledore who is to challenge him if he says the death eaters did it? His cover stays intact. It is Harry that is the problem. Harry is the witness for the Order and Ministry that can put him away for good. It is Harry that can keep him from returning to Hogwarts.

Snape is a true Slytherin, and by defination, will and does think of himself first. For my money the real problem on the tower is that Harry busted him, and he has to go into hiding.


Vulture - Dec 6, 2006 12:22 pm (#952 of 2959)
Vulture, I believe I understand your theory and your examples to verify it, save for one item. You state Dumbledore basically asked for it to happen. I just cannot accept that Dumbledore choose death. That is akin to assisted suicide in my eyes and I just cannot buy into that from any point of view. (Thom Matheson )

No way !! I'm arguing just the opposite. Lots of people seem to think that "Severus, please ..." meant 'please kill me' but I certainly don't.

Snape is a true Slytherin, and by defination, will and does think of himself first. For my money the real problem on the tower is that Harry busted him, and he has to go into hiding. (Thom Matheson )

But then, how do you explain his flight from the Tower to the Hogwarts gates long before he realises Harry is around ? It's only just before the gates that Harry attacks him and he realises Harry is there. Even then, it's only when Harry says "Kill me like you killed him" that he could realise Harry's presence on the Tower. Or are you saying that he saw the second broom on the Tower and (unlike everyone else) understood its meaning at once ? I suppose that's possible.


Thom Matheson - Dec 6, 2006 12:27 pm (#953 of 2959)
Ok then I agree with you. I'm not too wishy washy either. For all the reasons I stated. OOPS. I'd explain more but I can't reach far enough to get my foot out of my mouth.


T Vrana - Dec 6, 2006 12:44 pm (#954 of 2959)
Vulture- You presume DD was only on the tower because of the Dark Mark, but DD indicates otherwise. When Draco brags that luring DD to the tower worked, DD responds.."Well...yes and no....". DD, IMHO, was not just there because of the Dark Mark, and this leads me to think he had a plan based on at least some knowledge of Draco's plan. The Severus please, again, IMHO, is not please drop dead from the vow. I actually wonder if DD Knew about part three of the vow. Protection is all that Harry and Draco ever mention. DD may know about parts one and two, but not three.


wynnleaf - Dec 6, 2006 2:51 pm (#955 of 2959)
Vulture, what exactly do you think the "Severus please" means? I mean, according to your theory, once Snape made the "mistake" or wrong decision to go to the tower, he was then forced to deal with the vow -- either AK DD or die. At that point (assuming your theory was correct), DD has no reason to say "Severus, please, you don't need to do this," because by that point -- even in your theory as I understand it -- Snape did have to act on the Vow or die. So basically, by that time, DD's "Please" could only mean "Go ahead and AK me and save the others" or "please let yourself die," which would leave a severely weakened DD, a frozen Harry, and Draco all up there at the mercy of the DE's.

Besides, I just don't see the point in this for JKR. She'd have Snape be loyal to DD all through the books (well, mostly loyal anyway), risk his life spying on LV, save Katie Bell's life, save DD's life, save Harry's life, etc..... And then after all that work, go to the tower and blow it all on killing DD just to save his own life. Yet immediately afterward he feels deep regret and....what? We get to see the redeemed Snape later? And JKR has Harry learn all about ... what? That Snape really killed DD just to save his own life, but in the end Harry should forgive him because, after all, he had been loyal before, and DD did have a reason to trust Snape, it's just that he really messed up, but then he did something else redeemable in the end?

I absolutely think Harry will have to forgive Snape eventually. It's one thing to forgive him for passing along info to LV, whilst a loyal DE, that inadvertently caused Harry's family to be targeted. Or for Harry to forgive Snape for his slight participation in Sirius' death through taunting him about being a coward. It's a complete other thing for Harry to forgive Snape for betraying Dumbledore and the Order and murdering Dumbledore solely to save his own neck.

I don't think so.

Besides, even though JKR's answer to Salmon Rushdie was a little difficult to understand, the gist of what he said was that whatever really happened on the tower was somehow bound up in whether or not Snape was good or not. And basically, JKR seemed to agree, even while acknowledging that DD was dead.

Yet your theory sets us a Snape who was on the right side, but made a terrible mistake at that moment, which he later deeply regrets. This doesn't exactly fit with the notion that whatever really occurred on the tower happened in light of Snape's being either good or evil. Because your theory supposes a Snape on the good side, who does a deed that is evil, in other words, a deed which he could just as easily have done and been completely evil, as have done and be mostly on the good side.

By the way, about the AK. Anyone could cast the AK. The problem is that it wouldn't actually work unless the person both meant it and had the power to do it (at least according to Barty, Jr.). Further, we are nowhere told that one must hate the person, or wish evil for someone, in order to cast the AK. Last, although DD is dead, we cannot be certain that the AK is what killed him. The AK did not follow the same description as other AKs. Based on Crouch, Jr's comments, it would be possible to cast an AK with no intent, and it would not cause harm. If DD was dying from the cave potions, for instance, his death could have been imminent at the moment the AK was cast.


T Vrana - Dec 6, 2006 4:51 pm (#956 of 2959)
Further, we are nowhere told that one must hate the person, or wish evil for someone, in order to cast the AK.

Intent to kill seems all that is needed. I don't think Pettigrew had any particular hate for Cedric, but he managed to kill him.

If DD was dying from the cave potions, for instance, his death could have been imminent at the moment the AK was cast.

I will be most disappointed if this is true. Some coincidence is ok (Malfoy fixes the cabinet on the night DD goes to the cave and drinks icky green potion), but dying just in time, just before the AK hits? No way.

(Wonder if Draco had help fixing that cabinet? Not the brightest bulb....)

I digress...


Thom Matheson - Dec 6, 2006 7:30 pm (#957 of 2959)
Worse yet, with a little more time he could have taken credit for the deed in front of the Death Eaters, without Severius.


wynnleaf - Dec 6, 2006 9:39 pm (#958 of 2959)
Some coincidence is ok (Malfoy fixes the cabinet on the night DD goes to the cave and drinks icky green potion), but dying just in time, just before the AK hits? No way. (T Vrana)

Well, I don't actually think this, but I'm trying to work with Vulture's theory.

Besides, in the "DD already dying" theory, Snape could have cast him alive over the tower and lowered him (or he lowered himself) to the ground, dying of the cave potions sometime over the next 10-15 minutes, or whatever it was before Harry finally got done chasing Snape and went looking for DD instead.

Vulture, you say that other theories add to the story, but in my opinion, when you basically fault Snape for going to the very place (the tower) where DD had only minutes before wanted Harry to bring him, by somehow deciding that DD no longer wanted Snape to be there (even though we get zero hint of that in the books), then I think your theory adds to the story as well.


Vulture - Dec 7, 2006 7:47 am (#959 of 2959)
Vulture- You presume DD was only on the tower because of the Dark Mark, but DD indicates otherwise. When Draco brags that luring DD to the tower worked, DD responds.."Well...yes and no....". DD, IMHO, was not just there because of the Dark Mark, and this leads me to think he had a plan based on at least some knowledge of Draco's plan. The Severus please, again, IMHO, is not please drop dead from the vow. I actually wonder if DD Knew about part three of the vow. Protection is all that Harry and Draco ever mention. DD may know about parts one and two, but not three. (T Vrana)

I'm in a bit of a rush, but my short reply is _ for me, the key word in the above is "IMHO" ('In My Humble Opinion', for those who like me, are abbreviation-phobic !!). What I mean is, you're adding, with your opinion, to what Book 6 actually says.

Now, you may very well turn out to be right. But my theory is based on not adding to what Book 6 says, or making up theories to explain stuff which the text seems to leave obscure. I could, of course, be wrong.

Dumbledore's "Well...yes and no....", in response to Draco saying that putting up a Dark Mark to lure him onto the Tower worked, can mean many things. It could for example mean: yes, it lured me onto the Tower, but no, it hasn't worked in its ultimate purpose, because (as I'm about to tell you, Draco) killing is not as easy as the innocent believe.

As for the "Severus, please", it all depends whether JKR regards the whole issue of his pleading as being as important as we do. There are certain indications that she doesn't. But again, that's just my opinion, and not backed up by the text. But anyway, all we can really know from the text is that Dumbledore pleaded with Snape twice, and that all the events from Snape's arrival to Dumbledore's death happened very fast.

Vulture, what exactly do you think the "Severus please" means? (wynnleaf )

I don't pretend to know for certain _ and of course, my theory may very well be blown to pieces by JKR. But I think you and others are leaving out two important elements of Dumbledore's reaction _ the speed of events and his own emotion. Remember, we've already seen him get nasty (or as near to nasty as Dumbledore ever gets) with Harry, one of his most loyal followers, to defend his trust of Snape. We know that since his arrival back in Hogsmeade, he was focussed on getting Snape's help (he mentions this twice). I think that his reaction would be a compound of emotions, mainly hope dying and horror growing.

I think that the debate between us centres on just this _ "Go ahead and AK me and save the others". Now, in our world, I would still have trouble accepting your view of this, because it would still mean "the end justifies the means" in my book. But I could certainly accept that a Dumbledore in our world might feel differently towards a Snape with a gun, all else being the same.

But in the wizard world, I'm afraid, there's no ambiguity. You cannot do the Avada Kedavra as an act of good. (If we want to thrash out all the moral rules about Avada Kedavra in massive detail, we need to go to my "Avada Kedavra And The Morality Of Killing" thread _ if it's still there !!)

So, although your argument is persuasive, I can't accept that Dumbledore would buy it _ (a) because of Avada Kedavra itself, and (b) because Dumbledore does not believe that "the end justifies the means".

Besides, I just don't see the point in this for JKR. She'd have Snape be loyal to DD all through the books (well, mostly loyal anyway), risk his life spying on LV, save Katie Bell's life, save DD's life, save Harry's life, etc..... And then after all that work, go to the tower and blow it all on killing DD just to save his own life. Yet immediately afterward he feels deep regret and....what? We get to see the redeemed Snape later? And JKR has Harry learn all about ... what? That Snape really killed DD just to save his own life, but in the end Harry should forgive him because, after all, he had been loyal before, and DD did have a reason to trust Snape, it's just that he really messed up, but then he did something else redeemable in the end? (wynnleaf )

The trouble with this (which, by the way, is a view shared by many) is that it makes Snape practically the central character after Harry (and maybe Dumbledore). My impression from my (admittedly limited) observation of JKR on TV, and her own words, is that she thoroughly enjoys this view, but doesn't agree with it. That is not to say that Snape isn't important _ he certainly is. Of course, once again, I could be wrong about this.

Besides, even though JKR's answer to Salmon Rushdie was a little difficult to understand, the gist of what he said was that whatever really happened on the tower was somehow bound up in whether or not Snape was good or not. And basically, JKR seemed to agree, even while acknowledging that DD was dead. (wynnleaf )

The most I could deduce from JKR's reply, which made the Delphic Oracle look like a model of transparency, was that she simply agreed that everything depends on which side Snape was on. Like, we never realised !!


wynnleaf - Dec 7, 2006 9:51 am (#960 of 2959)
The most I could deduce from JKR's reply, which made the Delphic Oracle look like a model of transparency, was that she simply agreed that everything depends on which side Snape was on. Like, we never realised !! (Vulture)

That was what I meant. "Everything depends on which side Snape was on." But in your theory, it doesn't. Snape could be on the Order's side mostly, but then make a terrible choice and murder DD in cold blood simply to save his own neck. In that theory, what happened on the tower doesn't depend on which side Snape is on, because an evil Snape would murder DD just as much as a cowardly Snape, and neither achieves any ulterior better purpose from it. But a thoroughly loyal Snape would have AK'd DD on his orders for some greater reason that does accomplish something for the Order's side.

Also, Vulture, I do not agree with the argument that any casting of the AK is automatically evil. An "unforgiveable" is, well, unforgiveable. We don't know exactly what that means (legally unforgiveable? destroys your soul?). What about if it's not a thorough-going effective AK? What if it doesn't actually kill? What if it kills someone who is dying? We really don't know the answers to this. Harry, after all, casts ineffective crucios and apparently the "unforgiveable" nature of those spells didn't affect him.

What I do think is that JKR has given enough hints (hints, not proof) that there was a plan and that Snape was following DD's plan and orders on the tower, to make that the likely scenario. Therefore, I think JKR has an explanation that will satisfy the "unforgiveable" nature of the AK, without resorting to having DD order Snape to do something evil, as well as keeping Snape as Dumbledore's man through and through.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 961 to 990

Post  Mona Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:21 pm

Saracene - Dec 8, 2006 1:59 am (#961 of 2959)
Vulture:

---In short, I don't believe the please-kill-me-for-The-Cunning-Plan argument. At least, to believe it, it's necessary to make up theories and add them to what Book 6 actually says. Nothing wrong with that _ but my claim for my theory is that, to believe it, it's not necessary to add to, or change, what Book 6 actually says.---

Thing is though, IMO it's not enough to simply look for a theory that neatly explains the events - because this a story, I think one needs to look at it from the storytelling point of view first and most. And like wynnleaf, I just can't see the point of JKR revealing in the last book that guess what, Snape had genuinely repented and been loyal to DD all that time up to the Tower scene. What's the point of it all now that Snape had betrayed and murdered his protector and all that repentance and loyalty stuff is as irrelevant as Michael Jackson's last album?

And I just don't see it as some sort of setup for Snape performing a redemptive act later on in order to make up for the awful deed he feels terrible about. Firstly - and I know that not all posters agree - it's IMO pretty much impossible for Snape to redeem himself for such a betrayal, nor for Harry to forgive him. And secondly, if what DD said in HBP was true and Snape had felt horrible remorse about his role in Potters' deaths, Snape *already* has a big regret in his life to make up for.

So, seeing that the whole series is centred about Harry, I think that the final book will either confirm everything Harry believes about Snape at the end of HBP - that he's a Death Eater who's never stopped working for Voldemort, lied his way into DD's trust and then murdered his benefactor - or reverse the picture completely and show that Snape had truly repented and DD's trust in him was and is absolutely justified. Any in-between scenario like "Snape had repented but then betrayed DD anyway" is IMO unlikely.


Vulture - Dec 8, 2006 8:06 am (#962 of 2959)
Also, Vulture, I do not agree with the argument that any casting of the AK is automatically evil. An "unforgiveable" is, well, unforgiveable. We don't know exactly what that means (legally unforgiveable? destroys your soul?). What about if it's not a thorough-going effective AK? What if it doesn't actually kill? What if it kills someone who is dying? We really don't know the answers to this. Harry, after all, casts ineffective crucios and apparently the "unforgiveable" nature of those spells didn't affect him. (wynnleaf )

Harry's ineffectiveness at Unforgiveables is broadly linked with the fact that, as Dumbledore has said, he has remained pure of heart despite his sufferings. As for Avada Kedavra in general, I don't see any ambiguity in JKR's writings _ the onus of proof is not on me, but on those who believe that Avada Kedavra can ever be anything but an evil act. JKR is not going to write volumes of legalese to cover every possible loophole, but I believe that what we're told about Avada Kedavra in Book 4, and Bellatrix's words to Harry at the Ministry battle in Book 5, make the position quite clear. (Bear in mind that Book 5 is one of her most well-thought-out books in terms of the logic.)

I don't want to get into a much more lengthy defence of my view on Avada Kedavra than this because (a) the Hosts will (rightly) come down on us in wrath for irrelevance, and (b) given that "Avada Kedavra And The Morality Of Killing" was my creation, I've a vested interest in ensuring that exhaustive debate on its subject only takes place there !!

That was what I meant. "Everything depends on which side Snape was on." But in your theory, it doesn't. (wynnleaf )

Well, it depends what one means by "everything" _ i.e. on how much emphasis and precision one puts on the word "everything". I think that both Rushdie and you mean roughly the same thing _ that the whole 7-book story hinges forcibly on whether Snape is good or evil. But my impression was that, when slippery old JKR agreed that "I think ... your opinion, Salman ... is right", I think she was giving a much looser, more relaxed, tone to the statement "Everything depends on it (i.e. on which side Snape is on)". That's the line my theory tries to follow _ that Snape's loyalty does, of course, make a difference to everything around it, but not necessarily everything in the HP universe depends on it.

My theory attempts to explain Book 6's events without going outside the book (or at least, only going outside to draw on the other 5). I think that the portrayal of Snape as someone wracked by inner conflicts and temptations could very well be as fascinating as any other portrayal.

I stick to my view that when Snape did the Avada Kedavra on the Tower, it was a real Avada Kedavra (i.e. conforming to Bellatrix's definition of Unforgiveables in Book 5), that it was an act of evil, that it killed Dumbledore, and that Dumbledore is definitely dead (as JKR has confirmed). I believe that any realistic theory has to take these things as facts _ my theory may not, of course, be the best way of doing so.

And like wynnleaf, I just can't see the point of JKR revealing in the last book that guess what, Snape had genuinely repented and been loyal to DD all that time up to the Tower scene. What's the point of it all now that Snape had betrayed and murdered his protector and all that repentance and loyalty stuff is as irrelevant as Michael Jackson's last album? (Saracene )

No disrespect, but I think that the above is really down to what you personally want from the story and characters. I myself can't see the point of JKR killing Dumbledore at all _ but that's what she's done. There are a lot of other things in Book 6 I couldn't see the point of, in terms of good storytelling, but they're there, and I just have to deal with their existence.

I'm not saying that my theory is necessarily my own ideal preference for Snape. Unfortunately, however, it's the one which, for me, best explains the facts as we know them up to Book 6's end, without going outside and beyond the books.

===========================================================

Folks, I would really, really, relish a good long nit-picking debate on the Avada Kedavra side of all this, so if ye are up for it, let's get it going on the ""Avada Kedavra And The Morality Of Killing" thread in parallel to what we're doing here. Thanks.


T Vrana - Dec 8, 2006 8:23 am (#963 of 2959)
Unfortunately, however, it's the one which, for me, best explains the facts as we know them up to Book 6's end, without going outside and beyond the books.

The problem is, Vulture, that until HBP, we had to go 'outside' the books to figure out why LV didn't die, because Jo had withheld that information. Similarly, we do not have all the info we need to answer the Snape question. We have to go 'outside', I think, to truly answer this, because I don't believe Jo has given us the full picture, intentionally.


rambkowalczyk - Dec 8, 2006 1:02 pm (#964 of 2959)
So, seeing that the whole series is centered about Harry, I think that the final book will either confirm everything Harry believes about Snape at the end of HBP - that he's a Death Eater who's never stopped working for Voldemort, lied his way into DD's trust and then murdered his benefactor - or reverse the picture completely and show that Snape had truly repented and DD's trust in him was and is absolutely justified. Any in-between scenario like "Snape had repented but then betrayed DD anyway" is IMO unlikely. Saracene

And yet I feel that an in between scenario where Snape who is committed to defeating Voldemort would do a betrayal because he thought it was the best way to defeat Voldemort. If he is a standard Slytherin where any means necessary was on the table I can see where he would be tempted to disobey Dumbledore and kill him. This definately puts Snape in a grey area where because his overall goal is the same as Dumbledore's and Harry's but his means to get there is obviously wrong.


Thom Matheson - Dec 8, 2006 1:37 pm (#965 of 2959)
rambkowalczyk, I think that it is the means which separates him from Dumbledore and Harry, not makes them alike. That was my Slytherin through and through argument. If in fact Snape wanted to remain a loyal Order member he would never have killed Dumbledore, let alone in front of witnesses. I don't believe that, even in the Wizarding World, there can be redemption for murder. Snape left that tower knowing that there was never going to be any turning back.


wynnleaf - Dec 8, 2006 1:44 pm (#966 of 2959)
I don't believe that, even in the Wizarding World, there can be redemption for murder.

Well, my own theories are on the "Dumbledore's Death - What Really Happened?" thread. Personally, I don't think Snape killed DD at all. Not because of Snape's character, but because I think the evidence most conclusively points to Snape as loyal to the Order, yet I don't think JKR will actually have included a plot which makes it "okay" for a loyal Order member to kill his leader, regardless of the leader telling him to do it. So I think JKR achieved DD's death through another as yet unknown method. He could have died from the cave liquids, for instance.

But I really don't want to debate that here, because that is a great deal of what's debated on the "What Really Happened?" thread.


Thom Matheson - Dec 8, 2006 1:51 pm (#967 of 2959)
Wynnleaf, you are correct with that. My point is regarding Severus. Because it is about his makeup and his character that my point is here. But, the only one that can disprove your point about the green goo is now dead. So when Snape has his day in court, and I believe that he will in book 7, he and Dumbledore are the only 2 who knew the real secret and one of them is dead. Which brings us back to a stand alone Severus.


wynnleaf - Dec 8, 2006 1:56 pm (#968 of 2959)
So when Snape has his day in court, and I believe that he will in book 7, he and Dumbledore are the only 2 who knew the real secret and one of them is dead. Which brings us back to a stand alone Severus.

I hope that in the end, Dumbledore will have his say, too. Because I think that DD knew that this would/could happen, I am very hopeful that the evidence exists to exonerate Snape. But remember, I don't actually think Snape killed DD. So I think the evidence will show that, not that it was okay for Snape to kill DD.

(Ever notice how I'm willing to argue a lot of contradictory things?)


Thom Matheson - Dec 8, 2006 1:59 pm (#969 of 2959)
I have no idea what you mean, maybe. Hee Hee. I understand about your theory, no foo, no green goo.


Saracene - Dec 8, 2006 2:55 pm (#970 of 2959)
Vulture:

---I'm not saying that my theory is necessarily my own ideal preference for Snape. Unfortunately, however, it's the one which, for me, best explains the facts as we know them up to Book 6's end, without going outside and beyond the books.---

Well, not really IMO. Your theory still has to rely on assumptions that are not stated as facts in the books. For instance, your theory requires that DD actually knew about Snape's Unbreakable Vow - but at this stage this is pure speculation. In fact many people cite DD's "that's what he would tell you" remark to Draco as a clear indication that DD in fact knew nothing about the Vow and, like Mr Weasley, thought it was just something Snape made up to get information from Draco.

And then there's also the whole issue of Snape's loyalty. Your theory assumes a Snape that had truly switched sides and been loyal to DD until the Tower scene. But that's not an established fact at all and never been. One would need to add a whole lot of stuff not in the books to fill in the blank spaces where Snape's backstory is concerned.

In the end, I think that any explanation JKR gives in the final book will have to go beyond the facts she's given us so far. That is, any explanation that's different to what Harry and the rest of the wizarding world believe about Snape at this point.


wynnleaf - Dec 8, 2006 2:59 pm (#971 of 2959)
---I'm not saying that my theory is necessarily my own ideal preference for Snape. Unfortunately, however, it's the one which, for me, best explains the facts as we know them up to Book 6's end, without going outside and beyond the books.---

The other big assumption is that DD had decided that Snape could circumvent the Vow if Draco could be convinced that he didn't need to kill DD. You further assume (as is certainly not stated in canon), that DD wanted Snape and Draco to stay apart so that Snape wouldn't have to fulfill the vow. All that is not in canon and requires not only knowledge by DD that we don't know he had, but also requires aspects of the Vow (that Snape can avoid the outcomes), which we don't know about.

So Vulture, I don't think you can say that this is a theory that adds nothing to canon.


rambkowalczyk - Dec 8, 2006 8:40 pm (#972 of 2959)
This definately puts Snape in a grey area where because his overall goal is the same as Dumbledore's and Harry's but his means to get there is obviously wrong. rambkowalczyk

rambkowalczyk,I think that it is the means which separates him from Dumbledore and Harry, not makes them alike. Thom Matheson

I just want to make clear that I do agree with Thom's statement. Dumbledore would not approve of these means because the danger to Snape's soul is more important than defeating Voldemort. But I still maintain that Snape's betrayal is not the same as Peter's. Peter's actions actually brought Voldemort back to power. Although Snape's action (killing Dumbledore) is wrong, it can be argued that it puts Snape in the position of helping Harry more so because no one would suspect him.

I don't believe that, even in the Wizarding World, there can be redemption for murder. Snape left that tower knowing that there was never going to be any turning back. Thom Matheson

I doubt if I will convince you but... in the bible there is the question "if my brother sins against me, how often must I forgive him? As many as seven times? ... I say to you not seven times but seventy-seven times."

There is no proof that JKR is going down this particular road. I suspect that forgiveness is going to be a powerful theme in book 7 and it will be difficult enough for Harry to forgive Snape for telling Voldemort the prophecy in the first place let alone forgiving Snape for killing Dumbledore after Dumbledore gave him his second chance. But by the peaceful look on Dumbledore's face when he died, I suspect Dumbledore had forgiven Snape for this second transgression.

Keep in mind that although forgiveness may have been given by Dumbledore it still has to be accepted by Snape and the only way that can be done is for him to admit he was wrong. To me the greatest evil is to believe that you can't be redeemed. Granted this means that Snape will die.


Thom Matheson - Dec 8, 2006 9:57 pm (#973 of 2959)
Using your process, an argument could be made then, for Voldemort being redeemed as well. I don't think that JKR will go that far. Further you are possibly suggesting that Dumbledore not only condoned Snapes AK action but may have been part of the process. I can only say that I cannot accept that Dumbledore, for the very reasons you posted, could be a part of that. That would make Albus's part a kin to an assisted suicide. That is also not also not very redeemable.


Laura W - Dec 9, 2006 6:06 am (#974 of 2959)
Well, we do know what Jo said during that Q and A at Radio City Music Hall on Aug. 1:

"I believe that almost anyone can redeem themselves; however, in some cases … as we know from reality … I mean … Voldemort … if psychologists were ever to get Lord Voldemort in a room, pin him down and take the wand away, I think he would be classified as a psychopath. So there are people, for whom, whatever you’re going to call it -- personality disorder or an illness -- I don’t think redemption is not possible. They’re rare. So I would say my characters, in the main, there is the possibility of redemption for all of them. ..."

From that, *I* take it to mean that Jo has definitely ruled out Tom's redemption - and rightly so, too! -, but that there is hope for others. *All* others? No matter what evils they have perpetrated? Hmm. Certainly Snape possibly, and Draco possibly. Peter? Bellatrix? Also, there is that carefully-inserted word "possibility" in her response. Crafty, that Rowling.

Laura


Vulture - Dec 9, 2006 7:02 am (#975 of 2959)
The problem is, Vulture, that until HBP, we had to go 'outside' the books to figure out why LV didn't die, because Jo had withheld that information. Similarly, we do not have all the info we need to answer the Snape question. We have to go 'outside', I think, to truly answer this, because I don't believe Jo has given us the full picture, intentionally. (T Vrana)

Yes, that's a widely-held view, and yes, I can see the value in going outside the strict account of the books, on a certain few matters _ for example, as regards Snape's personality.

But I feel that many of the discussions since Book 6 have gone (for me personally _ I'm not asking anyone to agree) far too far outside the books _ way off the rails in some cases. So I've chosen to go for a theory that uses only what I know. I daresay it won't turn out to be 100% correct (because of future revelations), but I'm hoping it's broadly on the right track. At the very least, it keeps the various events in Book 6 consistent with each other, which I don't feel a lot of other theories do (again, I'm not asking anyone to agree).

If in fact Snape wanted to remain a loyal Order member he would never have killed Dumbledore, let alone in front of witnesses. I don't believe that, even in the Wizarding World, there can be redemption for murder. (Thom Matheson )

I agree with the first senyence, but not the second. There can always be redemption for Snape if he truly repents.

I don't think JKR will actually have included a plot which makes it "okay" for a loyal Order member to kill his leader, regardless of the leader telling him to do it. (wynnleaf )

Up to now, I've thought that you were saying that Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him, and that Snape did so with great reluctance. Are you now saying that Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him, and Snape didn't do it at all ? Anyway, I wouldn't agree with either scenario.

So when Snape has his day in court, and I believe that he will in book 7, he and Dumbledore are the only 2 who knew the real secret and one of them is dead. (Thom Matheson )

Well, Dumbledore's portrait in the Head's office can testify to everything in Dumbledore's mind up to his death.

Your theory still has to rely on assumptions that are not stated as facts in the books. For instance, your theory requires that DD actually knew about Snape's Unbreakable Vow - but at this stage this is pure speculation. (Saracene )

Good points.

Harry told Dumbledore everything he had heard from his eavesdropping of Snape and Draco _ including what Snape said about the Unbreakable Vow. (Bear in mind that, by the time he told Dumbledore this, he was clearer in his own mind about the Vow's nature, having consulted Ron.) Dumbledore's answer was that he had understood everything Harry had told him and that "you (i.e. Harry) might consider the possibility that I understood more than you did".

So Dumbledore certainly knew what Harry knew about Snape's Vow, if not more. So it boils down to whether you think Dumbledore believed that Snape lied to Draco about the Vow.

I admit that what I said about the Forest Conversation was just a theory, because we won't know for certain until Book 7 what it was about. But (a) I think it likely that the Vow has some sort of relevance to the Forest Conversation, and (b) even if it doesn't, the Forest Conversation isn't a necessary part of my theory.

Your theory assumes a Snape that had truly switched sides and been loyal to DD until the Tower scene. (Saracene )

No, no _ I don't assume that at all, and I'm sorry if I gave that impression. My theory would fit quite easily if Snape was evil _ it's even possible that he was evil and didn't want to kill Dumbledore, for reasons we've all gone into. Or he may have fully intended to. But, if he was evil, he would still act like Dumbledore's man, and my bet is that he would tell him all about the Vow anyway.

But when discussing my theory, I'm mostly addressing people who think Snape is and was on the good side, so I tend to argue on the basis of Snape being on the good side unless otherwise stated.

==================================================================

The other big assumption is that DD had decided that Snape could circumvent the Vow if Draco could be convinced that he didn't need to kill DD. You further assume (as is certainly not stated in canon), that DD wanted Snape and Draco to stay apart so that Snape wouldn't have to fulfill the vow. (wynnleaf )

No, the credit for all that is rambkowalczyk's, as far as I recall. I quite like it, but it's not actually necessary for my theory (see below).

==================================================================

If I may, I'd like to focus attention on the above quotations to discuss my hunch that Snape didn't want to carry out the murder of Dumbledore (let's assume that this was the Vow's task), but in the end, failed to choose what was right (admittedly, a terrible choice) over what was easier. (I tend to assume that he's not on Voldemort's side, but I should stress that my hunch could still apply if he was.) I say "easier" rather than "easy" because my guess is that Snape will turn out to have been on the good side until the Tower, and that killing Dumbledore was painful for him. ( Vulture )

Just to re-state my theory _ as I'm in danger of forgetting it myself !! It's worded on the basis of his being on the good side, but having looked over it, there isn't that much that needs to be altered if he's on the evil one. I guess leaving out "(admittedly, a terrible choice)" would about cover it.


T Vrana - Dec 9, 2006 8:35 am (#976 of 2959)
So Dumbledore certainly knew what Harry knew about Snape's Vow, if not more. So it boils down to whether you think Dumbledore believed that Snape lied to Draco about the Vow.

What we don't know is if he knew the whole vow. Here's what Harry heard:

I am trying to help you. I swore to your mother I would protect you. I made the Unbreakable Vow, Draco..."

That's all Harry can tell DD. A vow to protect. While DD may have known about the vow, either from Snape, or from Harry, he may not have known part 3.

Well, Dumbledore's portrait in the Head's office can testify to everything in Dumbledore's mind up to his death.

It is interesting that McGonogall gets pretty annoyed with Harry, asking him about the night's events, but doesn't consult DD's portrait. She said it might be very important, why not ask DD who is obliged (if he's dead) to help the acting Headmistress?


wynnleaf - Dec 9, 2006 8:50 am (#977 of 2959)
I don't think JKR will actually have included a plot which makes it "okay" for a loyal Order member to kill his leader, regardless of the leader telling him to do it. (
wynnleaf - Dec 8, 2006 1:44 pm (#966))

Up to now, I've thought that you were saying that Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him, and that Snape did so with great reluctance. Are you now saying that Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him, and Snape didn't do it at all ? Anyway, I wouldn't agree with either scenario. (Vulture)

First, Snape did cast an AK on the tower. I think DD's "Severus please" was a request for him to do just that. However, I think that a great deal of what occurred that night was DD working from a plan that he created based on knowledge he had of what Draco was doing. I think DD's plan went awry in that Draco and Co. moved faster than DD expected. I think DD expected to have a confrontation with Draco on the tower, and that he wanted Snape there. But I don't think DD wanted Harry to be there. I think DD's plan included having Snape AK him, because DD knew that Snape would have to at least appear to kill him or die from the Vow (since DD was confident Draco would not kill him). The evidence that I use to back this up is in the "Dumbledore's death - What Really Happened?" thread and if I dredge it all up here it will divert the conversation to rehashing all of that.

Because DD felt Draco would not kill him, and knew that Snape would have to AK him or die, it would be only natural that DD would either attempt to get around that, or develop a plan to make use of those circumstances and make them work to the best benefit. I think that DD and Snape's actions on the tower are quite suspicious and do not reflect past descriptions of AK's, or other descriptions of DD's power at the time, and the surface narration of DD too weak to do anything is contradicted by his implied assertion that Draco is at his mercy.

I don't have a fixed theory for what was really intended by the AK. DD may have been keeping death at bay by the "stoppered death" idea that some posters have and was prepared to finally give in to death that night, making it appear that Snape killed him. DD may have known that the cave liquids could likely be poison and prepared to use his death in this confrontation with Snape so that Snape would appear to kill him. Some have theorized that DD was carrying the real locket horcrux and that Snape was AKing that. I still wonder if DD was in the process of attempting to fake his death on the tower with an ineffective AK from Snape and timely use of Draught of Living Death (at the bottom of the tower) - originally not expecting any good guys to witness his "murder" thereby allowing Snape to stay on at Hogwarts and see to DD's revival later. But Harry being a witness forced Snape to flee the scene, leaving no one to know of DD's use of DoLD and no one therefore to revive him.

Anyway, my point is that there are numerous possibilities that include DD and Snape working together in either a failed attempt to fake DD's death, or an attempt to use the death of an already dying DD to make Snape look like a murderer and loyal to LV, insuring LV's strong trust in Snape.

I still feel strongly that Draught of Living Death should have been used in HBP, simply because never before has JKR spent so much time on a potion/spell/magical device, and not used it in some climactic scenes of the book. So part of my thinking is that DoLD is highly likely to have been in use at the end of HBP - we just haven't been told yet how JKR was using it. And of course, the only candidate for having used DoLD is DD.

That is why you'll see me commenting on why DD had to have Snape AK him. I try very hard to say that Snape AKed DD, not that Snape killed DD, although I may not have been entirely consistent.

I do not think DD was surprised by anything that night except two things. 1. I think DD was not expecting to return from the Cave and the DE's already be attacking Hogwarts. DD tried twice to send Harry to Snape, even though a patronus would have been faster and even safer. I think DD used the excuse of Harry getting Snape as a way to try and get Harry away from him and to go to Snape. Possibly Snape was to make sure Harry did not return to DD. 2. I think Fenrir's presence surprised DD.

Regardless of what DD told Draco, I don't think DD was surprised by DE's in Hogwarts. He had brought more Order members into the castle than previously and appears to have brought Lupin back from his werewolf assignment. The Order members were stationed on the perfect floor to combat the attackers. Even though DD had left the castle on numerous occasions during the year, and even though Harry had been carefully watching Draco and Co. with the Map all year, Harry had never taken note of a group of Order members patrolling the castle, much less that crucial area of the castle. Therefore, I think DD was expecting Draco to bring DE's into the castle that night.

If you want to discuss all of this, the "What Really Happened?" thread is a much better place to address it.


rambkowalczyk - Dec 9, 2006 11:50 am (#978 of 2959)
Using your process, an argument could be made then, for Voldemort being redeemed as well. I don't think that JKR will go that far. Thom Matheson

yes, I do. But there are a couple of things besides JKR's interview that prevent Voldemort's redemption and could prevent Snape's as well. There needs to be genuine regret on the part of Voldemort which at this point Voldemort does not feel or is incapable of feeling. With Snape I do see the possibility of genuine regret. For this to happen Snape must value Dumbledore's opinion or adhere to a higher sense of right and wrong much more than he wants to end Voldemort's reign. If this is the case he has no choice but to feel regret because he knows he did not act properly.

Further you are possibly suggesting that Dumbledore not only condoned Snapes AK action but may have been part of the process. I can only say that I cannot accept that Dumbledore, for the very reasons you posted, could be a part of that. That would make Albus's part a kin to an assisted suicide. That is also not also not very redeemable. Thom Matheson

I agree that Dumbledore does not condone this action. When I say Dumbledore forgives, I mean he has let go of his anger and sense of betrayal. If Dumbledore weren't already dead he would be patiently waiting for Snape to repent what he did.

I may not be explaining this well but there is a difference between condoning and forgiving. Think of the story of the prodigal son. When the son came home the father welcomed him back with open arms. It in no way meant that the father approved of his son squandering away his inheritance.


Thom Matheson - Dec 9, 2006 12:13 pm (#979 of 2959)
Yes, I see your point. I just don't share it. Snape is a seasoned spy, and a Slytherin. For me it is a great combination of stealth, brains, and a great desire for self preservation. Being a great occlumens and legelimens is as important to his craft as dark arts and potions is to an Auror. But, what is a spy really? Nothing more then a crafty liar. He is the best I have ever read.

In his 2 best moments to shine, and basically end the war once and for all, he has sided with Voldemort, and been at least partly responsible for 2 deaths and one directly. I cannot just turn my cheek at that behavior. He was taken back after the first incidence by pleading I'm sorry and avoided Azkaban because he "snowed" Dumbledore into providing defense testimony. But not again.

If at the end of the book we find that he was one of the "good ones", well then, I will have had my theory blown. Like that hasn't happened before. Cripes,I thought that Figg would be the DADA teacher as well.

As with JKR's description of Voldemort, in my world there are "bad kids", and bad people. Not just misunderstood, or any other thought like that. Just that there is that type around, in all cultures. One of the other constant themes in the books, just like the choices theme, is that "once a Death Eater, always a Death Eater". There is no going back.


T Vrana - Dec 9, 2006 2:49 pm (#980 of 2959)
One of the other constant themes in the books, just like the choices theme, is that "once a Death Eater, always a Death Eater".

Not sure about this. Regulus tried to leave, does that count as no longer being a DE?


Thom Matheson - Dec 9, 2006 8:01 pm (#981 of 2959)
Regulus, tried to leave, now dead. Karkarov tried to run, now dead. Snape knows this better then anyone. But, no matter how many times he Boo Hoos about regrets and such, he goes back. He is a Slytherin, meaning that he will always think of himself first. Sirius said it best when talking to Wormtail in the shack, when he said he would die for James rather then betray him. Snape should have fallen on his sword for Dumbledore rather then murder him.

Laura, you are right about the possibility of another turning. Maybe Wormtail with that life debt to Harry, but for now, Severus needs to be on trial for murder in the first degree. I cannot speculate on conjecture when the facts are so overwelming to me. Now if Jo wants to break my heart like she did with Arabella, I'll live with it. My other great theory was Arthur for Minister. I'm still holding out for that.


Laura W - Dec 9, 2006 8:01 pm (#982 of 2959)
(Please note that this message should have appeared before Thom Matheson's above but I accidently - in my computer ignorance - deleted it, and had to rewrite and repost it again here. Sorry. - LW)

-------------------------------------------------------

"With Snape I do see the possibility of genuine regret. For this to happen Snape must value Dumbledore's opinion or adhere to a higher sense of right and wrong much more than he wants to end Voldemort's reign. If this is the case he has no choice but to feel regret because he knows he did not act properly."

There is already a precedent for this, ramb. From HBP, p.513 (Cdn), Dumbledore: "You have no idea the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort had interpreted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned - "

Assuming that Snape was not fooling DD into trusting him by feigning regret - which we do not know for sure either way at this point, although each of us has our own opinion on this.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Cripes,I thought that Figg would be the DADA teacher as well." (Thom Matheson)

That is too funny for words, Thom. Maybe in Book Seven? (grin)

"One of the other constant themes in the books, just like the choices theme, is that "once a Death Eater, always a Death Eater". There is no going back." (Thom Matheson)

Gosh, do you really see that as a theme throughout the books?

Admittedly, when Voldemort rose again, all those DEs who had not bothered to look for him or who had denied being DEs (read, slippery Lucius) flocked back to the graveyard bowing and scraping. Tom himself makes a great point of that, saying that the only ones who have been truly loyal to him were the three Lestranges and Barty Crouch Jr. - although he doesn't use his name - who went to Azkaban for him and who never denied him or their devotion to him throughout the 13 years Voldemort was gone. Yet, here were all these others, back in the fold when their dark mark burned and they knew only one person could cause that: the Dark Lord himself. I agree that scene fits your "once a Death Eater, always a Death Eater" example.

However, I believe Jo put Regulas Black and possibly Severus Snape in to give examples of Death Eaters who changed their minds along the way (ie - *not* once a DE, always a DE). Exceptions to the rule, perhaps?

It's even possible that, in Book Seven, Jo will have another loyal DE change sides; which, by the way, does not wipe clean what this person did when she/he was a DE, creating havoc, chaos and misery throughout Britain, from *my* perspective; but it gives her or him a second chance to do good. And Dumbledore is all about second chances, isn't he?

Laura


T Vrana - Dec 10, 2006 8:54 am (#983 of 2959)
He is a Slytherin, meaning that he will always think of himself first

And yet we have an example of a Slytherin doing something selfless, risky and good. Slughorn was terrified to learn that Harry is the Chosen One and wants the horcrux memory, but he gave it anyway. Yes, it took a great deal of wine to bring down his defenses so Harry could talk to him, but under the influence of the wine he did not forget the danger, or his fear, and he gave Harry the memory. This, I think was a gift Lily had and Harry has, to influence others, even self-preserving Slytherins, to do the right and risky thing. I think this was why DD trusted a Slytherin (Snape, he knows they tend to save themselves), because of Lily. I think Snape's return was genuine, and it was because of Lily. It is also why he knew Harry could get the memory. It remains to be seen if DD was right, and Lily's influence remained with Snape, or if he was wrong and Snape reverted to self-preservation. If the latter, I wonder if Harry will have a chance to 'save' Snape, morally. I think it is possible, but Snape will have to die.

I still don't think Snape killed DD, but if he did, he can redeem himself, he just can't live to tell about it.


Thom Matheson - Dec 10, 2006 9:17 am (#984 of 2959)
Come on T. You don't think that Harry's Felix had something to do with it? This is a memory that Slughorn has supressed for over 50 or 60 years. He didn't cough it up in all respects voluntarily. As for the hiring, Dumbledore only hired him because he had to. He exhausted all sources for the DADA teacher, and wanted to avoid the Ministry choice again as with Umbridge. Easier to find a Potions teacher, then DADA. Give it to Snape then get to Horace. It also opened the door for Dumbledore to try all year for the memory. There was a method to Dumbledore's posting. It was not an accident at all.

Dumbledore set Horace up. He wasn't being noble about giving the memory, he was hoodwinked by Dumbledore, who used Harry, just as he did to get him to work at the school.


T Vrana - Dec 10, 2006 10:59 am (#985 of 2959)
You don't think that Harry's Felix had something to do with it?

NO. That is, no, the felix did not in any way influence Sluggy. It helped Harry know what to do. (IMO)

As for the hiring, Dumbledore only hired him because he had to.

Disagree. He hired him to protect him and get the memory, as you mentioned. Not sure what this part has to do with my post, however.

If the felix was what worked, then DD could have taken some felix and retrieved the memory. It was Harry who got it, and DD knew he was the only one who could get it, because he has Lily's eyes and Slughorn could not deny him, and could not deny brave, good Lily and brave good Lily's son. If it all comes down to wine and felix this moment is flat, useless and cynical. I think instead it is a clue as to who Lily was and what she was capable of. Somehow the houses must come together, it has been a major theme for a few books now, and Lily seemed to have the ability to help folks overcome their weaknesses and do what is right (James, Sluggy, maybe Snape), and so, I think, does Harry.


Thom Matheson - Dec 10, 2006 11:06 am (#986 of 2959)
I don't disagree with the Lily part, but Dumbledore I believed used Harry to exploit Slughorn's weakness. The felix helped Harry discover that weakness and use it to gain the true memory. You can't deny that Dumbledore orchestrated it though can you? Remember when Dumbledore said to Harry, (paraphrase here) What did I care if people or things had to be sacraficed in order to protect you? Dumbledore needed the memory to assist Harry in his training to defeat Voldemort.


HungarianHorntail11 - Dec 10, 2006 11:11 am (#987 of 2959)
But, no matter how many times he Boo Hoos about regrets and such, he goes back. - Thom M.

I tend to think Snape likes to beat people at their own games. Wouldn't it be the ultimate vindication for Snape to have been pretending to stay with Big V and then wind up contributing to his demise simply because he was told he couldn't leave? If he has learned anything from being in DD's presence, it is to learn to bide his time.


T Vrana - Dec 10, 2006 12:14 pm (#988 of 2959)
Thom- I don't disagree at all. Yes, DD and Harry exploited Sluggy's weaknesses to get the memory, and one of those weakness was his fondness for good, funny, brave Lily. I find it most important that Sluggy recognized, and admired, Lily's bravery. Harry uses this when he asks Sluggy to be brave like his mother. Sluggy was not so drunk that he did not recognize the danger of giving Harry the memory. He was pale, sweating and terrified, but he still gave Harry the memory. It was a selfless act. He gained nothing from giving Harry the memory. He could still have said no. He overcame his fear and self preserving instincts. If he had not been fearful, just drunk, then I'd agree it was not a selfless act, but he was petrified. Not only did he recognize the danger, he also acknowledged that the memory was an embarrassment in asking Harry not to judge him too harshly. But he still did the right thing, for Lily, and for Harry, at his peril and embarrassment.

That Lily can be a weakness a Slytherin can't deny is huge. Her ability to be admired and loved (just like Harry's) is as powerful as (or really, more powerful than) influence, pride, power, greed etc. Remember, his weaknesses include self-preservation over doing what's right, liking comforts, greed, influence, pride etc. Harry got the memory without offering Sluggy ANYTHING in return, not money, power, influence, glazed pineapple etc. He got Sluggy to Hagrid's through Sluggy's greed, but once the conversation about the memory began, it was all about Harry and Lily, and doing the right thing.


Thom Matheson - Dec 10, 2006 3:09 pm (#989 of 2959)
For that part I raise my white flag. Very unslytherinlike.


wynnleaf - Dec 10, 2006 9:55 pm (#990 of 2959)
Any theory that supposes that Dumbledore did not want Snape to do that AK on the tower must presuppose that Dumbledore expected

1. Snape to be powerful enough to take down all 4 DE's, while protecting a weakened DD (the object being in part for him not to die, right?), and protect hidden, frozen Harry, and Draco who might just possibly fire on Snape in the process.

2. The Vow to not overcome Snape with death while he breaks the Vow. If DD expected Snape to immediately die if he didn't AK DD, then we have to assume that DD thought he could overcome the DE's himself -- in which case the whole "weakened DD" is a huge ruse and blows the theory anyway because if DD is not weakened and he really, really doesn't want Snape to AK him, then the best option is to simply overpower Snape himself rather than let him make such a bad choice.

However, we have not one bit of canon evidence that Snape was a Super Duellist and could be expected to overpower all those DE's, while protecting Harry, Draco, and weakened DD at the same time. We have only so far seen him duel Harry and Lockhart in one-on-one combat. That's no evidence for Super Duellist.

As for evidence that the Unbreakable Vow won't kill him if he breaks it on the tower? Well, we don't know for sure how the Vow works, but thess theories about DD not wanting Snape to AK him depend on Dumbledore believing that the Vow won't kill Snape if he breaks it on the tower.

Last, the theory that DD didn't want Snape on the tower in the first place. I've said this several times. We have direct canon evidence that DD did want Snape on the tower, as he tried to send Harry to get Snape and only stopped Harry because he could hear sounds of someone coming up the stairs. Tower stairs of that type are often quite narrow. He couldn't exactly have Harry running down into the person(s) coming up. And Harry would never have gone anyway, once he saw that Dumbledore was threatened. But Dumbledore couldn't call to Harry to go on or the intruder would have heard. So DD had to freeze Harry, so that Harry wouldn't fight whoever came up the stairs.

Anyway, back to my point about DD wanting Snape to come to the tower. You can't fault Snape for doing exactly what DD wanted him to do.

Then once he got to the tower, he had to AK Dumbledore or risk the likely deaths of Dumbledore, Harry, Draco, and himself.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 991 to 1020

Post  Mona Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:23 pm

TomProffitt - Dec 11, 2006 4:37 am (#991 of 2959)
"The Vow to not overcome Snape with death while he breaks the Vow." --- wynnleaf

This is not as unreasonable a supposition as you imply. There is no clear evidence that the Vow would require Dumbledore's Death at all. I haven't decided what everything meant on that tower, but there are more options than those that you've presented. It is quite possible that Dumbledore's plea is not a plea to save Dumbledore, but a plea not to betray the Order and the Wizarding World.


wynnleaf - Dec 11, 2006 5:51 am (#992 of 2959)
This is not as unreasonable a supposition as you imply. There is no clear evidence that the Vow would require Dumbledore's Death at all. I haven't decided what everything meant on that tower, but there are more options than those that you've presented. It is quite possible that Dumbledore's plea is not a plea to save Dumbledore, but a plea not to betray the Order and the Wizarding World. (Tom Proffitt)

I agree that there may be more to the Vow than we know. But the Vow remains problematic to any theory that says that DD wanted Snape to do something that included breaking the Vow.

In addition, any plea that asked Snape to do something other than at least appear to be on the DE's side, was asking Snape to start a fire-fight on the tower resulting in the likely deaths of Dumbledore, Snape, Harry, and possibly at least injure Draco.

To say that such a fire-fight had any likelihood of being won by Snape is to give Snape duelist powers well beyond anything he's been given so far in canon.


TomProffitt - Dec 11, 2006 7:25 am (#993 of 2959)
"In addition, any plea that asked Snape to do something other than at least appear to be on the DE's side, was asking Snape to start a fire-fight on the tower resulting in the likely deaths of Dumbledore, Snape, Harry, and possibly at least injure Draco." --- wynnleaf

Before I go further with the argument, I'd like to point out that I am not advocating any particular position, I'm only poking holes in this one. Dumbledore's plea should not presuppose that things are going as Dumbledore desires and expects. The manner in which Severus appeared on the tower could have been a surprise to Dumbledore. He could have been expecting entirely different behavior, such as Severus arriving with help, instead Severus arrives to kill Dumbledore.

We don't see Dumbledore surprised or taken aback very often. (If we've seen it before at all.) Dumbledore, upon realizing that Severus has been fooling him all along, could have lost sufficient grasp of the situation to make the "errors" described in pleading with Severus not to abandon the side of the good.

I don't think it unreasonable that a surprised Dumbledore would make a such a plea.


Vulture - Dec 11, 2006 8:02 am (#994 of 2959)
I think DD expected to have a confrontation with Draco on the tower, and that he wanted Snape there. But I don't think DD wanted Harry to be there. (wynnleaf )

But Dumbledore ordered Harry to fetch Snape. Is it likely that he expected Harry to let Snape come there alone ? Given what we know of Harry's attitude to Snape, Snape would have to beat him off with a shovel to stop him keeping an eye on things. The only way Harry would have stayed away would be under a direct order from Dumbledore to do so, which Dumbledore didn't give.

The evidence that I use to back this up is in the "Dumbledore's death - What Really Happened?" thread and if I dredge it all up here it will divert the conversation to rehashing all of that. (wynnleaf )

I'll have a look; thanks.

I think that DD and Snape's actions on the tower are quite suspicious and do not reflect past descriptions of AK's (wynnleaf )

I don't agree; there isn't really enough to show the complete minute details of how an Avada Kedavra, or indeed any spell, is supposed to go. We know, for example, that "Expelliarmus" can, depending on the power behind it, be as mild as simply disarming an opponent of his/her wand, or ferocious enough to throw someone against a wall and knock them out. So I think there's a lot of variety involved in the effects of a spell _ probably comes down to the power of the caster versus the power of the victim, plus a host of particular environmental and other circumstances. Maybe (this is total theory) the Unbreakable Vow puts extra force behind any spell that someone has sworn to do.

I don't have a fixed theory for what was really intended by the AK. ... Anyway, my point is that there are numerous possibilities that include DD and Snape working together in either a failed attempt to fake DD's death, or an attempt to use the death of an already dying DD to make Snape look like a murderer and loyal to LV, insuring LV's strong trust in Snape. (wynnleaf )

No doubt there are many possibilities. All I claim for my theory is that, as far as possible, it sticks to the books, primarily Book 6. Okay, I suppose you can say that it makes one big assumption: that the Vow was about killing Dumbledore. (I tend to believe it was.)

That is why you'll see me commenting on why DD had to have Snape AK him. I try very hard to say that Snape AKed DD, not that Snape killed DD, although I may not have been entirely consistent. (wynnleaf )

But did Dumbledore die when Snape AK-ed him ? If yes, then Snape killed him. Also, I still say that one can't cast the AK as anything but an evil spell. (I can defend this on "Avada Kedavra and the Morality Of Killing" if necessary.)

He exhausted all sources for the DADA teacher, and wanted to avoid the Ministry choice again as with Umbridge. Easier to find a Potions teacher, then DADA. Give it to Snape then get to Horace. (Thom Matheson )

I'm not sure about that. I don't think Snape got appointed "for want of anything better". When he became Defence teacher, I took it as a hugely significant appointment _ and so, by the way, did Harry. But afterwards, JKR never expanded on why Dumbledore had gone back on his policy towards Snape and that subject. Maybe she'll do so in Book 7.

==============================================

As for the Slughorn-Felix debate _ poor old Horace !! Remember, in vino veritas, after all _ when people are drunk they tend to do what they secretly want, but are normally afraid of !!

==============================================

Any theory that supposes that Dumbledore did not want Snape to do that AK on the tower must presuppose that Dumbledore expected

1. Snape to be powerful enough to take down all 4 DE's, while protecting a weakened DD (the object being in part for him not to die, right?), and protect hidden, frozen Harry, and Draco who might just possibly fire on Snape in the process.

2. The Vow to not overcome Snape with death while he breaks the Vow. If DD expected Snape to immediately die if he didn't AK DD, then we have to assume that DD thought he could overcome the DE's himself -- in which case the whole "weakened DD" is a huge ruse and blows the theory anyway because if DD is not weakened and he really, really doesn't want Snape to AK him, then the best option is to simply overpower Snape himself rather than let him make such a bad choice. (wynnleaf )

I've answered point 1 before _ one good Expelliarmus could disarm the lot _ just as Lupin did in Book 3. Then get a wand to Dumbledore.

I'm out of time, but on Point 2 _ it's the old right/easy dilemna.


T Vrana - Dec 11, 2006 9:41 am (#995 of 2959)
As for the Slughorn-Felix debate _ poor old Horace !! Remember, in vino veritas, after all _ when people are drunk they tend to do what they secretly want, but are normally afraid of !!

I completely disagree that the felix and wine are why Sluggy gave Harry the memory. The felix did help Harry know what to do, and the wine lowered Sluggy's defenses, but it was Harry, with the help of Lily, who convinced Sluggy to give up the memory. If it was just felix and wine, DD could have taken some felix, poured some wine, and retrieved the memory himself. DD made a point to Harry and Phineas that Harry was uniquely qualified to get the memory. I can't believe that this rather powerful scene was about drunkenness. It was about Lily and Harry and their ability to love and be loved and persuade others to do what is right. We have very little info about Lily, and this moment, steeped in Sluggy's memory and admiration for Lily, is not a testament to the power of wine, IMO. It is an insight into her ability to bring out the best in others, even Slytherins.

Sluggy did not want to give the memory at all. He was not brave due to the wine, he was pale, sweating, terrified and embarassed. He didn't say, "I've wanted to do this, can't imagine why I've waited", he raised his trembling hands to his mouth and looked like an oversized baby. Harry shamed and persuaded him to do the right thing, not the wine.

Drunkenness doesn't fit any theme. Being brave, doing what is right not what is easy, Lily's and Harry's ability to love and be loved, bridging the house gaps and uniting the houses, all fit.


Thom Matheson - Dec 11, 2006 12:05 pm (#996 of 2959)
T Vrana, I am not going to dispute the "Lily factor" regarding Harry's actions with the Felix, but I just reread the After the Burial chapter, and it is clear to me that Horace would not have been in the position to even be with Harry had it not been his 100 Galleon a pint desire for Aragog's venom. Harry and the Felix put that deal together to plant the seed in Slughorn. Harry would not have chosen to go off path, or to Hagrids for that matter, and find Slughorn without the Felix directing him.

I'll give you the Lily part, but a sober Slughorn would not have capulated to being there let alone to partr with the memory.


T Vrana - Dec 11, 2006 12:45 pm (#997 of 2959)
Of course not! I admit that greed brought him there, the wine lowered his defenses and felix guided Harry, they made the memory discussion possible. But that could have been accomplished by anyone taking Felix. Actually getting the memory, not just the opportunity to get the memory was 100% Harry & Lily. Horace would have risen to his drunken feet and beat a crooked path back to his office had anyone else tried to get that memory, wine, felix and all....He was terrified, but compelled by Harry/Lily to do the right thing.


The Artful Dodger - Dec 11, 2006 4:11 pm (#998 of 2959)
I guess someone else using Felix would have either come up with the same idea or found a different way to get the memory. That is the purpose of the potion, after all. And it is supposed to work for anyone who uses it.


rambkowalczyk - Dec 11, 2006 8:08 pm (#999 of 2959)
Felix provides luck, but not necessarily what you want. Someone else could hve gotten the information by brute force; felix would have told him when to attack and extract. Someone else looking for the same thing may have haD different way altogether of finding the information. For someone else, the opportunity for a different type of luck may have arisen and that user left Slughorn alone. I doubt if I am saying this all that well.


journeymom - Dec 11, 2006 8:26 pm (#1000 of 2959)
Hm. I like T Vrana's idea that Felix lead Harry there, but that it was the reminder of Lily that moved Slughorn to finally share the real memory.

I'll have to go back and read the passage.

==============================

HBP, UK p.446, Harry takes Felix Felicis. Felix directs him to do various things, all the way up through the end of the chapter, p.459.

The thing is, yes, anybody could use Felix but only Harry could use the memory of his mother, and it was very effective on Slughorn.

I came here to ask something about Snape and now I've completely forgotten what. >:-(


Vulture - Dec 12, 2006 11:47 am (#1001 of 2959)
Any theory that supposes that Dumbledore did not want Snape to do that AK on the tower must presuppose that Dumbledore expected:

(1) Snape to be powerful enough to take down all 4 DE's, while protecting a weakened DD (the object being in part for him not to die, right?), and protect hidden, frozen Harry, and Draco who might just possibly fire on Snape in the process.

(2) The Vow to not overcome Snape with death while he breaks the Vow. If DD expected Snape to immediately die if he didn't AK DD, then we have to assume that DD thought he could overcome the DE's himself -- in which case the whole "weakened DD" is a huge ruse and blows the theory anyway because if DD is not weakened and he really, really doesn't want Snape to AK him, then the best option is to simply overpower Snape himself rather than let him make such a bad choice. (wynnleaf )

Hi again, Wynnleaf:

Couldn't find it last time, but just to say that I had covered your point 1 in Vulture, "5th Severus Snape thread" #950, 6 Dec 2006 11:59 am .

Point 2 is more of a difficulty _ and, having thought about it, I would feel that the answer can only be either that your theory (or similar) about the Tower is correct, or that Dumbledore simply never expected Snape to be there.

My feeling, I'm afraid, is that Dumbledore never expected Snape to be there. I think that surprise and horror at what Snape was about to do to himself would give a common-sense, down-to-earth explanation for the pleading.

Most of us would be revolted at the notion that Dumbledore would plead for mercy like a coward. The favourite theory about the pleas that I've seen is that Snape and Dumbledore were doing all sorts of Legilimency-chat which we don't know about. But if that were so, then why speak at all ? If we rule out Legilimency, the other favourite is that Dumbledore's pleas referred to a pre-arranged plan for Snape to AK him _ but I rule that out because of AK'a own nature and Dumbledore's moral attitude. No, the pleading makes more sense to me as spontanaeous emotion.


journeymom - Dec 12, 2006 7:19 pm (#1002 of 2959)
Vulture, if so, Jo must be cackling with glee at our insistence that Dd wasn't pleading for mercy, that they were chatting via Legilimency.


Vulture - Dec 13, 2006 6:38 am (#1003 of 2959)
Hi, Journeymom: Well, then again, I could be wrong. You know, I have a hunch that, as far as Snape is concerned, JKR writes two plot-lines _ one where he's evil, one where he's good, and then edits out any differences between the two to drive us all nuts with suspense !! A bit like the movie "Casablanca" _ I'm told that no-one (including all the stars) except the top guys knew who Ingrid Bergman would end up with.

================================================

However, we have not one bit of canon evidence that Snape was a Super Duellist and could be expected to overpower all those DE's, while protecting Harry, Draco, and weakened DD at the same time. We have only so far seen him duel Harry and Lockhart in one-on-one combat. That's no evidence for Super Duellist. (wynnleaf )

I know that Harry and Lockhart might not seem like major opponents; that's true. But I think one has to be impressed at how relaxed Snape was in blocking all Harry's stuff without speaking, and doing Legilimency, despite all the mayhem around him and the lovely prospect of being joined by a very angry Hagrid.

In the Lockhart duel, I think there was a hell of a lot of power behind Snape's "Expelliarmus".

So, I don't think it's a matter of "Super Duellist" _ it's really just about being as good at an Expelliarmus ambush as Lupin was in Book 3 _ or as Draco in Book 6.


MickeyCee3948 - Dec 26, 2006 8:44 am (#1004 of 2959)
Here is my 2 knuts on Snape.

First, Snape made the "Vow" in order to get as much information from Narcissa as possible. His making the vow also raised his stature in the eyes of Bellatrix who like it or not is fairly high on the pecking order with LV. The information he received from Narcissa while helpful did not tell him exactly how Draco was going perform his tasks and he never found out the information from his conversations with Draco at the school. So he really didn't know exactly what Draco was going to do.

Second, Upon telling DD about the plans, it seems that DD told Snape that if required in the end he(DD)intended for Snape to fulfill his vow. Thus we find out about the argument in the forest where DD and Snape were discussing Snape's options.

Thirdly, on the tower when faced with killing DD(who was already in a weakened state)or breaking his vow to assist Draco and thus bring about his own death. Snape does as DD asked and performs the AK on DD. This solifies his standing in LV eyes as his most loyal and trusted DE. It also allows him to continue to "protect" Harry from the inside. Only now Snape has crossed the line and will receive no quarter from the order. He is now fully engrossed in LV's camp.

Finally, If he is to assist Harry in the completion of his quest to destroy LV(as I believe he promised DD he would)he will do so with the full knowledge that Harry, the order and the ministry will all be gunning for him(Snape) as well.

Thus in my opinion Snape is still working for the good guys but from the inside of the bad guys camp. And in the end(because of his initial mistake of advising LV about the prophecy)he will suffer the same fate as LV.

Mickey


TomProffitt - Dec 26, 2006 10:46 am (#1005 of 2959)
MickeyCee, I think a person would have to be amazingly stupid to make a Vow whose penalty is death if you don't know what you're vowing to do. I just don't think that Severus is stupid. The only way I can see this type of argument working is for Snape to be certain that Draco's task is to do one thing and be wrong about it. (Which still requires an amount of stupidity I am uncomfortable accepting in Snape)


wynnleaf - Dec 26, 2006 12:52 pm (#1006 of 2959)
MickeyCee, I think a person would have to be amazingly stupid to make a Vow whose penalty is death if you don't know what you're vowing to do. I just don't think that Severus is stupid.

Tom, Snape did know what he was agreeing to when he first agreed to make the Vow. He agreed to protect Draco. There would be no problem in agreeing to do that, regardless whose side he was on. And, after all, interpretation as to what exactly was "protecting" could be taken somewhat loosely. Snape could even determine that "protecting" meant keeping Draco from completing the task.

But when the 3rd, and unexpected, component was added to the Vow, Snape was left with very little choice about continuing on. What was he supposed to say? "I have no problem with protecting Draco, but don't expect me to see that Voldemort's wishes are carried out." I mean, at that point, to refuse the last part would have made him look disloyal.

So I would say that Snape wasn't stupid at all to agree to a Vow to do something that he (and Dumbledore) would have been quite willing for him to do anyway -- protect Draco. The problem was that he was then trapped into having to complete a Vow that contained an unexpected component.


TomProffitt - Dec 26, 2006 1:51 pm (#1007 of 2959)
"The problem was that he was then trapped into having to complete a Vow that contained an unexpected component." --- wynnleaf

I don't feel that he was "trapped" here. I think he could have easily talked his way out of that part of the Vow. It would be very easy to take the offense here instead of the defense; something like, "The Dark Lord gave this task to your son, it is his to complete, and he will be in just as much trouble for having me do it for him as to have not done it all."

Nope, I won't buy the "trapped" argument. Snape is smarter than that.


Anna L. Black - Dec 27, 2006 2:25 am (#1008 of 2959)
Well, Snape did say himself that he thinks "The Dark Lord intends [him] to do it in the end", didn't he? Considering this, the final part of the Vow shouldn't come as such a shock.


wynnleaf - Dec 27, 2006 5:48 am (#1009 of 2959)
Nope, I won't buy the "trapped" argument. Snape is smarter than that.

I suppose we'll just have to wait and see whether JKR felt he was trapped, stupid, or it was all a Deep Plan.

If JKR is going to eventually show us that Snape is loyal after all, then getting into the Vow was either because a non-stupid Snape was trapped into it (therefore JKR felt the trap more-or-less unavoidable), or JKR intends Snape to have simply been stupid, or JKR had it all be some sort of Deep Plan on Snape's part that was not stupid.

Personally, I don't think we'll find Snape took the Vow as part of a Deep Plan. Further, I doubt JKR will show us that Snape is really stupid. So if she's going to have Snape be loyal, then my bet is on the idea that a non-stupid Snape was trapped into it.

Of course, some people think JKR won't show us that Snape is loyal after all, so the fact that Snape took the Vow wouldn't be because he was trapped, stupid, or involved in a Deep Plan, but simply because he was being an evil Death Eater.


TomProffitt - Dec 27, 2006 7:58 am (#1010 of 2959)
I'm working on the assumption that Severus believed he had accurate knowledge of what the task was, and that the task did not include killing Dumbledore. I can't see a loyal Snape accepting a Vow to kill Dumbledore. When the alternative is murder or death, having your cover blown is an acceptable consequence.

I'm willing to accept that Snape was wrong about the task, which is not quite the same as being dumb enough to be trapped into Vowing to murder Dumbledore.

On a similar note, I can't imagine an Evil Snape being dumb enough to take an unbreakable Vow to kill Dumbledore either. That's an awfully big risk for a conceited little jerk who has yet to show ability at anything other than being a Momma's Boy.


me and my shadow 813 - Dec 27, 2006 9:01 pm (#1011 of 2959)
TomProffitt wrote - That's an awfully big risk for a conceited little jerk who has yet to show ability at anything other than being a Momma's Boy.

I don't think that's true. Certainly, not as far as potions go. It seems he has natural ability there. And we haven't had much opportunity to see him in action with a wand, but Harry's good with a wand and here's a quote from Flight of the Prince chapter:

"'Cruc-' yelled Harry for the second time... but Snape blocked the spell again; Harry could see him sneering.

'No unforgivable curses from you, Potter!' he shouted... 'You haven't got the nerve or the ability.'

'Incarc-' Harry roared, but Snape deflected the spell with an almost lazy flick of his arm.'"

I don't think at this point Harry is easy to duel with. I'm not saying Severus could or would risk a duel with DD, but I don't see Severus as conceited or a Momma's Boy. If you're serious, could you explain?

On a tangent, and if Severus thread lovers aren't adverse to discussing Lily, this Mugglenet quote still tugs at me:

ES: This is one of my burning questions since the third book - why did Voldemort offer Lily so many chances to live? Would he actually have let her live?

JKR: Mmhm.

ES: Why?

JKR: [silence] Can't tell you.

There's more to her answer, but I feel it was all simply to divert this question. To me, the real answer has to be about Severus trying to save Lily. Is it really that hard for folks to believe that Severus became the way he is because of a broken heart? Ebeneezer Scrooge had a heart once. I imagine people are sick of talking about this possibility but it's hard to talk about each character in a vacuum.


Laura W - Dec 28, 2006 1:25 am (#1012 of 2959)
me and my, I believe Tom was referring to Draco Malfoy as "a conceited little jerk who has yet to show ability at anything other than being a Momma's Boy." If I am not mistaken, he was saying Snape would be taking an awful risk in taking the UV to kill Dumbledore for the conceited Momma's Boy that is Draco.

If I have this wrong, TomProffitt, my apologies.

(The one thing Severus *does not* lack is ability! In potions, in inventing spells (something that must take a lot of talent and brains), and in acting ability (fooling either the great Dumbledore or the brilliant Tom Riddle). Whether one is a Forumer who thinks Snape is a loyal DE or a loyal member of the Order or just out for himself with no deeper principles; whether one views Snape as a sarcastic but otherwise ok teacher, or a teacher who is unforgivably verbally cruel and demeaning and hurtful to children he has been entrusted with to educate and guide (notably Harry, Hermoine and Neville from age 11 on); the one thing I don't think one doubts his abilities and talents.)

Laura


TomProffitt - Dec 28, 2006 4:32 am (#1013 of 2959)
Laura W has the right of it, I was saying that if Snape were truly evil he would not be willing to risk his life for Draco, or anyone other than Tom Riddle.

Under The Imperius - Dec 28, 2006 10:43 am (#1014 of 2959)
I agree with what Laura W said. Snape would have to be extremely smart in order to have invented all those spells (ex. Sectumsepra; Levicorpus) BUT, does he have the moral values as some other of the Order (ex. DD) to either keep him faithful to them or go to the DE's as we read in book 6...


me and my shadow 813 - Dec 28, 2006 5:17 pm (#1015 of 2959)
Thanks for your posts, Tom and Laura. Understood and agreed.


Die Zimtzicke - Dec 28, 2006 7:13 pm (#1016 of 2959)
Just realized something a few posts back...is it good or bad that Snape prevented Harry from completing an unforgiveable curse around witnesses?


journeymom - Dec 29, 2006 11:34 am (#1017 of 2959)
Hmm. Well, Snape didn't want to be the object of said unforgivable, I suppose. But, yes, I've wondered the same. In a Snape-is-good scenario Snape is keeping Harry out of dark magic. Am I misunderstanding your point, Die Zimtzicke?


me and my shadow 813 - Dec 29, 2006 3:39 pm (#1018 of 2959)
Die Z - you're referring to my post and I responded to you on "DD what really happened" thread.

I'm sure it's been discussed before but I can't go through 1000 posts... Now he's Vold's Golden Boy, wondering if Severus will be the one and only person that Vold will "befriend" and with a slip of the tongue or just finally depending on someone, it will be yet another ironic shot-in-the-foot. Severus gives Harry (in his snide way) some casual remark that will be another unseen yet critical advantage.


MickeyCee3948 - Dec 29, 2006 8:39 pm (#1019 of 2959)
I believe that Harry dislikes Snape, I refuse to use the word Hate. I am sure though that by the time the final battle is being fought that Harry will understand who his real enemy is and go after the DL rather than Snape. It is here that I think Snape may be able to help Harry. While Voldemort is busy with Harry, Snape will be able to do something(I have no idea what) and tip the battle in Harry's favor. I am afraid that Snape's actions will mean that he will pay the piper for his misdeeds that brought about Lily and James deaths. But it won't be by Harry's hand. Probably another Death Eater. But that is my opinion for what its worth.

I think ultimately in the end Harry will realize why DD trusted Snape.

Mickey


journeymom - Dec 29, 2006 10:20 pm (#1020 of 2959)
I can agree with everyhting you say, Mickey, except I thought it was clear that by the end of HBP Harry hated Snape almost as much as Voldemort.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 1021 to 1050

Post  Mona Wed Jun 01, 2011 3:29 pm

Laura W - Dec 29, 2006 11:37 pm (#1021 of 2959)
HBP, Chapter 28: "Harry uttered an inarticulate yell of rage: in that instant, he cared not whether he lived or died; pushing himself to his feet again, he staggered blindly towards Snape, the man he now hated as much as he hated Voldemort himself-".


wynnleaf - Dec 30, 2006 8:08 am (#1022 of 2959)
journeymom and Laura, you're quite right. Even JKR said in interview that Harry's "hatred" of Snape is now even more personal.

JKR intends for Harry to be literally hating Snape at this point. Although, naturally I'm quite hopeful that JKR also intends Harry to get past that hatred later.


MickeyCee3948 - Dec 30, 2006 1:57 pm (#1023 of 2959)
I agree with you about Harry's feelings toward Snape. I just personally refuse to use the word in relationship to a young persons feelings. Adolescence is such a hard time for all of our youth and feelings seem to be so much stronger than they will be later in their lives. Personally, I hated several people while a teen and now it all seemed like such a waste of emotions to me.

I still think that Harry will realize that Snape had more than enough opportunities to do him off throughtout his time at Hogwarts and he never did. He was a cruel evil person but in my opinion he NEVER rose to the level of Umbridge. Before he(Snape) takes "the stroll behind the veil" he will do something that awakens Harry to his real loyalty. That being to Dumbledore. But as I said thats JM2K's.

Mickey


Laura W - Dec 31, 2006 12:03 am (#1024 of 2959)
"He was a cruel evil person but in my opinion he NEVER rose to the level of Umbridge."

My feelings exactly, Mickey! Every word you wrote above - the first part of your sentence and the last part.

Whatever else, we never saw Severus use torture by quill, or Veritaserum or the Cruciatus Spell on a student ... or on anyone. And he never tried to take over, and become dictator of, Hogwarts School.

Laura


Torill - Dec 31, 2006 9:02 am (#1025 of 2959)
I can't resist jumping into the Snape discussions on this forum, but I am aware that you have been discussing him here for ages; and I have in no way read up on all that you have said here since HBP came out. I may very well be just re-hashing old arguments here. I apologise in advance if this turns out to be true.

My take on Snape's loyalties is that he did change sides and joined DD for real the first time; only we haven't heard the full story about his reasons yet; and he did go back as a spy at the end of book 4 with an honest intent to serve the re-founded Order. But then he became slowly corrupted again, so gradually that he didn't even notice it himself until he had gone too far...

After all, Dumbledore didn't even trust him to teach the Dark Arts, because he thought that would pose too much of a temptation to him. Then I think Dumbledore should have understood what a temptation being around the Death Eaters, pretending to be one of them, would constitute for Snape. Because I think a lot of fans miss the real point when they discuss what a burden it is to Snape to have to pretend to be bad in order to "keep his cover". He has never needed to appear bad when he is among the good guys to keep his cover - Voldemort's side, even more than Dumbledore's side, understands what it means to "keep one's cover"; so they will expect him to do whatever it takes to appear as Dumbledore's man in order to be able to be a spy for Voldemort. Even Bella is silenced when she meets this argument.

No, the real burden is that he has had to appear bad when he has been among the bad guys! And being among Death Eaters, this will mean really bad, if we are to take at all seriously what the DE's are meant to represent in the series. Voldemort would never have accepted that Snape was loyal to him, if Snape constantly refrained from performing Dark Magic whenever that was required. On the contrary, I think Voldemort would probably enjoy putting Snape to some sort of test, demanding that he should prove his loyalty by performing some particularly nasty piece of the Dark Arts in front of Voldemort; something Voldemort would guess Dumbledore's man would never do. The Crucio perhaps? Nothing pretty, that's for sure....

I can't help thinking that Dumbledore ought to have understood this, and not asked Snape, of all people, to go through with it. But that's a different thread, I suppose.

So for the large part of two years, Snape has been juggling his act of appearing to belong equally well to two camps. I think that secretly, he has enjoyed this. He has always felt the temptation of the Dark Arts, of the power it gives you over your opponents, the terrible strength it gives you. No more vulnerable, no more abused. And these Evil Arts, will probably have a lure on you in and of themselves, feel exhiliariting: the rush of being invincible, the pleasure of being in total control - intoxicating! Like an addiction... Just watch Bella while she is at it! And now Snape can indulge in all of this, with Dumbledore's approval!

I think the development from now on is a story of seduction. Snape is seduced by the Dark Arts, like he was before, without fully understanding this before it is too late. Also, he has probably been placing too much trust in his own Occlumency ability, and believes he will never be found out - by anyone. This is Snape's particular brand of arrogance. I can see him starting to use Occlumency on DD as well, not only Voldemort - to begin with, probably only to hide lesser things. Like how he has enjoyed taking part in certain things Dumbledore expected him to take part in, for instance, but not expected him to enjoy. Then perhaps moving on to hide how he has taken part in things that he perhaps didn't need or was supposed to take part in, but couldn't resist...

I think the two things in particular that led up to his final corruption are the revenge on Sirius, and the need for protection of Draco. I missed the detail that suggests the first when I read HBP the first time; it really is hidden in one word only: information. Snape says to Bella that he gave the information that led to her being able to kill Sirius. It takes too long to develop this further here, but I will come back to it, promise. I am sure that Snape saw betraying Sirius as only a just revenge, not really treason. It was something he did for himself, and not by a motive to hurt the Order. He has never let go of his anger at Dumbledore for forgiving Sirius for what Snape saw as an attempted murder on himself; and has never let go of the hope of once being able to get his own back. Now, in his spy position, with Sirius as a fellow member of the Order, and in a very vulnerable position, Snape finally sees his chance to do so, and he takes it. And as the psychological effects of these things often go: Snape will now resent Dumbledore even more for not supporting his right to have this revenge; after he has done what he knows Dumbledore will see as a betrayal.

Then the protection of Draco, and the fatal Unbreakable Vow.. I think it is very clear from the context that Snape knows exactly what Draco's task is. And I think Snape genuinely wants to help; I think he is genuinely fond of Draco. He means nothing more than to promise to watch over him and keep him from harm, which, after all, is something even Dumbledore could have taken a vow to do. I think he believes this is all Narcissa will ask, so when the third part of the vow comes up, he is cornered.

Because here it is then, suddenly and unexpectedly for himself, the moment where Snape is called on his loyalty. The moment when he must prove himself. It is a tall order, of course, a terrible challenge. He may try to wriggle out of it, by saying, as someone here pointed out, that this part of the vow makes no sense, Draco will not be safe from Voldie's fury anyway if Snape does the task for him. But Bella would in all likelihood not be satisfyed by this, and she is sure to report everything he says and does to Voldemort. So Snape may think himself facing a situation where he must either kill both Bella and Narcissa - whom he regards as a friend - to get away from the immediate danger - or risk his own death by Voldemort's fury eventually. The only one who could save him from that, is Dumbledore, who could arrange for Snape, too, to be safely hidden at headquarters..

Snape's agony is shown in the wriggling of his hand before he takes the final vow. But he abandons Dumbledore. From now on, he is Voldemort's man, but he must hide this fact from Dumbledore, and continue as before. Which he does, effectively, until the situatation at the tower, where Dumbledore realises, to his horror, that he has been betrayed..

I think there will be a final twist to this story; I think Snape will come back a second time and help Harry in the end. Perhaps because Harry discovers the full story of why he changed sides in the first place, and calls him on that again. We'll see.


journeymom - Jan 1, 2007 1:11 pm (#1026 of 2959)
"Perhaps because Harry discovers the full story of why he changed sides in the first place, and calls him on that again." I can imagine him calling Snape on it the way he convinced Slughorn to give up the real memory, by reminding Snape about Lily.


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 1, 2007 4:42 pm (#1027 of 2959)
Torill wrote - "After all, Dumbledore didn't even trust him to teach the Dark Arts, because he thought that would pose too much of a temptation to him."

Is this what DD himself said? I don't recall... I only recall it being told to Bellatrix by Snape in his list of reasons/excuses, which to me is easily untrue.


journeymom - Jan 1, 2007 5:00 pm (#1028 of 2959)
I thought Dumbledore told Harry that in one of the first books.


T Vrana - Jan 1, 2007 5:14 pm (#1029 of 2959)
No, Snape told Bella, but Jo has rehashed the conversation in an interview, that it went something like, let's try potions for a while....and she said DD thought Snape might be tempted.

While Snape is nasty and cruel, if he was tempted back to the dark side and really enjoyed cruelty, as was suggested above, he could have done far worse to Harry on the way out. He was certainly angry enough. While he could not kill him, against LV's orders, he could have let the crucio go on, or crucio'd Harry himself.

I don't think Snape spent much time with LV while spying for DD. In the same way that he did not spend much time with the Order. As a double agent, he could easily claim he should not be seen spending too much time with either side. Participating in lots of evil acts could also blow his cover if seen. This is why he tends not to participate in any battles, 'til HBP.

Bella and Narcissa could not go to LV and tell him if Snape withdrew from the vow. They were not supposed to be there or discussing the Vow with anyone.

Snape's brag about setting Sirius up was just that. Snape did not send Sirius to the MoM. No matter where Sirius was, or who stood in his way, or taunted him, Sirius would have gone to Harry's aid. Nothing would have kept Sirius at #12 with Harry in trouble.


Solitaire - Jan 1, 2007 6:50 pm (#1030 of 2959)
Journeymom, I, too, thought I'd read something in either an earlier book or an interview about why Snape had not been permitted to teach DADA.

Solitaire


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 1, 2007 7:08 pm (#1031 of 2959)
Thanks for the tip, TVrana. I came across the quote on Accio Quote.

Question from Jackson Long in audience competition winner

Jackson: “Professor Snape has always wanted to be Defence Against Dark Arts teacher. In book 5 he still hasn’t got the job. Why does Prof Dumbedore not allow him to be Defence Against The Dark Arts teacher?”

JK Rowling: That is an excellent question and the reason is that I have to be careful what I say here. To answer it fully would give a lot away about the remaining two books.

When Prof Dumbledore took Prof Snape onto the staff and Prof Snape said “I’d like to be Prof of Defence Against the Dark Arts please” and Prof Dumbledore felt it might bring out the worst in Snape so said “I think we’ll get you to teach Potions and see how you get along there”.

I still don't agree with Torill's Snape theory, but it is articulated very well.


T Vrana - Jan 1, 2007 7:27 pm (#1032 of 2959)
They were not supposed to be there or discussing the Vow with anyone.

Oops! Meant to say Task, not Vow....

M&M Shadow- Happy you found it and memory served....


TomProffitt - Jan 1, 2007 7:27 pm (#1033 of 2959)
"I, too, thought I'd read something in either an earlier book or an interview about why Snape had not been permitted to teach DADA." --- Solitaire

When we learned of the "Curse/Jinx" that Tom Riddle supposedly placed on the position of DADA teacher I came to the conclusion that Dumbledore chose not to place Severus Snape in the DADA position because he could not afford to lose his spy. It had nothing to do with Severus's character precluding him from the position (unless one considers being a spy and being untrustworthy synonymous). Any other statements by characters regarding Severus's trustworthiness for the position were speculations.

I haven't double checked the books on the issue, though. I just remembering having an "Ah ha!" moment when reading HBP. Prior to HBP I had thought the "Jinx" was Ron Weasley (or Fred & George) exagerating for effect. I thought that we had had fairly strong reason to believe that Quirrel had been at Hogwarts before PS/SS. (Perhaps he did a year, took a sabatacal and came back)

Edited to add a quote to clarify who I was responding to.


T Vrana - Jan 1, 2007 7:31 pm (#1034 of 2959)
Tom P- Had thought the jinx played a part as well, but Jo made it clear that in the beginning it was a fear that Snape would be too tempted. I think over time the jinx played a role once DD trusted Snape and it became more an issue of wanting to keep him.


rambkowalczyk - Jan 1, 2007 7:46 pm (#1035 of 2959)
Torrill, your ideas about Snape being tempted by the Dark Arts is intriguing.

Before I read HBP, I had decided that that Snape was on Dumbledore's side and that if Snape were to betray Dumbledore then it would be something that happened in book 6 that triggered his betrayal. To me the Unbreakable Vow was sufficient reason for Snape's betrayal.

But your idea implies that the Dark Arts are like an addiction and that Dumbledore sending Snape back to Voldemort is equivalent to handing an alcoholic drink to someone who has stayed sober for 13-14 years. Perhaps this was Dumbledore's big mistake.

The other reserve that I have is were the Dark Arts that enticing to Snape to begin with? I find I can argue both sides. I can see where the short answer is yes. Sirius said that Snape was heavily into the Dark Arts even as a first year. James had a hatred of the Dark Arts and therefore hated Snape with a passion that defied reason. Furthermore if the Dark Arts are an addiction and if Snape is a user it makes sense that he was an oddball sort of kid unable to relate to normal things.

But on the other hand, I don't think his fascination with the Dark Arts defines him. I can see him being fascinated with the Dark Arts in an intellectual sort of way. The writings that are in the his Potions books show that he is person trying to improve things but not just curses. At the very least before he became a Death Eater it could be argued that he was no more fascinated with the Dark Arts than most other students.

As a Death Eater Snape had to prove himself, so it is certain that he most likely has killed for Voldemort. Is this the same as being tempted by the Dark Arts? Even Quirrel who in book 1 who seemed quite capable of killing Harry says that Snape wouldn't want Harry dead. It seems that Snape does draw a line somewhere and that this line is generally known among Death Eaters. After all Bella does accuse him of being a coward.

Although we know Snape is capable of being cruel especially to Harry, I don't think this is proof that the Dark Arts have gotten to him. If this were the case he would be more cruel or at least shown some indication that he enjoys inflicting pain. But in COS, when he hears that Ginny is kidnapped his actions seem to show that this upset him. He also seemed upset seeing Cedric's body through Harry's eyes.

As usual there are more questions than there are answers


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 1, 2007 8:20 pm (#1036 of 2959)
rambkowalczyk - great post. I completely agree.

He also seemed upset seeing Cedric's body through Harry's eyes.

In that scene I think he was upset by seeing Lily's image, predominantly.


TomProffitt - Jan 2, 2007 4:45 am (#1037 of 2959)
Can anyone find the quotes about Dumbledore not trusting Severus with the DADA position? I wouldn't even know which book to look in. (I know I've read it, just not where.)


T Vrana - Jan 2, 2007 5:37 am (#1038 of 2959)
I don't think there is a quote from DD in the books. Snape comments in Spinners End. The only comment "from DD" came from an interview with Jo.


wynnleaf - Jan 2, 2007 9:20 am (#1039 of 2959)
There is no quote from DD about not trusting Snape to teach DADA or that he thought he might be tempted. There is no quote (in the books) where DD explains it. JKR in an interview said that DD was concerned about it bringing out the worst in Snape. But we really don't even know what is meant by that. Was DD concerned that teaching DADA would tempt Snape back into the Dark Arts? If he was worried about that, why set up Snape as a spy even before he set him up as a teacher? If DD was truly concerned that Snape could be tempted to go back to Dark Arts practices, it makes little sense that he'd send him into the huge temptation of LV's camp, while keeping him from the smaller temptation of teaching a DADA class at Hogwarts.

Perhaps DD was simply aware that Snape might make a harsh teacher and thought teaching teaching DADA would bring out the worst of Snape's harshness. There could have been several things that DD was concerned about which did not necessarily include concern that teaching DADA would make Snape more likely to return to the Dark Arts.

It's possible that his concern was not that the Dark Arts aspect of the position would lure Snape, but that the curse on the position would in some way throw some sorts of temptation Snape's way, which would lure him into some sort of bad situation ultimately leading to his having to leave Hogwarts like every other DADA teacher.

As a Death Eater Snape had to prove himself, so it is certain that he most likely has killed for Voldemort. (rambkowalczyk)

Well, which is it? Certain? or most likely? We know it is not in fact a certainty, as JKR has not shown us any evidence that Snape has killed anyone for Voldemort other than possibly DD. Is it likely that he's killed others for Voldemort? We really don't know. We don't know how long he was a loyal DE prior to turning to DD, nor how long his entire service (as loyal DE and spy) went prior to LV's destruction when the Potters died. So we really have no evidence that he'd be called upon by LV to kill anyone.

As regards Snape's comments to Bella and Cissy at Spinners End, we can't take any of those comments as fact. There are at least a few definite lies that he tells them (such as his supposed initial reaction to Harry), as well as some very Big things he leaves out (such as his sending the Order to the MOM at the end of OOTP).


Solitaire - Jan 2, 2007 10:18 am (#1040 of 2959)
JKR in an interview said that DD was concerned about it bringing out the worst in Snape.

Yes, I think that is what I am remembering.

Perhaps DD was simply aware that Snape might make a harsh teacher and thought teaching teaching DADA would bring out the worst of Snape's harshness.

This is always what I thought ... because Snape is so mean. Teaching DADA might (in his mind) give him an excuse to exercise his meanness against certain students he does not like. I've often felt he was unnecessarily cruel to Harry during the Occlumency lessons ... but that is just my take on it. I already know some of you think Snape is wonderful and hasn't a mean bone in his body, and Harry is a jerk who misunderstands Snape and deserves what he gets at Snape's hands.

Solitaire


journeymom - Jan 2, 2007 10:45 am (#1041 of 2959)
Wynnleaf: "There are at least a few definite lies that he tells them (such as his supposed initial reaction to Harry)." Is this a lie? Maybe I was taken in, too, then. Are you referring to his assertion that they wondered if Harry would be the next Dark Lord? I thought it was an interesting revelation. Snape didn't have to be a DE at that time for it to be partly true, that he and others wondered whether Harry would be the next Dark Lord. The possible lie might be the unstated implication that he was still a death eater when Harry started school and that he wanted another person to rally around.

Solitare: "I already know some of you think Snape is wonderful and hasn't a mean bone in his body, and Harry is a jerk who misunderstands Snape and deserves what he gets at Snape's hands. "

Just a quibble here. Perhaps you are exaggerating to make a point, but has anybody ever said Snape is wonderful and hasn't a mean bone in his body, or that Harry is a jerk? Even words to that effect?

Of course I can't speak for everybody, but I'm a Snape fan and I agree completely agree that Snape is a mean, nasty person, maybe a traitor to Dumbledore, and has been horrible and unfair to Harry at times. I DO think Harry misses when Snape has a valid point to make. Though that's more Snape's fault than Harry's. It's hard to get your point across when you're hostile and sarcastic all the time. Snape is the adult. Sometimes Snape has been in the right to discipline Harry, though he does so too harshly.

I might hope he's a 'good guy', but that doesn't mean he's a good person.


MickeyCee3948 - Jan 2, 2007 11:31 am (#1042 of 2959)
Sheeh...Solitaire I already know some of you think Snape is wonderful and hasn't a mean bone in his body, and Harry is a jerk who misunderstands Snape and deserves what he gets at Snape's hands. I haven't heard anyone make those comments regarding Snape in years. We all know how Snape is and the cruelty with which he treats Harry. But and you will have to agree, that all in all (with the exception of Draco)he pretty well treats everybody the same. Yeah, Harry gets a little more of it because of Snape's memories of James and Lily, but all in all I think journeymom has hit it pretty well in her post.

Mickey


TomProffitt - Jan 2, 2007 1:17 pm (#1043 of 2959)
I wouldn't want to put words in someone else's mouth (yet here I am doing it anyway), but I agree with Solitaire's tongue-in-cheek portrayal of some Snape apologists. There are quite a few posters seeing things in Severus's character that I just can't figure at all.

I have yet to see an act from Severus Snape that could be described as genuinely altruistic.

I have yet to see an act from Snape that shows a man capable of having a loving relationship with anyone.

The only character he seems to show true respect is Dumbledore, but he often is at odds with Dumbledore's wishes and desires.

Many of the qualities people conjecture Severus having would indeed provide for an interesting story were they true, but I haven't seen the canon evidence to support them. (Such as a Snape-Lily love interest connection, even if one-sided)

Sorry, Snape's a great character, but I think he's held in too high a regard by some.


Solitaire - Jan 2, 2007 1:27 pm (#1044 of 2959)
It's been a while, but, yes, I've seen posters who think Snape is wonderful and call Harry a jerk. I'm sorry I can't remember precisely which posters think Snape is wonderful. I do, however, think you can do some searches and find a couple of people who think Harry is a jerk. I stopped posting on this thread for a long time for precisely that reason.

Sorry, Snape's a great character, but I think he's held in too high a regard by some.

I couldn't agree more, TomProffitt. Snape may eventually be vindicated for killing Dumbledore, but as far as I'm concerned, he is still a miserable human being. Having experienced and observed the misery inflicted by a true "Snape" in my own world the past few months, I dislike him more than ever. The ends do not always justify the means, IMO.

Solitaire


wynnleaf - Jan 2, 2007 4:59 pm (#1045 of 2959)
I suppose I'm probably one of the more pro-Snape posters -- in fact, I don't know anyone posting over the past one and a half years who is any more supportive of Snape's character than I am. Even I, however, would never refer to Snape as "wonderful" or Harry as a jerk for not thinking the best of him.

I would certainly agree that he is a harsh teacher. But is he a "miserable human being?" (I assume Solitaire didn't mean does Snape feel miserable). Well, I think that all depends.

There are many readers who would probably believe (perhaps based on experiences) that anyone who is as sour as Snape, is a harsh and strict teacher, can be insulting and occasionally cruel, cannot be anything, but a mean, cruel miserable excuse for a human.

On the other hand, there are other people who think (often based on experience), that it's quite possible to be harsh, sour, sometimes insulting, and occasionally cruel, and yet still have many other quite admirable qualities and even be a person many people can like.

While I feel confident that JKR will ultimately make it clear which side Snape is on, I wouldn't be at all surprised if she never makes his character very clear. I expect to get to the end of the last book and still have many readers certain that Snape is a miserable human being, and other people think that much of his character is admirable. I don't think JKR will give us that answer.

Just yesterday, I asked my 8th grade son to name the most harsh teacher he ever had. Surprisingly he named one of his favorite teachers. And, yes, she is harsh and tosses out insults, and sometimes treats the students concerns and quandaries with a certain contempt. But nevertheless, many students consider her a favorite teacher. I've mentioned another teacher in 5th grade who all of my children considered a favorite and is also a favorite of many parents -- yet my older daughter looks back on him as downright "ruthless." I'm not saying this proves anything about Snape. But I am saying that some people feel this sort of person is so just plain mean, that there can be no really redeeming aspect to them. But other people actually enjoy many aspects of this kind of person, even if they don't particularly enjoy the harshness, insults, etc.

Most of the evidence for Snape being mean and nasty comes from his work as a teacher. Sure, we know he joined the Death Eaters in his late teens, but I think most readers would be willing to think a person could change from that point in their life. The big thing that makes many wonder if Snape is evil isn't his joining the DE's in his teens, but the way he treats Harry and his friends.

But while Snape is harsh, and does insult Harry and his friends on occasion -- and Harry more forcefully when he's quite angry -- most of his supposed "unfairness," is really difficult to find except in more minor examples.

In the first class he takes off a point for Harry being cheeky, and another for not keeping Neville from making a mistake. Unfair? Yes to the Neville situation, not necessarily to the cheek. Grossly unfair? 2 points? No, not grossly.

In COS, in spite of fireworks thrown into Crabbe's cauldron, there were no points lost, detentions, etc. Only a threat to expel the culprit if Snape ever figured out who did it. Unfair? Not at all.

POA when Snape substituted in DADA - Harry lost 10 points for each minute he was late -- unfair? no. Snape took 5 for disruptions, and threatened fifty. He took five points for Hermione being an "insufferable know-it-all" and for interrupting for the "second time" although she actually interrupted three times. He gave a detention for Ron being rude. Other students (Gryffindors) also interrupted the class and he didn't take off more points.

In GOF is the famous "I see no difference" incident. He took 50 points off and a detention for Gryffindors who he saw as starting a fight that included hexing in the corridors, two injuries, the class beginning late, and challenging his authority. Unfair? Well, possibly if he could have learned more about the Slytherin part in it. Grossly unfair? Maybe, maybe not.

In OOTP Harry lost ten points for actually admitting to Snape that "I'm trying to decide what curse to use on Malfoy". Unfair? Certainly not.

In HBP, Snape gives Harry Saturday detentions sorting through filing that, yes, includes his father's detentions. This is for an offense that could deserve expulsion. Unfair? No.

Snape's detentions are no more awful than other teacher's detentions. Gutting beetles or horned frogs is no worse than sending 11 year olds into the Forbidden Forest -- much safer actually.

Sure, he called for Harry and Ron's expulsion for the flying car incident, but even DD admitted that if something like that happened again they'ed risk expulsion. In other words, their offense did warrent it, but they got a second chance.

We can certainly come up with all sorts of insulting things Snape says to Harry, and occasionally to Neville or Hermione. Snape does have a propensity for saying cruel things. Is his cruelty so great that he cannot also have very admirable qualities and perhaps even some likeable ones? I think that simply depends on the individual reader and their perceptions.

Should we have expected JKR to show us any admirable qualities in the first 6 books? No, of course not. However, if Snape is loyal to DD, then he very well could have many qualities.

Is Harry's lesson about Snape (if he's loyal) going to be "evil, mean people can serve on the good side?" or might it possibly be, "the people you think are evil and mean may not be." Or even, "people who don't like you can still be admirable." Or "Just because you hate someone, for what seems like a good reason, doesn't make them evil."

I'm sure many readers will finish book 7 and dislike Snape as much as before. I wouldn't be surprised, however, if Harry finds that he doesn't dislike him nearly as much as he did.


wynnleaf - Jan 2, 2007 6:30 pm (#1046 of 2959)
In the interest of fairness I should mention probably Snape's most unfair taking of points, which would be at the beginning of HBP when he took off 50 points for Harry being late to the feast and 20 more for wearing muggle clothing. Snape directly mentions the flying car incident and I would say that his point taking is mostly likely being vengeful for that earlier incident. In COS when even Dumbledore acknowledged that Harry and Ron had done something worthy of expulsion, but was giving them a second chance, McGonagall let them off with no points taken at all and only one relatively easy detention. Since Snape compares Harry's lateness in HBP to that incident in COS, I'd guess that the very unfair points taken was "making up" in Snape's mind for Harry being let off in COS. Could Snape see the blood on Harry in the dark? We don't know. I expect he might have acted the same regardless. Tonk's patronus had likely explained the gist of the situation already.

You know, I was reading over some of the scenes where several teachers together, including DD, deal with Harry and Co. over various issues. McGonagall is really easy on them in the early part of COS and later in COS, when Mrs Norris is found petrified, it is completely obvious that Harry, Ron and Hermione are lying about why they were in the corridor. Further, Harry does in fact know information pertinent to Mrs Norris' being petrified (even if he doesn't realize it). But because neither DD nor McGonagall make any effort to get Harry and the others to admit anything, no one learns of that information. Snape knew they were lying about being in the corridor. DD and McGonagall must have known they were lying. But only Snape wanted to push them into telling the truth. DD and McGonagall don't even try a soft approach -- "look, we realize you're hiding something, but you really must tell what you know so we can try to help this situation. Nothing will happen to you if you just tell the truth." But no, even though it's clear the kids are lying, they don't try to get them to tell the truth. Sometimes it's easy to see why Snape probably thinks DD and McGonagall will let them get away with far too much.


rambkowalczyk - Jan 2, 2007 6:34 pm (#1047 of 2959)
As a Death Eater Snape had to prove himself, so it is certain that he most likely has killed for Voldemort. (rambkowalczyk)

Well, which is it? Certain? or most likely? Wynnleaf

Once again another one of my vague phrases. I believe Snape had to prove himself that he was a loyal Death Eater and not just talking the talk. He had to do something that showed his loyalty to Voldemort. I don't think giving him the prophecy would have been enough. I believe he would have had to kill someone, (granted it's an unproven guess). If he didn't I'm sure he used the one of the other Unforgivable Curses or some other Dark Magic not mentioned yet.

Ps as a person who wants Snape to be generally good, I like your arguments that although Snape is unfair to Harry, it doesn't prove he is evil. Granted killing Dumbledore has yet to be adequately explained but I can wait until Deathly Hallows.


Mrs Brisbee - Jan 2, 2007 8:16 pm (#1048 of 2959)
I agree with the Artful Dodger's assessment: it's not about those silly points.

For example, in the first potions lesson Harry is a mouthy little twerp and Snape docks him a point. Okay, whatever. What I don't like about Snape is his singling out Harry, mocking him, and trying to humiliate him. There is something very unattractive about a grown man using his position of authority in an attempt to humiliate a child. That Harry has the mettle to take command of the situation by mouthing off-- thus losing a point-- is the highlight but not the meat of that situation. How Snape treats those he has power over tells us a good deal about his personality, and it's not pretty.


Solitaire - Jan 2, 2007 9:57 pm (#1049 of 2959)
I've read and reread the first potions lesson, and I fail to see where Harry is a mouthy little twerp. After Snape puts a third question to him which he does not know ...

"I don't know," said Harry quietly. "I think Hermione does, though, why don't you try her?"

The text doesn't say Harry "retorted," or "shot back," or was in any way mouthy or snotty in his answer. I suppose he does wonder why Snape doesn't ask someone who obviously does know rather than pick on him when he obviously doesn't know. Perhaps, as a teacher who has seen kids attempt to sink into the floor when they are afraid I'll call on them, I have a different take on the situation. It is painfully obvious to me as a reader (and a teacher) that Snape doesn't give a flip about the answer or whether anyone knows it. His objective for that class was to make Harry feel stupid. (Hm ... I wonder how one would write that up in a lesson plan?)

As far as I am concerned, Snape set the tone that relationship would take that first day, and he has taken pains to make sure Harry has maintained his dislike throughout the past six years. Harry entered Hogwarts with few preconceived ideas, eager to like and be liked. His hatred of Snape developed honestly enough, from being bullied and picked on by a bully against whom he could not fight back. Perhaps Harry will find out that this was all done in a misguided effort to save his life. I hope it was ... but I'm not counting too heavily on it.

Solitaire


Laura W - Jan 3, 2007 2:51 am (#1050 of 2959)
"As regards Snape's comments to Bella and Cissy at Spinners End, we can't take any of those comments as fact. There are at least a few definite lies that he tells them (such as his supposed initial reaction to Harry)," (wynnleaf)

Maybe it is a lie and maybe it isn't. What jumped out at me was your use of the word, "definite." Where, in canon, can you prove for certainty (definite) that what Severus is saying re this is a lie?

In CoS, the 16-year-old Tom Riddle tells Harry he sees a lot of similarities between them; in PS, the Sorting Hat tells the 11-year-old Potter, "You could be great, you know, it's all here in your head, and Slytherin will help you on your way to greatness, no doubt about that -"; in CoS, when the Hufflepuffs discovered that Harry could speak Parslemouth the natural assumption was that he was the Heir of Slytherin (ie - a great Dark wizard-to-be); and mostly, he *was* the only wizard who had survived an AK. It is absolutely natural that when word of that miracle spread throughout the wizarding community in 1981 and was written about in books in subsequent years (as McGonagall predicted it would be), The Boy Who Lived would be thought of as surviving because he was a great good wizard by some and because he was a great dark wizard by others. It is not beyond my comprehension that Snape would think either was possible and not make up his mind re this until he is faced with Harry on the first day of the first year of Potions class (ie - until the evidence in the form of the boy is physically before him). It makes sense to me, with Snape's intelligence and curiosity.

I could be right or wrong about this. Either way, I don't believe there is anything "definite" (read, proven in canon) about the fact that Snape was lying when he said this to Bellatrix.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 1051 to 1080

Post  Mona Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:28 am

Mrs Brisbee - Jan 3, 2007 4:43 am (#1051 of 2959)
I've read and reread the first potions lesson, and I fail to see where Harry is a mouthy little twerp. After Snape puts a third question to him which he does not know ...

"I don't know," said Harry quietly. "I think Hermione does, though, why don't you try her?"

The text doesn't say Harry "retorted," or "shot back," or was in any way mouthy or snotty in his answer. --Solitaire

I say this about Harry because I see this as one of his character traits. He grew up surrounded by bullies, and he found one way to fight back: words. I see it in his interaction with the Dursleys all the time. Harry can be very sarcastic. He finds things to say that will irritate them, because it actually gives him a small way to fight back and take some measure of control in situations he would otherwise have none.

I deduce the way in which Harry said that in Potions by the classroom reaction-- laughter-- and by his catching Seamus's eye. Harry has encountered yet another bully, and uses the same tool he does with the Dursleys. Personally, I find it an endearing quality in Harry that he is able to fight back and annoy the bullies that seek to squash him. It is a tactic I see him use over and over again, finding the right thing to say to push their buttons and make their control slip.


Prefect Marcus - Jan 3, 2007 9:23 am (#1052 of 2959)
Re: "I see no difference"

The Artful Dodger: "Don't you think Snape should have realized that Hermione had an injury which needed to be cured? Don't you think that he should have at least tried to find out the Slytherin part in it? Don't you see that these are the reasons why fans were so outraged by that scene, and not silly fifty points? And don't you agree that a teacher who treats a student like that, actually not caring about her health, should be thrown out of school? "

Of course Snape "...realized that Hermione had an injury which needed to be cured". He let her run away from class without so much as a word. Do you think he would have done that if he thought she didn't need attention?

Certainly I think Snape should have tried to find out the Slytherin's part in it. Don't you think Harry should have tried to find out if what Snape was telling him about his father was true? Snape was no more interested in the truth about the Slytherins that Harry was in the truth about his father.

Since Snape has shown that he is willing to put his own life on the line trying to protect the dispised trio, I see no reason to toss him from school because he callously insults one of their looks.


Anna L. Black - Jan 3, 2007 10:43 am (#1053 of 2959)
"Snape was no more interested in the truth about the Slytherins that Harry was in the truth about his father." - prefect marcus

Well, that's hardly the same - Snape is a teacher, and one of the students in his class is injured - it is his duty as a teacher to find out what happened to her.


haymoni - Jan 3, 2007 11:29 am (#1054 of 2959)
Holy Cat! A Prefect Marcus sighting!!!

I think Snape is more interested in defending his Slytherins than he is at being a fair teacher. It suits him as a Slytherin. Making his house members look good makes him look good. Hang those stupid Gryffindors!

Most of the children that I know who have read the books have no problem thinking that Snape is a vile, evil thing.

The more experienced reader is looking for twists, irony and foreshadowing and all of the other things that make a great mystery a great mystery.

Bottom line - does it really matter if Snape turns out to be good or evil? If the ending of the story is great, will we really care?


Die Zimtzicke - Jul 9, 2007 3:52 pm (#1055 of 2959)
Snape might not be as interested in defending his Slytherins, as giving them the chance to say he's defending them. It wouldn't do if they all wrote home the next day and said "Snape punished one of our own for baiting a mudblood!" now would it?

As for Hermione's injury, yes, it was a dreadful thing, but it was one of those things that the nurse could cure in a few minutes. It was not permanent or life threatening, such as Hermione's disfiguring of Marietta, or Harry almost killing Draco. Snape could have probably gotten Harry in even more trouble then if he'd wanted to. If the Slytherins hadn't apparently been sidetracked by the gossip about Harry dating Ginny, that story might have held center stage longer.


Prefect Marcus - Jan 3, 2007 12:17 pm (#1056 of 2959)
I am certainly not defending Snape. Yes, he should have tried to discover exactly what happened. Yes, he should have shown greater concern for Hermione. But Snape is Snape. I see no difference between his actions here than in his actions in the first book when he confiscated Harry's copy of "Quidditch Through the Ages", or any other of the innumerable times when he was arbitrarily unfair to Harry and his friends.

I find it interesting that so many fans get extra incensed about this occasion that to me is just typical Snape behaviour. He insulted one of the trio, and he acted partial to the Slytherins. He has done the same countless times. Why do people pick this one instance as especially galling?

Yes, Hermione had been injured, but it isn't like she had lost an eye. Her teeth were growing. Snape knew at a glance that Madame Pomfrey could repair it with little or no trouble at all. If you recall, Hermione actually benefitted from the experience. She got her oversized teeth reduced for free, remember? So she came out ahead.


wynnleaf - Jan 3, 2007 1:42 pm (#1057 of 2959)
I tend to agree with prefect marcus as regards the GOF "I see no difference" incident. Snape uses opportunities to make cutting remarks and the GOF incident provided one. It's a sour, somewhat mean spirited thing to do. He does it to Hermione, who while an academically excellent student, often disobeys him in class (helping other students like Neville), speaks out of turn, helped knock him unconscious the year before, and (did he but know it) steals from him. Of course, the ideal teacher would continue to be caring and considerate of Hermione regardless, but Snape is not the ideal teacher. He's actually rather emotional and is quite willing to take a snipe at Hermione when possible.

I'm sure he was quite well aware that there was in fact a difference in her teeth. He certainly didn't stop her from going to the hospital wing. But she wasn't in any sort of danger -- just mainly discomfort. What else could he have done (for Hermione) other than perhaps offer her sympathy? And of course, he'd never even consider that. To me, this is just Snape making his usual cutting remarks.

Should he have gone further to discover possible Slytherin responsibility in this? Of course. But it doesn't only work one way. Snape didn't pursue finding out who caused the explosion in Crabbe's cauldron in COS, or who stole from his stores. Should he have pursued it? Well, probably. But he didn't, even though he knew it was probably Harry and Co. If one considers Snape terrible for not doing more to discover the Slytherin's fault in the GOF incident, one should equally be dismayed that Snape didn't do more to discover who caused the incident in COS, which, by the way, injured students as well.

Now -- the first potions lesson. Was Harry being cheeky? Yeah, I think so. Was it warranted? Uh, I'd say it's never a good idea to cheek a teacher on the first day, regardless what they're doing. Do I blame Harry? Not really.

What about Snape? Well, I don't think any teacher asks the class questions in order to find out the answers. Students often have some odd notion that's what's going on, but it's not. Teachers ask questions to find out what student's know. Hermione, hand in air, insisting on giving the answer, gave all the hallmarks of a kid who did know the answer. Did Snape need the answer? No. Did he need to find out whether Hermione knew it? No, it was pretty obvious she did. So he had no real reason to call on Hermione.

On the other hand, why did he call on Harry at first? The first question was okay. But his follow-up of doing the "celebrity isn't everything," approach was totally uncalled for. Why the attitude toward Harry in the beginning? Most likely the James thing. Of course, that's wrong to foist his feelings about James onto Harry.

I do think that Harry's cheekiness helped to further Snape's antagonism. His comments got other students to laugh and Snape would probably hate that, especially from James' son. Does it excuse Snape? Of course not.

But I don't think Snape's attitude toward Harry, or his tendency to make cutting remarks in general, is enough to consider him so nasty that there can't also be some admirable aspects to him as a character.

Oh... the question about the Spinners End chapter. I guess I assumed most of you guys would agree on that one. Snape told Bella that when Harry first came Snape, along with others, thought Harry might have the makings of a great Dark Wizard and therefore gave Harry some time before determining that he was nothing special. But my take on it (and I suppose I wrongly assumed most everyone's take on it), was that Snape immediately discounted Harry and went out of his way to show Harry from Day 1 that he was nothing special at all.


TomProffitt - Jan 3, 2007 2:01 pm (#1058 of 2959)
My problem with Severus Snape isn't so much his bad traits, which are many, but his lack of good ones.

Snape is unfair to his students and bullies them. Some more than others. I was particularly disturbed by his Occlumency lessons with Harry. Toughness and firmness (even a bit of sarcasm and ridicule) are good things in a combat instructor, but the traits must be tempered with a training program that allows the trainee to start slow and build up. Snape failed miserably at this task which was highly important to the Order and Harry. But these are the bad traits, we all know they exist.

The crux for me is the absence of good traits. His only redeeming feature is his willingness to join the Order and work with Dumbledore, but even this is mitigated by the very real likelihood that he only did this to stay out of Azkaban.

And finally there is the confusing nature of his actions at the conclusion of HBP. He does the unthinkable by delivering an Avada Kedavra which apparently ends Dumbledore, while at the same time sparing Potter's life. Did he do this on Tom Riddle's orders as he says or out of a true desire to keep Harry alive for Harry's sake? (or more likely the sake of the world and not Harry as such) We've seen decidedly little evidence that Snape's final actions in HBP were done for goodness's sake and not out of pragmatic necessity.


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 3, 2007 3:57 pm (#1059 of 2959)
I've always viewed Severus's abuse of Harry in public as a way of demonstrating to the DE's kids that he hates Harry. They are usually listening or in close proximity, to my recollection. In private, I view it as his taking pleasure in doing all the things he would have liked to do to James (given he is the spitting image of his father).

He's cruel, at times grossly immature, and for sure is in the wrong profession. But I'm actually glad he's not nice to Harry because then I'd be convinced he was up to something.


MickeyCee3948 - Jan 3, 2007 6:02 pm (#1060 of 2959)
Snape is extremely unlikeable, he is cruel. cynical, hateful and totally dispictable as a teacher.

I agree with Tom Proffitt that his actions during the Occulumency lessons shows exactly how uncaring he can be. He knows Harry hates him, he can see it in Harry's mind. He knows Harry is there for only one reason because Dumbledore wants him to be. But does he try to help Harry one bit. NO...he continues to mistreat, demean and humiliate Harry as much as possible.

The only area I will give Snape even the smallest of an atta-boy is that he does not harm Harry physically. He could have easily offed Harry any number of times but he doesn't. And despite the fact that in HBP he KNOWS Harry has his Potions book. He doesn't pursue it. He lets Harry continue to learn from the book and Harry picks Snape's mind through his use of the book.

And finally during HBP, Snape goes out of his way in the battle scene to keep Harry from using an unforgiveable and more importantly he doesn't use one on Harry. Never once does he use a jinx or spell on Harry. And he reinterates one of the most overlooked lessons the students were supposed to learn in their sixth year. Wandless Magic or Non Vocal Spells was introduced early in the book, mentioned throughout the book and ended with Harry still not being able to do it and therefore being frustrated in the end.

In DH during the final battle with Voldemort. Harry had better have those minute microseconds Wandless Magic provide or his curses and spells will be no more effective than they were aganist the HBP.

Mickey


TomProffitt - Jan 3, 2007 6:22 pm (#1061 of 2959)
"He can see Thestrals. So he can't be completely heartless." --- The Artful Dodger

We don't know why Snape can see Thestrals. We only know that to be able to see them you have to have witnessed death. For all we know Snape can see them because he was a murderer. The ability to see them tells of your past not your character.


Solitaire - Jan 3, 2007 11:32 pm (#1062 of 2959)
TomProffitt is right about the Thestrals. I'm sure Voldemort sees them.


wynnleaf - Jan 4, 2007 6:12 am (#1063 of 2959)
If Snape is loyal to the Order, and has been throughout the series, then he has done a great many admirable things including saving Harry's life, Dumbledore, Katie, risking his life many times for others and the Order, being willing to give up the good opinion of everyone and be a pariah to all in order to serve the cause, etc.

Obviously, one could devise all sorts of selfish reasons for why a loyal Snape would do these things. But in fact canon does not tell us that Snape did any of these things for selfish or otherwise less-than-admirable reasons. If Snape turns out loyal, we have as yet been given no real information on his motivations. And that's obviously a conscious decision of JKR.

If Snape is loyal, then the primary reasons to assume negative motivations for his positive actions is because of his dislike of Harry and his harshness and cruelty as a teacher. But I think that's a big assumption. It's basically assuming that a person who is harsh, unfair to students, and sarcastic and insulting, can risk their life many times over and behave in what appears to be extreme self-sacrificing ways and it must be, or at least must probably be for negative reasons. Personally, I think that's a big leap.

I would tend to look at things the opposite way around. If someone is the sort of person who has risked their life many times over for what would in the typical turn of events be assumed to be positive reasons, and if this person has also saved the lives of others, and gone to great self-sacrifice, then I would consider those the most important facts, and let that color my "read" on the sarcasm, unfairness, insults, etc., rather than vice versa.

If Snape turns out to be loyal, what is JKR going to have Harry learn? As far as "life lessons" that is.

Is Harry going to learn that nasty, mean people can be on the good side? That he judged Snape mostly correctly, he just got the loyalties bit wrong? Is that the lesson? Even the "good" side can have evil people on it?

I can't really see JKR doing that, although I suppose she certainly could. It seems unlikely to me.


TomProffitt - Jan 4, 2007 7:35 am (#1064 of 2959)
wynnleaf, I had some trouble following the logic of your last post. I think I know what you mean, but I'm not certain. I'll try to explain my position more clearly.

We have no evidence regarding the motivation of Severus Snape. We only know that the only information given to anyone other than Dumbledore is that Dumbledore trusted him. We only know in vague generality why this is so. It is not unlikely that he has been motivated to work for the "good side' to stay out of Azkaban, at least at first. We have seen scant evidence that he is working out of the goodness within his heart.

Secondly we know what type of character traits Severus Snape displays to others. He is snide, sarcastic, and cruel to just about everyone whether they are students, Death Eaters or members of the Order. We are not witness to him actually being nice or kind to other people.

Thirdly we know that Severus has a mixed record with his duties as a teacher and an Order member. We know that he has treated students unfairly and given them marks that do not accurately reflect their ability. We know he has intentionally destroyed Harry's class work in order to give him a lower grade, but also that he taught Harry well enough for him to get an "E" on his potions owl. We know that Severus made "Wolfsbane Potion" for Lupin all year (in POA) but worked to "blow his cover." We know that Severus made no effort to convince the other Order members of his loyalty, for all of the other Order members have only had Dumbledore's trust to fall back on as they quote to Harry (I find this very disturbing). We know that Severus failed to teach Harry Occlumency.

So the question which arises for me is: has Severus only done enough things to "get by" in support of the Order of the Phoenix? There is much that he has done, but there is also much he has failed to do. Has he only done the "good" things because it would be too obvious if he failed? Or are his failures only the result of him being merely human and as prone to failure as the rest of us?

I am inclined to believe that there is a very good chance that Severus Snape will be revealed to have been working in good faith with the Order all along. If this is the case it will not make me believe that Snape is a good person.

"Even the 'good' side can have evil people on it?" --- wynnleaf

This is the nature of the real world. To me one of the better qualities of Rowling's writing is that we do not have stereo-typical characters without flaws. (Nancy Drew or the Hardy Boys getting detention? I think not.) It is part of real life that good people will have to work with genuinely bad people to get good things done. I think Severus Snape is one of those genuinely bad people that the good people have to work with to get those good things done.


wynnleaf - Jan 4, 2007 9:48 am (#1065 of 2959)
We have no evidence regarding the motivation of Severus Snape. We only know that the only information given to anyone other than Dumbledore is that Dumbledore trusted him. We only know in vague generality why this is so. It is not unlikely that he has been motivated to work for the "good side' to stay out of Azkaban, at least at first. We have seen scant evidence that he is working out of the goodness within his heart. (TomProffitt)

As I read this, I had a different perspective on this idea. If Snape is working for the "good side" in order to stay out of Azkaban, what exactly does that say about Dumbledore?

Would we expect that Dumbledore would have insisted that Snape not only spy for him in the earlier days, but continue to spy on LV after GOF, in order to avoid going to Azkaban? After all, if Snape is truly the Order's spy, then he risks exposure practically 24/7 and the threat of a quite violent death likely preceded by torture (I'm thinking for instance of the Longbottoms). It's hard to believe that LV wouldn't visit the absolute worst upon Snape if he knew he'd been betraying him for years.

So if Snape has to do this in order to keep from being put in Azkaban, couldn't Dumbledore have at least made things a bit easier? If Dumbledore is forcing Snape to do this, why also make him carry the added load of being a Head of House in addition to a full-time teacher? This not only greatly increases his stress levels and responsibility, it also increases the threat to uncovering him as a spy as it makes him more exposed to the children of Death Eaters.

No, I don't think Snape's activities as a spy are something he has to do in order to avoid Azkaban. Perhaps they were initially, but I don't think after 16 years DD would hold that threat over him.

Secondly we know what type of character traits Severus Snape displays to others. He is snide, sarcastic, and cruel to just about everyone whether they are students, Death Eaters or members of the Order. We are not witness to him actually being nice or kind to other people.

Not exactly. We see him being this way toward students -- in particularly Harry and friends, as well as the Marauders (Sirius and Lupin), and some Death Eaters. And sort of Lockhart. He is not rude, etc. to McGonagall, Dumbledore, house elves, Narcissa, or Slughorn. I can't recall who else we've seen him interact with.

Thirdly we know that Severus has a mixed record with his duties as a teacher and an Order member.

I agree about being a teacher, but he doesn't have a mixed record as an Order member. His revealing Lupin as a werewolf was, in my opinion, completely justified. The man had endangered students needlessly and could easily do so again. As regards making an attempt to convince Order members of his loyalty -- did he know that they didn't trust him? One would think that his alerting the Order members at Grimmauld Place to go to the MOM and rescue Harry and Co. would have been evidence to them of his loyalty. Or his saving DD's life, or Katie Bell's life.

And failing to teach Harry occlumency. Hm. Well, first, we are given no information that there are better, nicer, and more pleasant or successful ways to teach occlumency. I would say that Snape was more informative to Harry in occlumency lessons than at practically any other time, even if he was still his usual sour self. Harry not only didn't try at all, JKR tells us he couldn't really have done well at it anyway. So it's not Snape's failure, in my opinion.

I think Severus Snape is one of those genuinely bad people that the good people have to work with to get those good things done.

I certainly agree that there are such people in the real world that good people have to work with. But is that really going to be the lesson JKR has Harry learn from his relationship with Snape? Snape is not, after all, a peripherial character. His and Harry's enmity/relationship/whatever has become one of the primary aspects of turmoil that Harry faces. (I didn't phrase that well at all, but hope you get my meaning). JKR has gone to a lot of work to build up Harry's hatred of Snape and his frustrations in dealing with him. Is this all so that Harry can learn "there are just mean people you have to learn to work with?" Could be. But I don't think JKR has invested this much in what goes on between them simply to teach Harry that. It's not particularly profound at all, and I do think she's working toward something more important than pointing out that nasty people work on the good side, too.


T Vrana - Jan 4, 2007 10:13 am (#1066 of 2959)
Wow, lots of (long) good posts to catch up on. I agree with much that Wynnleaf has to say, and would add that Harry really didn't need another evil wizard to hate did he? If Snape's only role is to be evil wizard #2 that Harry hates, I will be most disappointed. What would be the point? It seems to me Snape has a bigger role in Harry's final transformation to true hero (forgiveness and control, no unforgivables etc. a key).

For what it is worth, my eighth grade daughter has a Snape for a science teacher. He is mean, nasty, picky and bullying. She and her schoolmates where security key cards on lanyards to school. It is a requirement and getting caught without it is punishable. He punishes if you have it, but he can't see it. He picks on many students (my daughter's friends tell me she is one of the many), and fawns over others. He is mean and miserable. My daughter doesn't like him, but neither has she buckled under the pressure. I have not run to the school to rat out this 'Snape', but have told my daughter she will run into people like this so she needs to learn how to deal. He's picky? Fine, be more careful on your tests and labs. He's a freak about being able to see your security card, fine, wear it outside your jacket. She is taking it in stride and actually with a really good sense of humor.

My point, not my favorite teacher, not a warm fuzzy human being, but not evil, and my daughter is doing just fine and Snape's nastiness has never (mine and Jo's) crossed the line to any real damage.

('Course 'my' Snape hasn't AKd our Headmaster...)


TomProffitt - Jan 4, 2007 10:55 am (#1067 of 2959)
wynnleaf, I'm not going to reply in detail as I had considered, for I think our disagreement isn't really determined by the details. You believe that Rowling would not present a "bad" or "evil" character as working for the side of the good. I believe that she would. You believe that having such a character would teach Harry little, I think it would be both true to reality and teach much.

Should it prove that Severus was indeed working for the side of the good all along, I would say that there was much that Severus could have done and should have done to demonstrate to himself, his peers, and his students to prove the quality of his character. As someone on the "good guy team" thus far Severus has done the minimum to get by.


T Vrana - Jan 4, 2007 11:01 am (#1068 of 2959)
Tom- Should it prove that Severus was indeed working for the side of the good all along, I would say that there was much that Severus could have done and should have done to demonstrate to himself, his peers, and his students to prove the quality of his character.

Such as?

Already with what little Snape has (or hasn't) done, the DEs suspect him. What could Snape do that would not be out of character (he is nasty, immature, bullying, but that doesn't equal evil DE) that would prove he's on the good side, but not spoil his role as spy for DD?


wynnleaf - Jan 4, 2007 11:12 am (#1069 of 2959)
You believe that Rowling would not present a "bad" or "evil" character as working for the side of the good. I believe that she would. You believe that having such a character would teach Harry little, I think it would be both true to reality and teach much. (Tom Proffitt)

Not exactly. I think that JKR has presented bad characters working on the side of good. Crouch, Sr. for instance. Scrimgeour is not particularly good. Fudge is just weak, certainly not evil. But Umbridge is definitely evil, yet has not been shown to be working for anything other than the MOM's "side."

So JKR has already shown that the "good" side isn't just full of good people.

Which leads me to believe that she's got a lot more than that to teach Harry, through his dealings with Snape. For instance, Harry will very, very likely end up forgiving Snape. JKR's having Harry so completely sure that he'll "never" forgive Snape pretty well sets Harry up to have to do exactly that. But will Harry need to forgive Umbridge? I doubt it.

And you don't have to "forgive" a bad person in order to work with them. Nor do you have to get over your hatred to work with them. DD doesn't insist that Sirius and Snape forgive and forget, or get over their hatred. Only that they work together. Yet Harry will very likely have to get over his hatred of Snape. I think the catalyst for forgiveness and dealing with his hatred is going to be a lot more than just "I have to work with this guy, even though he's awful."

I imagine we'll just have to agree to disagree, until the Deathly Hallows comes out.

T Vrana, good point. If at this point the DE's were already suspicious of him, any degree of niceness or further evidence of loyalty to the Order that he might show would just get him into deeper problems with suspicious DEs and probably LV.


MickeyCee3948 - Jan 4, 2007 11:41 am (#1070 of 2959)
Not to continue the discussion but to make one point. When Snape was supposed to be teaching Harry Occumency no one else was around. No one knew(except select members of the order)what Harry was doing. The "taking remedial portions" story was in place. Would it had been so bad for Snape to let his guard down just a smidgen and actually teach Harry instead of abusing, ridiculing and demeaning him. No it wouldn't but he couldn't do it, he couldn't let his hatred for James go long enough for that. But as you say we will disagree about Snape's actions at least until DH comes out and probably long afterwards.

Mickey


TomProffitt - Jan 4, 2007 12:30 pm (#1071 of 2959)
"Such as?" T Vrana asks in response to my assertion that Severus Snape has not done what he should to make better account of himself.

Behaving as a well mannered, mature, responsible adult is not too much to ask of a teacher. Tom Riddle understood the advantages of behaving that way while a student at Hogwarts, surely he would expect his Death Eaters to do the same when necessary for them to hide their loyalty to him.

Behaving like a nasty foul git merely to convince Death Eaters that you're on their side is a weak excuse at best, and certainly not a viable reason for behaving as Severus does. I think Severus's behavior is contemptible, but that does not precluding him from being loyal to Dumbledore and the Order, nor will it prevent Harry's forgiveness should it turn out that killing Dumbledore was the only viable option available to Snape on the Tower.


journeymom - Jan 4, 2007 3:45 pm (#1072 of 2959)
Snape was more informative in Occlumency lessons. Agreed. When Snape explained to Harry what was happening with his dreams, Harry found himself sitting on the edge of his seat. He thought, finally! He was getting more information than he'd got from anybody else since last year.

No better way to teach Occlumency? Ultimately Harry's fault for not trying hard enough? Unfair! Lol! I just read that passage last night. I was fuming with Snape the whole time. He's not even as even-tempered with Harry as he is in class. He goes from zero to disgusted and impatient in a few minutes flat. He tells him what Occlumency isn't, mind reading. But he doesn't explain to Harry what to expect ahead of time, he doesn't patiently tell him what he could do better, he just dumps him into the deep end. However, he IS informing him. And he actually says Harry could have done worse for a beginner. I suppose Harry could have tried harder, but I think that was very unrealistic to expect of a boy his age. Harry was an ill-tempered grump throughout OotP, his emotions were controlling him and he had next to no focus.

JKR not just pointing out that nasty people work on the good side? I think that's exactly her point. Sirius says people can't be divided up into good guys and Death Eaters. That's incredibly important. I think it points to Snape especially, and to many other characters. I think this is one of JKR's main points. The choices people make is the primary theme. But I think she wants children, who do see things rather black and white, to understand there can be seemingly good guys (Pettigrew) who are really bad and truly awful people who ultimately are doing the right thing. (Snape)


T Vrana - Jan 4, 2007 5:08 pm (#1073 of 2959)
Tom-

You misunderstand, I think, my fault. I don't think Snape is acting foul to convince anyone he's anything. He is foul. He is immature, petty, nasty, and bullying. He is permanently damaged goods emotionally. That's who he is. He loathes Harry. Not right, but not evil. Snape can't act like a mature adult, he's not a mature adult. But once again, that doesn't make him evil. He has never, until Harry called him a coward (in a James induced rage IMHO), hurt Harry. And even then it was only a 'magical backhand'. The rest of the nastiness isn't pleasant, but Harry can handle it and does.

My point with Snape's ability to do something to prove his loyalty, he can't, he's a spy. If he could actually prove his loyalty, he would likely be dead or at least useless as a spy. His ambiguity is his safety net (and our frustration). And, actually, in my opinion, his continued nastiness convinces me he is on the right side. If he were a spy for LV wouldn't he be more of a yes man, and trying harder to appear the good guy, never questioning DD's decisions, nicer to Potter etc.

Mickey- Snape loathes Harry because Snape loathed James and can't get past it. No guard to let down, he truly hates Harry. It is a huge character flaw (and one I think he might recognize before the end, when he is able to see Lily in Harry). It makes him a bad teacher for Harry (but let's also admit Harry was a bad student of Occlumency and a snoop), and not someone I would want to live next door to, but it does not make him evil. Despite loathing Harry, he did try to teach him, in his own way (I get the feeling you either get occlumency or you don't and there isn't a better was to teach it) 'til Harry invaded his privacy...

I do really like the character of Snape. We have a hero and his loyal friends, we have an evil group of wizards, we have a bunch of nice wizards, we have a whole WW pulling for the Chosen One, Snape's seeming contradictions and ongoing 'battle' with Harry is wonderful icing on the cake.

Journeymom- Harry was learning, and when Snape got too close to the memory he wanted to protect (Cho) he managed a defense. But Harry did not give his best effort outside Snape's lessons, he even admitted this to himself, and by what right did he invade Snape's privacy?


wynnleaf - Jan 4, 2007 6:12 pm (#1074 of 2959)
No better way to teach Occlumency? Ultimately Harry's fault for not trying hard enough? (journeymom)

I didn't mean that Snape couldn't have been a nicer guy while teaching occlumency. I meant that we aren't really told how one goes about teaching it, as regards how it should be explained, how the person learns it, etc. So we really don't know. And further, we don't know who taught Snape. If LV taught him the basics, then it may have been just such rough and ready methods. And I never said it was "ultimately" Harry's fault. Harry was wrong to not try at all. And that certainly contributed to the problem. But I also noted that JKR said that Harry really couldn't have learned it anyway. So it's not exactly Snape's fault if he didn't.

As regards whether or not Snape is acting when he is nasty to Harry and others -- no, I doubt he is acting. But the thing is, with the degree of attitude he's got, he's still under a great deal of suspicion from the DEs. Just imagine if he could and did act as fair to Harry and others as McGonagall. Then I'd imagine the DE's would be even more suspicious.

Sure, we might assume that LV would want Snape to be pretending to like Harry and being a "good spy" in that way. But I don't think LV is particularly subtle in that regard. If he was, he'd be the one ordering Snape to act nice to Harry, and we wouldn't have to wonder why DD didn't tell Snape to be nicer.


T Vrana - Jan 4, 2007 7:25 pm (#1075 of 2959)
If Snape is truly an evil DE, why would he be having a heated 'conversation' with DD in the Forest? I am far more suspicious of his very controlled conversation with Bella and Cissy. That is, Bella and Cissy should be suspicious.....


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 4, 2007 10:05 pm (#1076 of 2959)
I thought this JKR quote from Accio Quote appropriate for the current discussion:

On the theme of tolerance in the books: "One way to learn tolerance is to take the time to really understand other people's motives. Yes, you're right. Harry is often given an erroneous first impression of someone and he has to learn to look beneath the surface. When you look beneath the surface he has sometimes found that he is being fooled by people. And on other occasions he has found very nice surprises."

I really don't think JKR will reveal that Severus switched sides in order to avoid prison. DD specifically states in The Seer Overheard, "you have no idea the remorse" and "greatest regret of his life" and "the reason that he returned-".

I agree with wynnleaf in that if you are doubting Snape then you are also doubting DD. That's fine, but I feel it needs to be included in the discussion.

Edit: another obvious yet important point is I think a lot of what keeps some of us empathetic towards Severus is the Lily factor. If you don't believe in the Lily factor, you probably can't fathom why he'd be remorseful, redeeming himself, driven to make things right, etc.


TomProffitt - Jan 5, 2007 4:18 am (#1077 of 2959)
DD specifically states in The Seer Overheard, "you have no idea the remorse" and "greatest regret of his life" and "the reason that he returned-". --- quoted by me and my shadow 813

If Severus Snape has the ability to convince Dumbledore of his remorse he has a moral obligation to convince his fellow members of the Order of his remorse. It is ethically flawed for Severus Snape to place the burden of his innocence, remorse, or trustworthiness on someone else. It is Snape's obligation to prove his trustworthiness not Dumbledore's. This is the crux of my problem with Snape, he is not accepting the responsibilities of the life he has claimed, neither in offering proof nor in adapting his actions and personal habits to fit his change in stature. Tom Riddle had gone missing for ten years, Snape has no excuse for failing to change in that ten year period.

... another obvious yet important point is I think a lot of what keeps some of us empathetic towards Severus is the Lily factor. --- me and my shadow 813

There is no canon evidence for the "Lily factor." None.


Mrs Brisbee - Jan 5, 2007 5:53 am (#1078 of 2959)
It is ethically flawed for Severus Snape to place the burden of his innocence, remorse, or trustworthiness on someone else. --Tom Proffitt

Well said, and hear hear!

And turning away from Snape's character (moral fiber) for a moment, and looking at his character (person in a book), did anyone else besides me enjoy him less in HBP than in the other books? I've never liked his moral character, but have found him an interesting enigma on occasion. But the way he came across in HBP I'd almost call him a Marty Stu if I weren't aware of Rowling's feelings about him.

My irritation with the character snowballed as I made my way through the book. Besides the talents we knew about, we find out that he is Super!Healer Snape, able to cure things characters who are trained in Healing like Madame Pomfrey are clueless about. His abilities with Dark Magic are so astounding he can counteract even Voldemort's curses. We see Dumbledore turn to Snape to take care of these things-- in other words, Dumbledore himself concedes that Snape's talents outstrip his own. Snape is also better than just a Potion Master; he has improved on almost every potion in the advanced textbook. He invents his own spells. He dueled Harry and mopped the floor with him-- in fact he was so not worried he just toyed with Harry. I don't think that's a small feat, as we've seen Harry actually fair well in duels against other Death Eaters.

I can't say I liked Super!Snape. If Rowling reveals Snape to be also good and loyal in the end, then I will dub him Marty Stu.

There, I feel better for my rant.


Steve Newton - Jan 5, 2007 6:13 am (#1079 of 2959)
Okay, who is Marty Stu?


Mrs Brisbee - Jan 5, 2007 6:25 am (#1080 of 2959)
A "Mary Sue" is a character who possesses so much more amazing talent, skill, and specialness than the other characters in a work. "Marty Stu" is the term for a male Mary Sue.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 1081 to 1110

Post  Mona Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:33 am

T Vrana - Jan 5, 2007 6:32 am (#1081 of 2959)
Tom- There is no canon evidence for the "Lily factor." None.

If all our theories had to rely strictly on canon this would be a much smaller forum. There is sufficient evidence for the possibility that Snape's return was linked to Lily.

If Severus Snape has the ability to convince Dumbledore of his remorse he has a moral obligation to convince his fellow members of the Order of his remorse.

No he does not. Whatever his regret it must have been deeply personal and DD respected his privacy as should everyone else, and they did. DD did not expect Snape to personally convince everyone in the Order of his regret. Making a grave mistake does not set a person up to fully explain themselves to everyone they meet for the rest of their lives.

It is ethically flawed for Severus Snape to place the burden of his innocence, remorse, or trustworthiness on someone else. It is Snape's obligation to prove his trustworthiness not Dumbledore's.

Working for the Order, saving Harry's life and risking his own life spying on LV is not enough?

This is the crux of my problem with Snape, he is not accepting the responsibilities of the life he has claimed, neither in offering proof nor in adapting his actions and personal habits to fit his change in stature. Tom Riddle had gone missing for ten years, Snape has no excuse for failing to change in that ten year period.

I'm not sure what he is supposed to adapt. Is he to change his entire personality to prove he's on the right side? Is he supposed to pretend he's a happy, well adjusted guy? Why? He's not. He is who he is and as long as he is working for the good side, that is all that is required. He's not a pleasant, warm and fuzzy guy. He has some very serious flaws that make him who he is and in a perfect world he'd work out his issues and give Harry a big hug, but life and human nature do not usually work that simply.

The question is, is he valuable to DD and the good side and as a person who is flawed, but working within his limitations to do the right thing? If everyone who has something to contribute has to be completely perfect, we will have a lot of benchwarmers.

Snape IS nasty, and deeply flawed, and, it seems, trapped in a life he did not mean to choose (though his actions as a young man led him there). Is it an excuse for being rotten? No! But it is a part of his character and I personally find his struggle with his obligations, his regrets, his desires and his greasy, petty personality, very interesting. I would not want him as a friend or neighbor, but I do think DD was right that even someone like Snape deserves a chance to do what is right, without apologizing or explaining himself to everyone. If that were a requirement, I doubt Snape would have returned. DD wanted to give Snape a chance to make good, not force him to stay on the dark side by requiring he become a model citizen, perfect teacher and happy guy.

It remains to be seen if DD was right (I think he was...).

EDIT- Mrs. Brisbee- Snape arrived at Hogwarts knowing more Dark Magic than most adults, so his talents in this are as an adult did not surprise me. I still wonder if those notes were just his....Lily being a dab hand and all that...OR....Hermione thinking the writing looks feminine (Momma Snape's book, Momma Snape's notes)....Snape claimed the curses for his own...he never actually had anything brewing as Potions teacher...was he really that good...or just adequate with good notes or a good lab partner...

I actually grew fonder (well, not fonder, but more interested, I thought he added to his complexity) of Snape in HBP. It is clear that he is talented, but I would not say more powerful than DD, just more adept in Dark Magic.


T Vrana - Jan 5, 2007 6:54 am (#1082 of 2959)
Pardon one mental picture I just got...

A young Snape with tear filled eyes, anguished, distraught, clearly uncomfortable with revealing his emotions, but unable to stop..

"...and that, Headmaster is why I've returned.... I never meant for this to happen...."

"Thank you for telling me this Severus. I am glad you have returned. I'd like you to stay on and teach here at Hogwarts. I'll also expect you to continue your role as spy, but for me. It will be dangerous. Can you do that?"

"Yes, Headmaster. Will I be teaching Defense Against the Dark Arts?

"Uh, no. Let's try Potions for a while."

"Potions?"

"Yes."

"Very well...". Snape turns to go.

"Oh, one more thing, Severus. I'd like you to read this..."

DD hands Snape a book. Snape reads the title then looks up in disbelief.

"How to Make Friends and Influence People?!?"

Sorry, couldn't resist....


Steve Newton - Jan 5, 2007 7:44 am (#1083 of 2959)
Thanks, Mrs. B.


T Vrana - Jan 5, 2007 8:05 am (#1084 of 2959)
Flash forward several years. HBP, on the edge of the Forbidden Forest:

"Severus, you've had several years now. Have you finished that book I gave you?"

"No, Headmaster."

"I thought I made it clear how important it was you read that book."

"I've been rather busy, Headmaster what with teaching, spying on LV, chasing Malfoy around. I really don't have time for that book!"

"Severus you said you'd do it, now do it!"

OK. I'm done.


TomProffitt - Jan 5, 2007 8:26 am (#1085 of 2959)
"Snape IS nasty, and deeply flawed, and, it seems, trapped in a life he did not mean to choose (though his actions as a young man led him there). Is it an excuse for being rotten? No! But it is a part of his character and I personally find his struggle with his obligations, his regrets, his desires and his greasy, petty personality, very interesting." --- T Vrana

This is rather my point. It does not matter how reasonable it is that he came to be who he is, what is ethically proper conduct does not change. We understand how Tom Riddle came to be who he is, but that does not justify him. The standard does not change, the difficulty it involves to attain it is what varies person to person. Severus Snape had ten years with nothing to do except be a teacher, the spying role was complete. He has no excuses for his behavior. No one expects perfection, but that does not preclude an expectation of progress.

"DD did not expect Snape to personally convince everyone in the Order of his regret." --- T Vrana

Because he is a spy, all of the members of the Order place their lives in Severus's hands. They are trusting Snape with their lives, do they not have the right to demand that he prove himself to them?


T Vrana - Jan 5, 2007 8:54 am (#1086 of 2959)
Because he is a spy, all of the members of the Order place their lives in Severus's hands. They are trusting Snape with their lives, do they not have the right to demand that he prove himself to them?

NO. Severus does not run the Order. He is one member. DD runs the Order. The Order trusts DD. DD trusts Severus. DD knows that he can expect just so much of Severus and nothing more (and he may have expected too much as it is. We'll see.). To demand Severus change his entire personality and open up to the rest of the Order would push Severus too far. Every soldier does not get to approve every other soldier. DD is the leader and as such has determined that Snape is useful and an important member of the Order, so the other followers can either accept DD's decision, or leave the Order. Clearly they have trusted DD's leadership for a long time. DD also knows Snape's flaws and accepts them. He even tweaks his lack of humor when he pulls the cracker with the vulture hat in it in POA. DD accepts Snape as is. Does he wish he were nicer, I'm sure, but it just isn't going to happen.

What behaviour, other than being a bit nasty and sarcastic to the students, would you have him change? He seems to have an ok relationship with McGonogall. The only folks he has a real problem with: Quirrel, Lockhart, Sirius, Lupin, Moody (fake), ...any others? He helps DD. He hampers Umbridge. What has he said or done to any Order member, other than a lifelong enemy (Sirius) that he needs to change? He is even decent to Lupin considering their history. Having nearly been attacked by a werewolf himself, a Marauder, Lupin, no less, I can understand his reservations, and I love Lupin!


wynnleaf - Jan 5, 2007 9:29 am (#1087 of 2959)
People in war situations put their lives in the hands of spies all the time -- trusting in the intelligence they gather. And they do this without even knowing who those spies are or anything about them. They have to trust that those in charge of the recruiting, training and supervising the spies know what they're doing and are using trustworthy people. Real life spies don't go around "proving" themselves to all and sundry just so they'll feel good about trusting their lives to the info that the spy gathers.

Besides, if working for the Order, giving them useful information (we must assume, since they keep using him as a spy), sending Order members to save Harry and the others, isn't convincing enough, what would be? Being pleasant and nice? He's never going to be that way.

Tom, what exactly are you suggesting he should have done to win their trust? Tell them the reasons for why he turned away from LV? Why do you expect they'd trust that any more than they'd trust him after sending them to save Harry, or saving DD?


wynnleaf - Jan 5, 2007 10:28 am (#1088 of 2959)
Mrs Brisbee,

Your recent post confused me. Maybe I just don't understand your perspective or maybe I completely misunderstood you, but could you clarify?

It sounds like you're saying that you think Snape is very mean, nasty, cruel, etc., and agree with TomProffitt that he should have proven himself to the Order (and maybe Harry) better. My understanding is that you don't really see any redeeming characteristic in Snape and that if he's really on the Order's side, he's still a completely bad guy who just happens, for whatever reasons, to serve on the right side.

But on the other hand, you dislike in HBP where he is portrayed in a more positive light. You dislike seeing him portrayed as highly intelligent (the notes in the potions book), or a strong duelist. I could sort of understand that you don't like seeing a character you feel as awful, portrayed as having all these strong characteristics. But I really don't understand why you object to seeing him given any truly positive characteristics -- able and willing to heal people.

And then you seemed to be saying that you wouldn't want to see him portrayed in the final book as having been truly loyal and having good characteristics.

What I don't understand is that on the one hand you seem to be saying the character is awful, mean, and cruel because he doesn't do admirable things, yet on the other hand, you don't want to see him portrayed as doing admirable things.

This is very confusing to me.

As regards the "Marty Su" aspect, if Snape were gradually portrayed as this really all-wrong excellent fellow, I would agree with you. However, when many of his characteristics have been portrayed in an extremely negative light (his looks, his demeanor, his background), I fail to see how revealing positive characteristics (healing ability, powerful duelist, very intelligent), makes him into a Marty Su. Mary Sues are generally known for being too perfect. Snape has never been that, nor does he seem to be in any danger of being portrayed that way.


Mrs Brisbee - Jan 5, 2007 11:19 am (#1089 of 2959)
Wynnleaf, I will try to clarify.

It sounds like you're saying that you think Snape is very mean, nasty, cruel, etc., and agree with TomProffitt that he should have proven himself to the Order (and maybe Harry) better.

So far, you're right on target. I do think Snape is mean , nasty, cruel, etc. And we've seen how damaging lack of trust can be.

My understanding is that you don't really see any redeeming characteristic in Snape and that if he's really on the Order's side, he's still a completely bad guy who just happens, for whatever reasons, to serve on the right side.

That's a rather extremist way to phrase my opinion, so I can't say it is wholely accurate. I wouldn't say that he had no redeeming characteristics, or that he is "completely bad". I probably wouldn't say that about any character, except for Voldemort.

But on the other hand, you dislike in HBP where he is portrayed in a more positive light.

If by "positive light" you mean "acquired a plethora of amazing skills of amazing amazingness", then yes, I do hate that.

You dislike seeing him portrayed as highly intelligent (the notes in the potions book), or a strong duelist.

I think Snape has always been portrayed as intelligence. Now, however, he is a Potions genius. He's gone from smart to amazing. And since when is Snape a dueling champion? He's been hanging out at Hogwarts for the past 15 years. I suppose one could argue that he learned it from James, but really, how did he get so amazing, especially considering how out of practice you'd think he'd be?

I could sort of understand that you don't like seeing a character you feel as awful, portrayed as having all these strong characteristics. But I really don't understand why you object to seeing him given any truly positive characteristics -- able and willing to heal people.

You miss the point. I object to these amazing skills and powers coming out of nowhere. It doesn't matter how wonderful or awful Snape is, it's still irritating. But I think it was my last bit about calling him Marty Stu if he turns out to be on the good side is what is causing the confusion, so I'll clarify that in a second. I just want to add the amazingness of Snape being better than Dumbledore at curse removal to the list of amazingness, since it's a big one.

What I don't understand is that on the one hand you seem to be saying the character is awful, mean, and cruel because he doesn't do admirable things, yet on the other hand, you don't want to see him portrayed as doing admirable things.

I hope I've clarified this so far. Let me just say that one doesn't need to have a whole host of amazing powers of amazingness to do admirable things. The Amazing Amazingness is a separate issue from whether or not Snape can demonstrate admirable qualities. So it only has to do with him being evil because he'll look even more like a Marty Stu if Rowling suddenly reveals him to be poor misunderstood good guy Snape in the final book.

As regards the "Marty Su" aspect, if Snape were gradually portrayed as this really all-wrong excellent fellow, I would agree with you. However, when many of his characteristics have been portrayed in an extremely negative light (his looks, his demeanor, his background), I fail to see how revealing positive characteristics (healing ability, powerful duelist, very intelligent), makes him into a Marty Su. Mary Sues are generally known for being too perfect. Snape has never been that, nor does he seem to be in any danger of being portrayed that way.

My understanding of Mary Sues are that they possess skills and powers above and beyond the other characters, so that they'll look amazing by comparison. I Wikepedia'ed Mary Sue, and this is what they had to say about the Marty Stu: A male "Mary Sue" may be referred to as a Gary Stu or Marty Stu, or in similar terms. While female characters seen as Mary Sues are often bright and cheerful, characters seen as Gary/Marty Stus tend to be brooding and sometimes violent. They often reject authority, ignoring the consequences of their rebellious or aggressive actions, and sometimes are proved to have had the right instincts or intentions all along.

So, to clarify, I don't like any character to suddenly gain amazing skills and talents out of the blue. Any character can prove themselves admirable without them, because it's moral character that matters, not power level. So it isn't that I don't like Marty Stu because he's Snape, it's that I don't like Snape because he's turning into a Marty Stu.


TomProffitt - Jan 5, 2007 11:35 am (#1090 of 2959)
Somewhere along the way the argument has drifted from the points about Severus Snape I wish to make.

I believe that everyone, regardless of position or occupation or personal background, has an ethical obligation to treat friends, associates, subordinates, and superiors with respect, integrity, and ethical correctness. This is not one of Snape's strong suits, and an abject failure when it comes to how he treats his subordinates.

The Order of the Phoenix is a very informal organization compared to a military. A soldier doesn't need another vouched for, because he knows he's been through the same training. When you depend on someone's integrity to protect your life you have to have a way of knowing that that person is worthy of your trust. There is no organizational history behind the Order of the Phoenix to vouch for Snape. There is only Dumbledore. I say that it is moral cowardice on Severus Snape's part to refuse to give his fellow Order members a reason to trust him. I don't care how personal it is to Snape, I don't care if it will embarrass him, I think it is grossly selfish and immature to treat the Order in that fashion.

Severus is a great character. He is not a role model. I am not capable of using the word "good" to describe him. Nor would I use the word "evil." He is immature and unethical and does not have my respect.


wynnleaf - Jan 5, 2007 11:47 am (#1091 of 2959)
I say that it is moral cowardice on Severus Snape's part to refuse to give his fellow Order members a reason to trust him. I don't care how personal it is to Snape, I don't care if it will embarrass him, I think it is grossly selfish and immature to treat the Order in that fashion.

Tom, I assume (because I'm not sure) that you mean that Snape should have revealed to Order members whatever the reasons are for Dumbledore's trust.

Why do you think Order members would find him any more trustworthy knowing what Dumbledore knows, when what they do know -- that he has saved lives on the good side, sent alerts that saved Harry and others, saved DD's life -- has not created any personal trust in him?

For instance, if he revealed that he had been a friend of Lily's and turned away from LV because LV was targeting her -- why should anyone believe him? Why should him giving that as a reason create trust, where saving other people's lives did not?

Suppose he revealed that LV had caused the death of someone he cared about. Why should they believe him, that he truly cared for the individual and it caused him to turn on LV? Why should this make a greater impact on Order members than Snape's sending the Order to save to life of a kid they all know he dislikes? Why should it make a bigger difference than saving DD's or Katie Bell's life? Or presumably risking his own life?

Suppose he revealed that DD was hiding his mother (Eileen Prince turning out to be Madam Pince)? Yes, I could see that might make them trust him. But it would be highly dangerous to reveal that. If DD has hidden one of his family members, he can't reveal that to the Order just to win their trust.

Suppose he turned from LV because he just saw so many horrible things that LV was doing and he didn't want to be a part of it? Why oh why should the Order believe him? If they don't think his work so far is worthy of trust, why would his word be worthy of trust?

So, what I'm getting at and have asked before is what do you think he should have actually done?


TomProffitt - Jan 5, 2007 12:11 pm (#1092 of 2959)
wynnleaf, there is a difference between, "Dumbledore trusts me so you should, too." and "I'm sorry that I can't tell you more, it would put other lives at risk." From the readers' perspective Severus Snape is not making an effort to win the trust of his associates. (I believe both Lupin & McGonagall comment that all they have to go on is Dumbledore's trust. I don't recall any other Order members making a comment) It is (was) not vital for Severus to do this, but that he chose not to in my mind is an ethical failing.

I tend to diminish his efforts on behalf of DD & Katie Bell's lives, because I see them as potentially being things that he could not fake; those instances were his area of expertise and a traitor could not afford to fail in those circumstances. I don't know if this is an accurate perception of the events or not.

I try to view Snape's action in total, and not specific. I find him him being brutal and cruel when he can get away with it, just like Barty Crouch, Jr delighting in tormenting Neville Longbottom by demonstrating the Cruciatus as fake-Moody. I think a "good" Snape would have his lapses of judgment in times of duress and anger, and not when in position of power.

Snape doesn't meet my standard of what is "good." Yes, I admit it is a high standard, and one I tend to fail myself. However, it does not preclude to me the possibility that Snape is working for the good guys.


T Vrana - Jan 5, 2007 12:56 pm (#1093 of 2959)
Tom- I agree Snape is not a good guy, as in good person, but I still like his character (not his moral character, his overall complex character)as a reader, wouldn't want to know him personally. Not sure, then, what it was we were disagreeing about.

We should also consider that the reason Snape gave DD was a very good reason, and if the Order knew, and if a member of the Order were captured or legilimency used against them, the reason may reveal to the DEs that Snape has indeed left them for the good guys.

But Lupin put it best:

"It isn't our business to know...It's DD's business. DD trusts Severus and that ought to be good enough for all of us." (descriptive text removed)

I really don't think anyone was losing sleep wondering if Snape was 'good' or why he wasn't doing more to prove himself.

M brisbee- I didn't see Snape's abilities as that great in dueling against Harry. Harry was so emotionally open he broadcast his every thought and for a while was using verbals. Have we ever seen Harry as a great duelist? He's 16. That Snape, an adult with decent dueling skills could take him in the wide open charging headlong at him is not that farfetched. The only other 'duels' Harry has been in involved hiding, running, dodging behind obstacles and doors. When has Harry had a chance to practice wide open one on one dueling? In the MoM he and his friends battle together, but at times from under tables etc. In GOF he jumps out form behind a headstone. Not really a duel.

Are we sure it is Snape who was the potions genius? The book is 50 years old and it could have been his mother's writing (the potions corrections, not the spells). Hermione thought it was a woman's writing and she tends to be right. It could also be that Lily and Snape, both members of the Slug Club had a friendship and were 'lab' partners, and it was Lily who was really good, as Sluggy mentioned. Or, recall that Harry mentions it is difficult to hide what you are doing in potions. Did Snape copy what Lily was doing? I thought it odd that Sluggy always had potions brewing, and Snape never did.

I have no problem with Snape being better at Dark Curse breaking than DD. It was clear from PS/SS that DD's knowledge is limited by choice. He won't use it, I doubt he would have studied it, seeing no need. He can do all he needs to do using 'good' magic.


journeymom - Jan 5, 2007 1:11 pm (#1094 of 2959)
Mrs B, your argument is with JKR, right? You are objecting to the way she portrayed Snape in HBP?

Snape the amazing duelist. "Blocked again, and again, and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!" Snape may or may not be an exceptionally skilled duelist, but in this scene he was demonstrating how he was deflecting Harry's every move. It was Snape's last lesson to Harry in HBP.

Potions genius. He had an aptitude for potions in school, was the potions teacher for 15 years, was up to his eye balls in dark arts when he started to school, why wouldn't Dumbledore go to Snape for help? This doesn't make him a genius, but undeniably talented. It also demonstrates how a knowledge of the dark arts is useful to the good guys.

I see your point about Snape nearly reaching Marty Stu status (and what an interesting quote from Wikipedia!). But, 1) I don't think he acquired these skills out of the blue, and, 2) I don't think there's anything wrong with Snape being exceptionally talented. Book 6 is titled The Half-Blood Prince. That's when JKR chose to demonstrate Snape's talents. I guess either you accept that or you don't.

Maybe one reason Snape is such a grump is because he IS a genius!

Snape: Here I am, brain the size of a planet, and they ask me to teach you dunderheads the subtle art of potions. Call that job satisfaction, 'cause I don't.

Snape: I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed. Dumbledore: Well, I have something that may take your mind off it. Snape: It won't work, I have an exceptionally large mind. Dumbledore: Yeah, I know.


Steve Newton - Jan 5, 2007 1:33 pm (#1095 of 2959)
Good Hitchhiker paraphrase!


TomProffitt - Jan 5, 2007 2:20 pm (#1096 of 2959)
"We should also consider that the reason Snape gave DD was a very good reason, and if the Order knew, and if a member of the Order were captured or legilimency used against them, the reason may reveal to the DEs that Snape has indeed left them for the good guys." --- T Vrana

My problem with this argument is that Severus had over ten years of relative peace in which he was not required to be a spy, and in that time he did nothing to improve his fellows opinion of him and gain his trust. There was no strategic or tactical need for him to do so, as the war was over, but still, to me it is an ethical failing. He taught side by side with McGonagall for over ten years and all she can say of him is that Dumbledore trusted him. I think it shows how little he thinks of other people.


T Vrana - Jan 5, 2007 4:03 pm (#1097 of 2959)
Tom- McGonagoll seems to be talking about his history, not the recent past. She sent for him!

What could he have done to convince anyone he had truly returned given his past? Obviously he told DD something that worked for DD. But just because he has agreed to work with the Order doesn't mean he is going to bear his soul to them. It doesn't mean he really likes or has anything in common with them except fighting LV and teaching. Why does he have to be everyone's best buddy or try to be a swell guy to gain their trust, rather than letting his actions speak for him? He came back at great risk, DD trusts him, that should be enough.

Given his history, and the events on the tower, no matter what he had done over the years, the reaction would have been the same.

Why is Snape ethically wrong for not gaining their trust (somehow, other than all he's already done), but no ethical problems for McGonogall and company who choose to judge him solely on his past and ignore all he has done since his return? They were all very quick to leap to the conclusion that Snape was always bad. No one took a moment to say, but remeber when he....(insert the good things he had done, Stopped Quirrel, Saved Harry, Alerted the Order about the MoM Saved DD's life, Saved Katie's life,Spyed for DD).


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 5, 2007 4:27 pm (#1098 of 2959)
I think it’s safe to assume we are talking subjectively at this point, as JKR specifically wrote so no “good Snape” canon will override the "bad". So I hope no one minds my subjectively saying that, as a former Professional People Pleaser, I have no problem with Severus's dislike of other people. For me one of Severus’s most admirable qualities is that he couldn’t care less what other people think or say about him. Unfortunately, we might be in the process of finding out he acquired this trait due to years of verbal and physical abuse. We don’t yet know the extent to which Severus himself abused people. We know he verbally abuses certain students. Perhaps in book 7 we’ll find out he committed murder as a DE, although I don’t think so and I don’t think he was a DE for very long.

One of my favorite sayings is “the burden of proof lies always with the beholder”. This does not come from a dark or "bad" source. It might even be part of the U.S. “Founding Fathers” words in the Constitution, I don’t know for sure. But I think it's fair.

TomProffitt, I understand your point about the Order putting their lives at risk, etc., but perhaps the same could be said for Severus. All it would take is an Order member getting fed up and letting it "leak" that Severus is working for the Order. I don't think Vold would just brush it aside given he trusts no one. And, you're right, he had ten years to "improve his fellows opinion of him". But I think all he cared about was DD's opinion. As DD said to Draco, "It is my mercy...that matters now". I like this aspect of the story very much, for *to me* DD is supposed to be the equivalent of a Wizard Holy Man.

<Edited for clarity>


TomProffitt - Jan 5, 2007 5:23 pm (#1099 of 2959)
Frankly, I don't expect Severus Snape, in the character as we have come to know him, to achieve the things I've said. It doesn't seem to be a part of who is. That said, I think that if I'm to call him a "good" person he would have had to meet those criteria. That's it, really. I don't think he's a good person. I've said what I feel he should have done to become a "good" person.

If there is a God, God is the only one who can see inside a person's soul to what they truly are, for the rest of us, we can only educe a person's character by their deeds. And for me Snape's bad deeds (murder of Dumbledore set aside) outweigh his good ones.


Laura W - Jan 5, 2007 5:50 pm (#1100 of 2959)
"His revealing Lupin as a werewolf was, in my opinion, completely justified. The man had endangered students needlessly and could easily do so again." (wynnleaf)

1. Assuming Snape took the action he did for that reason; that his motivation was the protection of the children.

I do not believe that for a second. If motivation for Snape's behavior (re his teacher behavior as well as his Order member behavior) counts - and this current discussion indicates that it *does* to some Forumers as a factor in their determination about how they feel about Snape as a human being -, then I do not attribute the noble motivation to his outing Lupin as you do. There is no doubt in my mind that he did so because a. DD convinced Fudge that Lupin was a good guy when Snape had been claiming the opposite to the Minister, because b. Snape's enemy Sirius Black got away and Snape had to take his extreme disappointment out on someone (who better than Black's great friend Remus?) and because - to a much lesser extent, motivation-wise -, c. Snape lost a coveted honour which he undoubtedly felt he richly deserved.

2. And there's another issue.

Before hiring Lupin, Dumbledore had been told by Snape that it might not be such a good idea (although, again, I question Snape's motivations for his so-called concern re the safety of the students). Snape tells us so himself in PoA. Plus, we know that Severus mentions this to DD again - probably several times - throughout the school year. This is illustrated in the conversation between the two men in the Great Hall in the chapter, Grim Defeat.

I have no problem with Severus expressing his reservations to the Headmaster (ironically, in the same way that Harry has continuously expressed his reservations about Snape's trustworthiness to DD), as I'm sure DD didn't. But Dumbledore *IS* the one to make the final decision! It was up to DD to decide if Lupin should be allowed to teach and if everybody should be made aware of Lupin's illness. Not Snape. When a schoolboy, Severus was told by DD not to reveal Lupin's "furry little problem" to anyone (canon tells us). I am sure that DD reminded Snape of this when he hired the new DADA teacher in Harry's third year. Therefore, as I see it, Snape was covertly distrusting and disobeying Albus Dumbledore when he "let it slip" about Remus Lupin at the end of PoA. Also, in my opinion, DD let that disobedience go because he knew Lupin would not be able to teach DADA any longer anyway - because of Tom's curse on it - and because Snape has put himself in such personal danger for the Order by being a double agent that Dumbledore is willing to give a lot of ground when it comes to the actions and behavior of his top spy.

Laura


T Vrana - Jan 5, 2007 6:03 pm (#1101 of 2959)
Snape didn't let it slip until a full grown werewolf transformed on the grounds near students. He may or may not have had good intentions, but he was right that Lupin was a danger...not intenionally, but a danger nonetheless....


TwinklingBlueEyes - Jan 5, 2007 6:07 pm (#1102 of 2959)
"His revealing Lupin as a werewolf was, in my opinion, completely justified. The man had endangered students needlessly and could easily do so again." (wynnleaf)

I too disagree, remember when he brought Remus his potion he backed out of the room. There is more than just "concern for the childern" involved in that one move.


wynnleaf - Jan 5, 2007 6:28 pm (#1103 of 2959)
"His revealing Lupin as a werewolf was, in my opinion, completely justified. The man had endangered students needlessly and could easily do so again." (wynnleaf)

When I said that his action was entirely justified, I did not necessarily mean that I believed Snape's only reason for outing Lupin was to protect students. I'm sure it was a very complex set of motivations including the ones Laura mentioned, as well as wanting to do an "end run" around DD, who he had disagreed with in this case.

However, the fact remains (in my mind) that Lupin should have been outed. He had spent 9 months deceiving Dumbledore (and indeed everyone else) pretending to do his utmost to protect the students from Sirius, all the while really protecting his own interests by hiding info about Sirius. Then, in a moment of crisis (of which there are many at Hogwarts), he forgot to take the wolfsbane potion. Then, in further crisis, even though he was telling the students all about being a werewolf, he still took no precautions to protect them. He had absolutely no business staying on at that school.

So for whatever mix of reasons he did it -- and I believe that Snape would have justified his reasons by the fact that Lupin ought to have been outed -- his actions were the correct thing to do.

Should he have left the decision to Dumbledore? Well, in general, he should certainly have left such a decision to Dumbledore. But Dumbledore had in fact been wrong to trust Lupin, and wrong to think that the students would be safe around him. In this case, when a supervisor could very likely continue to make decisions that would put others at such high risk, I would consider "whistle blowing" to be entirely justified.

Is Snape's action true "whistle blowing?" Well, I doubt if real life whistle blowing is always purely altruistic. The real life whistle blower can certainly have their personal ax to grind. But that doesn't necessarily make the action wrong.


T Vrana - Jan 5, 2007 7:06 pm (#1104 of 2959)
There is more than just "concern for the childern" involved in that one move.

Perhaps not. If he suspected Lupin was untrustworthy and involved with Sirius, and walked in on Lupin sitting with the intended target, Harry, perhaps he was concerned about leaving the two sitting together....I don't think he was afraid of lUoin, hisodd behaviour started after seeing Harry there, didn't it?


Solitaire - Jan 6, 2007 12:51 am (#1105 of 2959)
Outting Remus gave Snape the chance to do what he'd longed to do many years earlier--under the cover of "concern for the children." He'd have had Sirius and James to contend with as a student, and you know they would have wrought some serious revenge. This time there was no such check on his behavior. James was dead and Sirius couldn't very well come back after him.

If Snape was so concerned about Remus forgetting his potion, why didn't he bring it with him to the Shack? He must have known Remus would transform as soon as the moon came out. I think he wanted him to transform ... as it would give him a chance to get both Remus and Sirius out of his hair. JM2K ...

Solitaire


Laura W - Jan 6, 2007 2:09 am (#1106 of 2959)
"Should he have left the decision to Dumbledore? Well, in general, he should certainly have left such a decision to Dumbledore. But Dumbledore had in fact been wrong to trust Lupin," (wynnleaf)

Like Dumbledore had been wrong to trust Snape when Harry and others were questioning DD's judgement on this? (What's right for the goose is right for the gander, or something like that.) Dumbledore trusts Lupin and he's in error; he trusts Snape and is justified. Is that how it goes?

Snape has just as much of a history of potentially-endangering others as Lupin has. As a former (?) Death Eater who has always - even before his stint as a DE - been fascinated by the Dark Arts, many would say that Severus is a most likely candidate to fall back into his old ways and even to give in to the temptation to rejoin his old master after the rebirth at the end of Book Four. While still professing to be on the side of DD and the Order, of course. Looking at it this way, how foolish of the Headmaster to take that chance with a whole school of students and staff at risk.

Yet DD trusts Snape. He also demands this trust of the Potions Master from his staff. There are at least two examples of that in canon; one spoken by Lupin and one spoken by McGonagall. We all know Lupin's famous line in Chapter 16 of HBP which goes something like, "Dumbledore trusts Snape and I trust Dumbledore so I trust Snape." (That, by the way, is how I feel too; for that very reason.) Ironically, considering your quote above wynnleaf, Lupin says that in answer to Harry's query which goes something like, "What if Dumbledore is wrong to trust Snape?". And in the hospital wing scene in HBP, Minerva says, "He always hinted he had an iron-clad reason for trusting Snape. I mean .. with Snape's history ... of course people were bound to wonder ... but Dumbledore told me explicitly that Snape's repentance was absolutely genuine ... wouldn't hear a word against him!"

So, here we have Albus Dumbledore. Wise, knowing wizard - the only one Voldemort fears, Chief Warlock of the Wizengamot, inventor of the 12 uses of dragon's blood, Headmaster of the acclaimed Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, asked three times to be Minister of Magic, able to do things with a wand that no other can, etc. - when he trusted Severus Snape to live and teach at his school. Foolish, deluded, overly-kind old man when he trusted Remus Lupin to live and teach at his school. Is that how it is? Will the real Dumbledore please stand up?

Laura


wynnleaf - Jan 6, 2007 7:11 am (#1107 of 2959)
If Snape was so concerned about Remus forgetting his potion, why didn't he bring it with him to the Shack?

Whatever his motivations, Snape would have had to run to the Shrieking Shack. No, I don't think he could have carried a goblet of potion along, too. I think he wanted him to transform.. We haven't got the slightest evidence of that.

Dumbledore trusts Lupin and he's in error; he trusts Snape and is justified. Is that how it goes?

If we learn later that Snape has never betrayed DD, then yes, that is exactly how it goes.

We were given the proof that Lupin broke Dumbledore's trust since 1. Lupin admitted himself that he had deceived DD for the whole school year and 2. Lupin definitely endangered students by forgetting his potion at a critical time. It has not yet been revealed whether DD's trust in Snape was justified or not.

Snape has just as much of a history of potentially-endangering others as Lupin has.

No, that is incorrect. Snape had a past history of being a Death Eater, but no history (that we know of) of endangering students while a teacher. At the very time Snape was warning DD not to trust Lupin, Lupin was giving into his own self-interests and deceived DD for an entire year withholding critical information regarding a person considered a mass-murderer who was entering the castle attempting (it was believed) to murder students. That is not a "past" history. Lupin was doing it. Further, he definitely forgot his potion in a moment of crisis and did endanger students. So we have proof that he did endanger students both through willing deception and through neglect of that vital potion in a crisis.

When Lupin or others say they trusted Snape because Dumbledore did -- guess what? Snape had given no evidence of breaking that trust.

At the end of POA, Lupin had clearly broken DD's trust and Snape knew it. His concerns about Lupin were proven, at least in part, correct.

I'm not saying Snape was behaving altruistically in outing Lupin. But the books are very, very clear that Lupin admitted that he betrayed DD's trust and that he forgot his potion in a time of crisis. What the books don't make big issue of, but which is also admitted, is that Lupin deceived DD and willingly put the school in danger from a supposed mass murderer, solely for his own self-interest -- he admitted this remember. No one who does such a thing should remain on staff at a school -- no where, in any situation.

I have never, ever said that Dumbledore was perfect, or that he was never wrong about people. Lupin betrayed his trust. POA is completely clear about that. So can we still say DD was right to trust Lupin?

Dumbledore apparently trusted fake-Moody, too, and was deceived because he wasn't really Moody. DD is not infallible.

There is, however, a big difference about DD's trust in Snape. DD has worked closely with Snape for many years. In trusting Lupin, he was trusting someone who he may have had contact with over the years, but he had not worked nearly as close with him as he had Snape. Surely there is quite a difference between trusting a person you know, but only see and interact with on occasion, from trusting someone you work with every day for many years.

We don't know yet the truth about Snape AKing DD. Aside from that incident, as far as we're told in the books, Snape has not broken DD's trust. If Snape turns out to have betrayed DD, then yes, DD would have been wrong to trust him.

It's really rather simple. Lupin betrayed DD's trust, therefore DD was wrong to trust him. If Snape betrayed DD's trust, then he was wrong to trust him, too. But if Snape did not betray DD, then he was right to trust Snape, but wrong to trust Lupin.


wynnleaf - Jan 6, 2007 8:02 am (#1108 of 2959)
That is certainly true, but why not take a bottle with a stopper?

Just based on the timing of when Snape got there, after seeing Lupin on the map, he must have started running there immediately.

It could be that he acted similarly to Lupin. Standing at the desk, he looks down and sees the map and what he interprets as a crisis about to occur. Just as Lupin took off running without waiting for his potion, Snape took off running without looking for a way to bring the potion along.

I suppose one could say that both made the same mistake -- forgetting the potion at the moment of crisis and just running toward the Shrieking Shack. The big difference is that Snape remembered that part of the crisis was a werewolf close to changing -- which he immediately mentioned upon revealing himself in the Shack. However Lupin, despite the fact that he explains at length all about being a werewolf, and even though Snape specifically reminds him that he hasn't had his potion, can't seem to keep track of the fact that he's about to transform and therefore continues to endanger students. He should have said something like, "Hey guys, I'm about to transform. Let's get this rat secured and you all out of here while I lock myself into the Shack and transform." He could have done that before Snape revealed himself -- back when his long talk about being a werewolf should have reminded him that he was about to transform. Or he could have done that after the kids had knocked Snape out, when Snape had only moments before reminded him he hadn't had his potion. But no, Lupin can't seem to remember -- even while describing it himself -- that he's about to transform and is in the process of endangering students.

In my opinion, that's a very definite example that, in addition to deceiving DD about Sirius, Lupin could not be counted upon to keep himself "safe" around students. In a crisis, Lupin couldn't seem to remember to take precautions about his own impending transformation, even in the face of Snape's reminder and his own discussion about being a werewolf.


T Vrana - Jan 6, 2007 8:26 am (#1109 of 2959)
Solitaire- I seriously doubt Snape wanted to be near a fully transformed werewolf.

Snape made it clear that at least part of the reason he was in the shack was to save Harry (all the rage and fury based around James being too arrogant to listen, and ending up dead). I think Snape rather hoped to free himself from owing Harry anything by saving him, and capturing the person he believed had revealed the Potters location. So I won't say Snape was overly concerned for Harry because he's a swell guy concerned for Harry's safety, but a nasty guy who feels obligated to right the wrong he did (though in his mind it really isn't his fault, but arrogant James for not listening).


TomProffitt - Jan 6, 2007 8:56 am (#1110 of 2959)
Snape had an opportunity for all kinds of things he wanted that night in the Shreiking Shack; vengeance against the two surviving Marauders he was aware of, vengeance against James, getting Harry in lots of trouble while still fulfilling his life-debt, and getting a bit of glory for himself. Had Hermione not had a time turner Severus would have gotten all of them, as it was he pretty much got none of them. No wonder he can't bring himself to separate Harry from James.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 1111 to 1150

Post  Mona Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:37 am

T Vrana - Jan 6, 2007 9:24 am (#1111 of 2959)
When Snape entered the Shack, he, like everyone else in the WW, thought Black a dangerous mass murderer, and he knew Lupin did not have his potion, and suspected Lupin was working with Black. So, while I will agree that revenge was sweet, I don't think getting Harry in trouble was anywhere near the top of his list.

Vengeance against James? How? Wasn't getting him killed enough?


TomProffitt - Jan 6, 2007 9:35 am (#1112 of 2959)
"Vengeance against James? How?" --- T Vrana

Every time that Snape attacks or hurts Harry he is vicariously getting his vengeance against James.


wynnleaf - Jan 6, 2007 9:54 am (#1113 of 2959)
Every time that Snape attacks or hurts Harry he is vicariously getting his vengeance against James. (TomProffitt)

I agree with this. He wrongly thinks that Harry is like the worst things he saw in James. But he doesn't hurt Harry because of the bad characteristics he thinks he sees in him. He hurts Harry because those bad characteristics that he believes are there, were used through James to hurt him (Snape). So whenever Snape thinks Harry is being a rule-breaker or arrogant, he seems to be most angry because he James was a rule-breaker and arrogant and in his rule-breaking and arrogance, hurt Snape. So Snape's anger toward Harry, and his hurting Harry through insults and unfairness, is vengeance against James.

Obviously, this is just my interpretation of what's going on inside Snape.

However, this does not mean that all of Snape's responses to Harry are motivated solely by vengeance against James.


T Vrana - Jan 6, 2007 10:55 am (#1114 of 2959)
Tom- Every time that Snape attacks or hurts Harry he is vicariously getting his vengeance against James.

OK, but only because he sees James in Harry. I do not think he thinks through it that way, 'here comes James' kid I think I'll get my vengeance.' I think it is more "here comes Harry who looks just like James and is just like James, and acts just like James, and I loathe them both".

Hurts and attacks? Well, he's verbally abusive, but never lays a hand on Harry until Harry invades his privacy.

Would Snape have had the same initial reaction if Harry was the spitting image of Lily and had the answers Hermione did? I think Snape actually gave Harry that absurd first day quiz looking for some of Lily in Harry. Now that we know she was a 'dab hand' at potions, that first day makes a bit more sense. It was still absurd, but in his own warped way I think Snape thinks he gave it a fair shot at detecting Lily and gave it up, deciding he's James through and through, and he can hate him in peace, forgetting that Lily stood up for him and his grey underwear.

I also do not think Snape ran to the shack to face a mass murderer and a werewolf because he wanted vengeance against James. He wants freedom from his debt.


TomProffitt - Jan 6, 2007 11:06 am (#1115 of 2959)
wynnleaf & T Vrana, can't say we're really in that much disagreement. I don't think Severus is out to consciously gain vengeance against James, but it is really what he does with the way he treats Harry.

I don't believe the term "attack" is too strong a word for Snape's treatment of Harry, it need not be physical to cause harm. If I Harry were an adult and fellow teacher with Harry I don't think Severus's actions would be excusable (understandable, yes, excusable, no), they are far less excusable in the teacher-student role.


T Vrana - Jan 6, 2007 11:25 am (#1116 of 2959)
Harry's fine. I don't think Snape has done any lasting harm because Harry recognizes Snape's unfairness and bullying and doesn't internalize any of it. He just hates him....that part Harry has to overcome.


wynnleaf - Jan 6, 2007 11:47 am (#1117 of 2959)
I agree with T Vrana, but I also agree with Tom that "attack" is not too strong a word.

But as T Vrana says, it's not lasting damage in the sense that Harry doesn't seem to be deeply injured by it. However, I imagine Snape would be doing it regardless. I don't think he'd temper his remarks just because Harry was really being deeply injured by it. I don't think he'd be able to see if Harry was being really injured by it.

T Vrana could be correct about Snape (according to his own standards) giving Harry a "chance" to be like Lily in the first potions lesson. I also wonder if the initial looks they give each other in the Great Hall could have set the tone for their relationship.

Harry looked at Snape at the same time that LV, in the back of Quirrel's head, caused Harry's scar extreme pain. Harry grimaced at the same time he was staring at Snape. Snape would have seen this kid who he knew to be James Potter's son, take one look at him and grimace as though to even look at Snape caused him extreme pain.

So it's possible that Snape's initial read on Harry, right there at the Opening Feast, was "here's James' son hating me just as much as James did, and for no reason - just like James."

Then he gets him in potions class, tosses out a few difficult questions that perhaps he assumes that Lily could have answered, and Harry can't answer them (of course). Further, then (in Snape's eyes) Harry not only answers with cheek, he causes his class mates to laugh at Snape. Snape thinks, "just like James," again, and concludes from then on that Harry is like James.

I am NOT excusing Snape's actions, just guessing at an explanation.

Anyway, after the first lesson, Snape tended to act and speak very derisively toward Harry, as though Harry was another James. But Harry, in turn, did tend to lie to Snape, steal from him, get away with breaking rules, etc. So to Snape, it would be easy to believe that his initial read on Harry was completely correct.

Even the best of teachers don't tend to treat a student who they believe regularly lies to them, steals from them, causes major disruptions in class, cheeks them, etc., in the same manner that they treat all of their other students. They tend to be tougher and more strict on that student than the students they perceive to be better behaved.

Now Snape isn't the "best of teachers," but if even the best of teachers would treat a student they perceived as more trouble than the rest, rather differently, it's not really surprising that Snape would be harder on Harry (and his friends) than many of the other students.


TomProffitt - Jan 6, 2007 12:06 pm (#1118 of 2959)
"Further, then (in Snape's eyes) Harry not only answers with cheek ... " --- wynnleaf

I re-read that scene yesterday, the discriptor that JKR used was " ... said Harry quietly ... " Snape may have interpreted it as "cheek," but I don't feel that, as written, it was. (US version, Scholastic soft cover, p.138)

As I said before, I can understand why Severus behaves the way he does, but it is not excusable.

Edited to give reference page


T Vrana - Jan 6, 2007 12:18 pm (#1119 of 2959)
Just for fun...

What about Harry's 'attacks' on Snape? In PS/SS Snape is a bit nasty in class, the absurd questions, points from Gryffindor for Harry's cheek and, bizarrely, for not stopping Neville from making a mistake, but little else.

Harry accuses Snape of trying to kill him and of trying to steal the Sorcerer's Stone.

(Keep in mind, I love Harry, but do we view their 'relationship' from one side only?)

EDIT- Tom- No matter how he said it, the comment was a bit cheeky...his first day in class, telling the professor who he should ask...can you imagine him saying this to Mcgonogall?


TomProffitt - Jan 6, 2007 1:09 pm (#1120 of 2959)
"No matter how he said it, the comment was a bit cheeky ... " --- T Vrana

I disagree, you have an eleven year old boy being attacked by a man he has never met, Harry's grasping at straws, thinking "Why are you asking me these tough questions? There's someone right here who knows the answers? Why are you being so mean to me?" Snape's an adult, a professional, there is no excuse for his behavior. None. He attacks a little boy and then takes away points when the boy tries to find a way out of his trouble. Snape is a bully and I will accept no excuses for this abhorrent behavior.


Solitaire - Jan 6, 2007 1:39 pm (#1121 of 2959)
Snape made it clear that at least part of the reason he was in the shack was to save Harry

Well, that is what he said, and maybe it is true. Then again, saying he'd come only to save Harry would always be a good excuse, wouldn't it? That's the trouble with--or rather, the interesting thing about--Snape. It's easy to put a double construction on most of the things he does.

BTW, I still do not think Harry's comment was cheeky at all. There is nothing in the narrative to indicate that it was said in a snide, sarcastic, cheeky manner. There is, however, the sense that Harry was desperate to get the focus off himself. Something else about that scene--Snape's remark about Harry's celebrity--really shows me just how mean and petty Snape is. More to the point, I think it also shows the depths of Snape's jealousy of Harry. Snape obviously wants recognition, perhaps even fame (his desire for the Order of Merlin?). He can't see where Harry has done anything to deserve fame, and I think that just gnaws at Snape.

Harry accuses Snape of trying to kill him and of trying to steal the Sorcerer's Stone.

I hardly consider that an attack. In Harry's mind, based upon the evidence he had seen up to that point, Snape was trying to kill him and, most likely, steal the stone. He wasn't being malicious ... he was just being assertive about what he genuinely believed.

But as T Vrana says, it's not lasting damage in the sense that Harry doesn't seem to be deeply injured by it.

We really do not know how deeply Harry has been injured yet, do we? As far as I am concerned, if the whole system of Snape's treatment of Harry results in Harry's misreading important clues and fearing to trust Snape for help--to the point where Harry and anyone else dies because of that lack of trust--then I'll have to say that, yes, Harry and a lot of others have been deeply injured by Snape's actions. Of course, that has not happened yet, and hopefully it will not. JM2K anyway ...

Solitaire


The Artful Dodger - Jan 6, 2007 1:54 pm (#1122 of 2959)
Far worse than Snape's ways to treat Harry are his ways to treat Neville. First, because canon delivers no reason to hate Neville, secondly, because Neville never cheeks, steals, or does anything else of the "etc." part, and thirdly, because Snape's actions have a horrible impact on Neville. May seem obvious to you, but I have seen Snape apologists even denying that.


Solitaire - Jan 6, 2007 2:14 pm (#1123 of 2959)
You're right, Dodger ... he is hateful to Neville and without any apparent reason. Snape has no patience with those he considers slow or not particularly talented. He would fare poorly, I fear, in our Muggle education world of IEPs and 504s, which require special accommodations for many and respectful treatment of all.

Solitaire


T Vrana - Jan 6, 2007 2:19 pm (#1124 of 2959)
Tom- It was cheeky! Snape deserved the cheek, but it was cheeky, and it was because Harry was on the spot unfairly and 'attacked'. BUT, it was still cheek!

Solitaire- I wasn't basing my belief that Snape was there to save Harry on Snape saying so, but on his demented rant about saving Harry, and he should be thankful, but no he's like his arrogant father (and subtext, if he hadn't been so arrogant he would have listened to me about Black and he wouldn't be dead) etc.

On the cheeky, not saying Snape didn't deserve it, but can you picture Harry telling McGonogall, "I don't know but Hermione seems to know, why don't you ask her?". Talk about flaring nostrils! NOW, Harry would never say that to McGonagoll, because McGonogall would never 'attack' him the way Snape did.

Artful Dodger- Snape's treatment of Neville is horrible and there is no excuse. I'm not really defending his treatment of Harry either, just pointing out that Harry can handle it.

I hardly think the title "Snape apologist" fits. Just to be clear, I'm not saying Snape is a great guy. He's not. He's awful. But in the ongoing hatred between the two, Snape is not always wrong, and Harry is not always right.


TomProffitt - Jan 6, 2007 2:23 pm (#1125 of 2959)
"But in the ongoing hatred between the two, Snape is not always wrong, and Harry is not always right." --- T Vrana

I agree. I merely disagree with your interpretation of the "cheekiness" of Harry's line. I read nothing to interpret it as intentionally cheeky, Snape chose to interpret it that way, because he could.


T Vrana - Jan 6, 2007 2:27 pm (#1126 of 2959)
On the cheeky we'll have to disagree. I thought it was fantastic, understated cheek, well deserved and extremely funny, and even got appreciative laughter and a thumbs up from classmates. Hermione was on her feet by then waving her hand. Harry wasn't helpfully pointing out that perhaps Snape hadn't noticed another student could answer the question. Cheeky, funny, worth the docked points and then some.


wynnleaf - Jan 6, 2007 3:11 pm (#1127 of 2959)
I thought it was fantastic, understated cheek, well deserved and extremely funny, and even got appreciative laughter and a thumbs up from classmates.

Because of the narration, I can perhaps see how some readers think Harry didn't mean it as cheek. But from the other student's reactions, it seems pretty clear that they thought it was cheek, and therefore it is perfectly reasonable for Snape to have thought so, too.

Once again, I don't blame Harry. But even the other kids thought it was cheek.


Die Zimtzicke - Jan 6, 2007 6:22 pm (#1128 of 2959)
Snape doesn't make a habit of physically attacking Harry. He did so once in shock, when Harry invaded his mind. He underestimated Harry that time. He didn't do it again.

And he tried to save Harry's physical life more than once by not letting Quirrell jinx Harry's broom unchecked, and by not leaving Harry lying down by the lake after the dementor attack with a werewolf on the loose, and by not letting the Death Eaters continue to attack Harry in HBP. He's still then, gray to me, and will be until I get more info.

I don't know why Snape has a bug up his...whatever...about Neville, but I'll bet there's a reason, and I wouldn't be surprised if we get it fairly soon in the last book. I'm constantly surprised that there is not more speculation on why Snape is so annoyed looking at Neville, when there is so much about it where Harry is concerned. Snape frowns upon, and therefore, frightens Neville, from book one, even before Neville starts screwing up his potions out of nervousness.


T Vrana - Jan 6, 2007 6:41 pm (#1129 of 2959)
Doesn't Neville mess up right in lesson one by adding his quills at the wrong time or something? It could be that Snape simply has no patience for any sign of incompetence (he does put Crabbe and Goyle in detenton in HBP for poor work). Neville also makes an easy target for a bully, though he does learn to stand up to Malfoy et al. But, I think you may be right, Die, there has to be something more that we will learn in book 7.


Laura W - Jan 7, 2007 5:51 am (#1130 of 2959)
Wait a minute! Snape heard the first part of the prophecy. "The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches ... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies ...". As a DE at the time, he would probably be aware that both the Potters and the Longbottoms "thrice defied" LV - whatever that means (I'm sure we will learn in DH) -, and by 1991 would know when Neville was born because it would be in the school records I assume. Therefore, by the boys' first year of school, Snape would have figured out that either Potter or Longbottom could have been the Chosen One (although Harry - "The famous Harry Potter" - was the one Snape's former (?) master chose). Knowing that Neville came so close, could that have something to do with Severus' attitude and behavior towards him?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By the way, I do not consider calling an insecure 11-year-old student "Idiot boy!" merely "frowning upon" him (even if he did forget to add porcupine quills). I do not call telling another teacher - in front of the whole class - that a third-year student is "not to be trusted with anything difficult" merely "frowning upon" the boy (even if that student's potion did turn orange instead of green). And I think that threatening to kill another human being's beloved pet - whether the threat is real or not - is exhibiting more than "annoyance" at the 13-year-old toad-owner (even if the teenager did bungle his Shrinking Solution). No, I do not think Snape is just unfair or sarcastic or intolerant or overly-hard on Neville Longbottom. Every time I read the books, I come to the same conclusion. Snape is deliberately terrorizing the boy. He is fully aware of the effect his actions and words are having: aside from the fact that Neville always looks scared in Potions class, Severus *is* a Legilimens.

Laura


wynnleaf - Jan 7, 2007 6:10 am (#1131 of 2959)
And I think that threatening to kill another human being's beloved pet - whether the threat is real or not - is exhibiting more than "annoyance" at the 13-year-old toad-owner (even if the teenager did bungle his Shrinking Solution).

In my opinion, some things any sensible kid ought to be able to understand as over-the-top threats that won't really happen. So far as we know, Snape had only ever been described by students as unfair, etc., but never as a person who killed people's pets or poisoned students. Yet Neville and Harry hear Snape's threats an assume they are real threats. Why?

One of the teachers my kids described as "ruthless" was sometimes known to threaten to throw a kid out of the second story window. Did anyone actually believe him, regardless how strict, sarcastic, and ruthless he was? Of course not. As a reader, I certainly never thought Snape was really going to kill students pets or poison the students.

Does that mean it's okay for Snape to be insulting? No. But Neville in particular, and to a degree Harry, take Snape in a completely literal manner, in an almost gullible way.

Now why does Snape get so nasty with Neville?

Laura, I expect you might be right about it being connected to Neville having almost been the "chosen one." But I'm not sure why that would make Snape particularly angry with Neville.


whitehound - Jan 7, 2007 7:39 am (#1132 of 2959)
Of course Neville is bound to take Snape's threats as real - after all, his family used routinely to put him in danger of his life, in order to see if they could squeeze more magic out of him.

I'm not sure Snape neccesarily treats Neville that much worse than Minerva does, though - it was Minerva who made Neville sit in the corridor on his own waiting for someone to let him into the common room, and she admits she was very hard on Peter because of his academic failings.

Snape is a very tense sort of person - always snapping and snarling, flushing, blenching, shaking.... He knows that Neville could at any moment blow himself and the whole class, Snape included, to kingdom come so of course he's *especially* tense around him.

Plus, if he knows about the prophecy he knows his own survival, and that of British wizardry, may depend on either Harry or Neville - so their failures will terrify him.

Plus, we know Snape was invesitgated by the Wizengamot on suspicion of being a Death Eater, at a time when the Aurors had been authorized to Crucio suspects. Depending on exactly when Snape was investigated, and when Bellatrix and co. attacked the Longbottoms, it's perfectly possible that Snape was actually tortured by Neville's father (probably not by the mother, since everyine seems to agree she was a sweet girl).

The nastiest we see Snape be about Neville is when he sneers about him to Lupin at the staffroom door. But consider. We know that Sirius set young!Snape up to be killed or infected by Lupin, and that Snape actually saw the werewolf, down the tunnel in the dark. We know Snape won't turn his back on Lupin (when he brings him the Wolfsbane in Harry's presence, he *backs* out of the room) which suggests he is still terrified of him. Then Lupin and the class find Snape sitting in the empty classroom, with a Boggart in the cupbaord and a strange expression on his face, and he then forcefully declines the offer to witness the Boggart lesson.

I reckon Lupin is Snape's Boggart, and Lupin's physical presence, combined with knowing there was a Boggart in the cupboard, freaked Snape out so badly that he lashed out at the nearest target, which was Neville.

Plus, when we see Snape interact with Neville Harry is present, and Harry's mere presence winds Snape up.

Why does Harry wind Snape up? Well, apart from the "Good God, all our hopes are resting on *this*?" aspect, Harry is a bad student - sloppy, lazy, cheeky, slapdash. Any teacher would find him annoying.

Add to that that Snape is naturally tense and short-tempered, then he sees James and Lily in the boy and feels guilty about his part in their deaths, plus he sees James's face on Harry's shoulders and feels as if he's fourteen again, scared and humiliated - all of which means that he is in a very bad frame of mind in which to cope with the very real aggravation which Harry represents in his own right.


T Vrana - Jan 7, 2007 8:00 am (#1133 of 2959)
whitehound- Snape was already working for DD when he came under suspicion as a DE. I doubt he was ever tortured by Frank Longbottom.

I don't think Lupin is Snape's boggart. He backs out of the room after seeing Potter, the kid Black is after, sitting with Lupin, the friend of Black he does not trust. If he is that terrified I find it strange he runs, unaided, to the Shack to face a mass murderer and a ready to transform Lupin.

While Harry may not be the best student, I don't think any other teacher finds him annoying, and Snape knew nothing of his schoolwork habits when he first accosted him. Neither of them are perfect and neither is totally to blame for the bad blood between them.


wynnleaf - Jan 7, 2007 8:04 am (#1134 of 2959)
Of course Neville is bound to take Snape's threats as real - after all, his family used routinely to put him in danger of his life, in order to see if they could squeeze more magic out of him.

This is a good point. In Neville's past, ineptitude in magical matters could lead to being placed in life threatening situations. In Snape's class, it actually only leads to points taken, detention, or sarcastic and perhaps insulting remarks. But it really isn't so surprising that Neville would assume that Snape would continue where his own family left off.

As regards Snape's attitude toward Lupin... hard to say for certain. But when Snape brought Lupin the wolfsbane potion, the indicators of fear (rather than simply suspicion), were not only the backing out of the room, but also that he never took his eyes off of Lupin, and most of all (in my opinion), that he kept insisting that Lupin take the potion right away. Lupin was still several days from transforming. Rationally, there should have been little to fear at that moment. But why would Snape be so concerned to actually see him take the potion? It's unlikely that his anxiety over taking the potion would relate to suspicion about Lupin helping Black, or even just general dislike. Why was it so important to Snape that Lupin drink it immediately? It sounds to me more like someone with a fear that pushes them to slightly irrational behavior -- such as needing to actually see Lupin take the potion, even though transformation was days away.

Some people think he insisted on Lupin drinking it as some sort of insult. But that insistence, combined with never taking his eyes from Lupin, and backing out of the room, suggest a personal anxiety over Lupin's being a werewolf. So I'd say it's more likely what we were seeing was fear, more than suspicion of Lupin helping Sirius, or Lupin harming Harry, or even generally insulting Lupin.


whitehound - Jan 7, 2007 8:48 am (#1135 of 2959)
whitehound- Snape was already working for DD when he came under suspicion as a DE. I doubt he was ever tortured by Frank Longbottom.

But we know that DD's influence is not always sufficient to save his friends from unjust punishment. He couldn't keep Hagrid from being sent to Azkaban and he couldn't save Stan Shunpike - there's no reason to think he would neccessarily be able to get Snape out of trouble *immediately*.

And if Snape was ill-treated by the Aurors, it would explain his reluctance to go to the aid of Barty Crouch Snr.

If he is that terrified I find it strange he runs, unaided, to the Shack to face a mass murderer and a ready to transform Lupin.

He saw the map, and you would think, since Harry was a prime target, that he would immediately check to see that Harry was safely in Gryffindor Tower - and see that the Trio were missing from the school altogether. So he knew that whether Lupin had been running to aid Black or to fight him it was likely that the children were in the Shrioeking Shack, held prisoner by what he thought was a mass-murdering Death Eater.

We know Snape is fantastically brave - whichever side he's on, he's spent much of his life risking death and torture for a cause he believes in. We know he ran through the school in his nightshirt because he heard the Triwizard Egg (which sounds like somebody screaming in pain). He shot through a closed bathroom door, livid-faced (that is, grey with shock), without stopping to check who or what was on the other side, because he heard a girl's voice scream "Murder!" Going to confront his personal Boggart because he thought three children were in danger is all of a piece with that.

While Harry may not be the best student, I don't think any other teacher finds him annoying,

He's not nearly as badly-behaved or slapdash towards any other teacher except Trelawney, and she's so in love with the mystique of The Boy Who Lived that she doesn't actually notice that he makes his homework up. And Snape is naturally short-tempered anyway.

and Snape knew nothing of his schoolwork habits when he first accosted him.

No, but he knew, or thought he knew, that Harry had glared at him without reason the first time he saw him, and - given Albus's propensity for not telling people things - he probably *didn't* know that Harry had no wizarding education, and thought Harry was just being cheeky or lazy when he coouldn't even attempt to answer a question which any wizard child could probably at least ahve made a stab at.


Solitaire - Jan 7, 2007 2:08 pm (#1136 of 2959)
some things any sensible kid ought to be able to understand as over-the-top threats that won't really happen.

Even in the Muggle world, great abuse of children and their trust occurs. At home, I am sure Neville never expected to be dropped on his head or otherwise abused by his uncle ... but it happened. In the case of Snape, we are talking about an ill-tempered, powerful Wizard with considerable authority threatening an already insecure, somewhat browbeaten child. In Neville's place, after seeing how Snape had behaved toward my classmate, I might well assume him capable of any meanness, including killing my pet.

Whitehound, Dumbledore's general behavior notwithstanding, I find it hard to believe that the professors at Hogwarts had not been briefed on Harry's pending arrival and his lack of a magical upbringing. McGonagall, at least, knew who had raised Harry and how he had probably lived. I can't believe she and Snape (as well as other colleagues) didn't talk a bit about Harry before he arrived. We already know that she has talked about such things after observing her in the Three Broomsticks with others from Hogwarts. I think Snape knew Harry had no magical training. If he'd expected him to shine, I doubt he'd have called on him. JM2K ...

Solitaire


wynnleaf - Jan 7, 2007 3:07 pm (#1137 of 2959)
At home, I am sure Neville never expected to be dropped on his head or otherwise abused by his uncle ... but it happened.

Obviously, this is in no way excuses Snape, but it perhaps does explain Neville intense fear of Snape better:

From PS/SS

‘Well, my gran brought me up and she’s a witch,’ said Neville, ‘but the family thought I was all Muggle for ages. My great-uncle Algie kept trying to catch me off my guard and force some magic out of me – he pushed me off the end of Blackpool pier once, I nearly drowned – but nothing happened until I was eight. Great-uncle Algie came round for tea and he was hanging me out of an upstairs window by the ankles when my great-auntie Enid offered him a meringue and he accidentally let go. But I bounced – all the way down the garden and into the road. They were all really pleased. Gran was crying, she was so happy. And you should have seen their faces when I got in here – they thought I might not be magic enough to come, you see. Great-uncle Algie was so pleased he bought me my toad.’

A few things to note in this. Uncle Algie regularly put Neville's life at risk. The rest of the family, including Gran, was bound to know about it since Neville almost drowned from it. When Uncle Algie dropped Neville out the window, it was because Aunt Enid was offering him a meringue -- so it's pretty obvious that Auntie Enid could care less what Algie was doing to Neville, or she would have been saying something more like "what are you doing to Neville!?" rather than "have a meringue."

No, I think it's fairly clear that Neville was regularly terrorized by his family and neither his Gran, nor anyone else did anything to stop it and perhaps even approved of it.

Given that history, it wouldn't be surprising that he would assume anyone in authority over him who made any sorts of threats or pointed out his ineptitude, would be highly likely to take up where his family left off. Snape almost certainly wouldn't know that (not that he'd necessarily care), and would probably assume any comments he made toward Neville should be taken just the way any other kid might take them -- dislike Snape, be somewhat afraid of him, but not be terrorized. Of course, Snape's manner does terrorize Neville, much more than it does other students, probably mostly because of Neville's family history. So Neville just gets more and more nervous of Snape and therefore does more and more poorly. Snape does more of his usual sarcasm, insults, etc., but it just scares Neville all the more.

But the root of Neville's fear -- what got it started in the first place so much more drastically than the other kids -- isn't Snape, but Neville's past history. Like I said, Snape probably doesn't know this, and probably wouldn't care too much if he did know.


whitehound - Jan 7, 2007 3:43 pm (#1138 of 2959)
Just as the root of Harry's extreme hatred of Snape, as opposed to merely finding him annoying, springs from *his* past history - because he associates any adult male who sneers at him with Uncle Vernon.

Yes Snape probably did know Harry had been raised Muggle, but not neccesarily to the extent of knowing nothing at all about the wizarding world (Hagrid is an Order member, and he didn'tknow) - and I don't think *any* of them knew that Harry hadn't been allowed to even look at his course books before coming to school.


whitehound - Jan 7, 2007 3:48 pm (#1139 of 2959)
Oh, yes, I also think that Snape may lean on Neville so hard partly because he thinks that will galvanize him into proving him wrong - because that's what *he*'d do. If soembody said to Snape "You're useless at this," he's so competitive that he'd have to go all out to prove he was the best.

But Neville is gentle and compliant, and if somebody says to him "You're useless" he's more likely to feel obliged to live down to their expectations.


Die Zimtzicke - Jan 7, 2007 4:18 pm (#1140 of 2959)
Regarding this statement: "In my opinion, some things any sensible kid ought to be able to understand as over-the-top threats that won't really happen." I have to admit as a mother of many, it doesn't take long for a small child, when told "If you don't come right now, I'm going home without you!" to figure out most of the time a parent won't do that.

As for the uncle, you all may have a point about the pier, but as has been pointed out, it was quite clear he didn't intend to drop Neville out the window. He accidentally let go, which is something different. And we don't know HOW wizarding families test to see if their kids are magical. Maybe this is the norm for them, to devise dangerous tests. The triwizarding tests were cruel and dangerous, and everyone thought that was great drama.

Neville didn't seem too fussed about it when he told the story about his uncle. He refused to tell about his parents, though, even when he got closer to people. So we have to wonder how they deal with these things in general. Maybe Snape isn't that far out as far as things go. Certainly cranky, abrasive, authoritarian boarding school teachers exist throughout literature.


The Artful Dodger - Jan 7, 2007 4:39 pm (#1141 of 2959)
Like I said, Snape probably doesn't know this, and probably wouldn't care too much if he did know.--wynnleaf

I don't think that Snape knows about Neville's background, either, but that doesn't matter much. What he does know, as good as anyone else (in fact, better than many), is that there are children who do have this kind of background, and that Neville or any other student he teaches might be one of them. Which obliges him to be careful with his teaching style. Unfortunately, he isn't, which leads to the effect that Neville, who isn't recognized by his own mother, fears nothing more in the world but his Potions teacher. I don't know if Rowling intended this amount of horror. If she did, that says a lot about Snape.


Pamzter - Jan 7, 2007 5:04 pm (#1142 of 2959)
As a past school teacher, I believe that every instructor would have some basic knowledge of a student's background.

This would seem especially applicable to the wizarding world because 1-a need to know history that may impact the student's abilities (muggle parent or not, etc) and 2-a need to know of the student's tendency toward the dark arts or vulnerability of being won over to the Death Eaters.

As a supporter of Snape's loyalty, I think he may be, in his own twisted little way, toughening certain kids up (as well as not giving the DE kids anything to report).


whitehound - Jan 7, 2007 5:17 pm (#1143 of 2959)
Unfortunately, he isn't, which leads to the effect that Neville, who isn't recognized by his own mother, fears nothing more in the world but his Potions teacher. I don't know if Rowling intended this amount of horror. If she did, that says a lot about Snape.

Neville's fear isn't neccessarily in proportion to the cause, though. Once he's started to freak out about Snape, even quite minor snappishness by Snape will assume terrifying proportions. Fear doesn't have to have a reasonable cause: I'm really scared of butterflies, for example.

As for Algie not meaning to drop Neville, he was hanging him out of a window by his heels. He may not have meant to drop him, but he certainly meant him to think he *might*. And the fact that nobody seemed to think this was odd does rather put Snape's behaviour in perspective - it does seem to be a society in which bullying students seems to be accepted as normal.

As for Snape being so horrible to Harry because he hated James. etc., what do people think about Hagrid - who viciously insulted a cowering, terrified eleven-year-old child and then cursed him with a painful and humiliating pig's tail, for no reason except that he found the child's father annoying?

[And OK, *we* know Dudley was a nasty little bully - but Hagrid didn't know that. All he knew was that he didn't like Vernon.]


wynnleaf - Jan 7, 2007 5:17 pm (#1144 of 2959)
A lot is made by readers out of Snape being Neville's boggart. Certainly, it is partly Snape's fault for the way he treats Neville.

But I think it's important to remember that Neville is terrified of all manner of things. I was looking through the mentions of Neville in PS/SS and he's terrified of many, many things that don't scare the other kids much at all.

Okay, so he's more scared of Snape than the rest of those things. Granted. But it really doesn't take much of anything to terrify Neville. So Snape being Neville's boggart is not, in my opinion, nearly so indicative of Snape being nasty, as it would be if he were any other student's boggart.

Ron's boggart is spiders. Spiders didn't cause themselves to become Ron's boggart. They don't force Ron to be terrified of them. Apparently he was scared of them from long before the COS scene in the forest. Sure, his brothers caused his fear. But being Ron's boggart isn't some terrible reflection on the evil of spiders.

Hermione's boggart is a teacher telling her she failed a test. This isn't a reflection on the evils of test taking, or the evils of teachers who give the results. It's a reflection of Hermione's own insecurities.

Harry's boggart is a dementor. But it's not because a dementor could hurt him (though it could), or even a fear that the dementor will suck out his soul. No, what Harry is afraid of is, as Lupin says (I think in canon, not just the film), is fear itself. That isn't even a bad thing to fear. The dementors symbolize Harry's fear, and they can leach off of it, but Harry's fear is really fear itself, not creatures without faces in long black flowing robes.

Neville's boggart is Snape. But is that any more Snape's fault than McGonagall is at fault for Hermione fearing she'd tell her she failed, or the spider's fault that Ron is scared of them.

I'm not saying that Snape doesn't do things that scare Neville. But no one else seems to be anywhere nearly that scared of Snape. Sure, we can imagine that perhaps other families terrorized their children like Neville was (holding a kid out the upper story window, even if you don't mean to drop them, is still terrorizing them).

If Snape didn't exist or was unimaginably nice to Neville, then Neville's boggart would be another from his vast myriad of fears -- none of which (except maybe his Gran) have provoked that fear at all.

In short, Neville is terrified of many things. He happens to be most afraid of Snape. But because Neville's fear of most things is far overblown from the norm, I find it hard to blame Snape for being Neville's boggart, any more than I would blame a broom for being his boggart if Snape didn't exist.

I'm not saying Snape is just fine to Neville, nor that he is excused from being somewhat cruel, sarcastic, or insulting to Neville. What I'm saying is that Snape's level of cruelty should not, in normal kids, be enough to become their boggart.


whitehound - Jan 7, 2007 5:28 pm (#1145 of 2959)
Hermione's boggart is a teacher telling her she failed a test. This isn't a reflection on the evils of test taking, or the evils of teachers who give the results. It's a reflection of Hermione's own insecurities.

Now that's an interesting thought. Maybe Snape represents Neville's insecurities, rather than being terrifying in his own right.

Think about it. Neville associates being bad at magic with being killed, or at least with being threatened with death. Neville is very bad at potions, potions mean being bad at magic, so potions mean threat of death.

Snape is associated with potions and he keeps on *telling* Neville that he's bad at potions: so Snape personifies "being bad at magic", so Snape personifies threat of death.


The Artful Dodger - Jan 7, 2007 6:17 pm (#1146 of 2959)
I am speechless.


Steve Newton - Jan 7, 2007 6:19 pm (#1147 of 2959)
"Neville associates being bad at magic with being killed," This is vaguely reminiscent of Tom Riddle's attitude about his mother.


whitehound - Jan 7, 2007 7:00 pm (#1148 of 2959)
This is vaguely reminiscent of Tom Riddle's attitude about his mother.

She died, so she must have been bad at magic/people who are bad at magic die - yes.

And it would mean, then, that it isn't Snape *himself* who is Neville's Boggart. Neville's Boggart is death itself - being killed for being bad at magic - but Snape, by constantly telling him that he's bad at magic, has come to *personify* death to him.


Solitaire - Jan 7, 2007 7:36 pm (#1149 of 2959)
Hermione's boggart doesn't reveal her to be afraid of either McGonagall or of tests. She is simply afraid of failing ... or rather, of not being perfect. At this point in time, I think Neville actually is afraid of Snape ... or perhaps he is only afraid of the humiliation he knows he is bound to face at Snape's hand. Neither fear says much for Snape, though, does it?

Solitaire


T Vrana - Jan 7, 2007 8:14 pm (#1150 of 2959)
I don't get the stretch that Neville associates being bad at magic with death. Snape is scary enough without death as a threat, and just letting down his family and his very talented tortured parents is enough.

I think we should consider Snape's upbringing when we question his teaching style and personality. As we bring up how demanding Neville's family is, we should consider that Snape had a demanding family (or mother and mother's family) that insisted on excellence and pushed him very hard. He learned to teach as he was taught at home. Remember he arrived with a vast amount of magical knowledge so there was definitely some homeschooling going on. And if he did alter the potions text himself, this may have happened before Hogwarts as well and could explain why he thought it normal to ask such ridiculous questions of a first year, if that first year is supposed to be something special.

We see images of him as isolated and alone, so he may have been raised with little exposure to other families and children, and may have thought it quite normal to know so much Dark Magic. He may also, if he is an only child raised alone, have no idea how to relate to children. He arrives at Hogwarts at the age of 11, greasy and unsocialized, and finds his "talent" is largely frowned upon, but being handsome and a good athlete is apparently held in high esteem. He is eleven, he can accept that his world 'til now was askew, or he can embrace what he knows and find fault with the world he doesn't match. He spends his time studying while James and Sirius breeze through breaking the rules, abusing him and still being admired. He tries to catch them at their misdeeds, to right what is clearly (in his mind) wrong, and gets no where, in fact, he is not allowed to say anything when his tormentors nearly kill him. DD has let all this happen. Life is not fair. He joins the one crowd that will appreciate his talents. They make him feel important, but he soon discovers that he has been tricked and he is only a tool to be used by LV. He also learns that the one person who ever stood up for him is LV's target. He returns to DD, but still finds that he really doesn't fit in anywhere. He is not liked (perhaps deservedly so, as an adult his protective barrier, seeming indifference, is high). He is alone, and will always be alone. But, he is now trusted by the two most powerful wizards in the world. Life is essentially good, but he is not and will never be happy, this is why he can't agree with Harry's defense against a Dementor, Snape has no happy memories to pull from.

Not an excuse, but a possible explanation. Adults are responsible for their decisions despite their upbringing. BUT, if Snape turns out to be on the right side, his teaching style may be a tiny bit more acceptable if we discover it came from how he was taught.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 1151 to 1180

Post  Mona Thu Jun 02, 2011 12:40 am

Solitaire - Jan 7, 2007 9:18 pm (#1151 of 2959)
Eleven-year-old kids don't stop to question a teacher's upbringing and background when a teacher is mean to them. They only know that the teacher is mean. Period. The teacher is the adult professional, and it is up to him/her to avoid allowing personal bias to influence how he/she treats kids.

BTW, I do not think being strict, having high expectations, or even loading on the homework (as McGonagall does) are the same as being mean. Calling students names and humiliating them in front of their peers is being mean, however ... mean and unprofessional.

Solitaire


MickeyCee3948 - Jan 7, 2007 10:19 pm (#1152 of 2959)
You are all giving Snape to much credit for caring about the kids. The Wesley boys say he has always been like that. He has NO place in a classroom as a teacher, monitor or test subject.

Dumbledore has kept him around for the sole purpose of keeping him close. He is a spy for the good guys. He regularly visits and converses with other DE's. He has a love or lust for the Dark Arts. For the same reason that Dumbledore keeps Twelawney in the school, he keeps Snape there also. Dumbledore knows Twelawney is a teaching fraud but she could be dangerous on the outside. Snape could be just as dangerous if not more so being outside of Dumbledore's control.

Dumbledore was wrong to keep Twelawney, Snape and as much as I don't want to admit it Remus also.


Catherine - Jan 8, 2007 3:28 am (#1153 of 2959)
I would remind everyone to use an appopriate tone when responding to posts. It's starting to sound personal in some responses.


whitehound - Jan 8, 2007 5:14 am (#1154 of 2959)
Snape has an extremely high pass-rate and no fatalities that we know of - which in a difficult and dangerous subject like potions is more than enough to justify his presence as a teacher.

Yes, he has a foul temper and an overbearing manner but he's certainly not the only teacher to call students names - remember that it was Flitwick, not Snape, who set somebody to write the line "I am a wizard, not a baboon brandishing a stick." In fact, we don't really get to see that much of the other teachers' teaching styles, so we can't really be sure whether they call the students names or not.

We do know that Hagrid found it acceptable to call eleven-year-old Dudley a great pudding who didn't need fattening any more, and then physically attack and in effect torture him, simply because he was annoyed by the boy's father. How does this compare with Snape criticizing a bad student for being a bad student? If it's acceptable for Hagrid to torture and insult a child he's never met before, just because he doesn't like that child's father, and everybody still thinks Hagrid is lovely, why is it not acceptable for Snape to be rude to a dangerously inept student?

Duj made the interesting point that Snape may have been Neville's Boggart *at that time* because it was only shortly after he had threatened to poison Trevor (which was unkind, yes, but how many Muggle teachers would allow a student to bring a poorly-controlled pet into a classroom full of open fires and dangerous chemicals?). That doesn't neccesarily mean Snape is his Boggart all the time.

Also, it is possible that Snape was present for at least part of the time while Neville's parents were being tortured, and Neville consciously or subconsciously remembers this. It does seem likely that somebody alerted the Aurory to what was going on and that Bellatrix and co. were caught in the act. They were all tried at the same time, which suggests that they were all caught more or less at the same time.

And I don't think there can be any doubt at all that Neville associates being bad at magic with the threat of death. He spent his entire childhood being repeatedly put into life-threatening situations as the result of being bad at magic: he's absolutely bound to have been conditioned to associate the two things.


Laura W - Jan 8, 2007 5:36 am (#1155 of 2959)
Really nice third paragraph in your post 1150, T Vrana !

That makes perfect sense to me. It still does not excuse him bullying and terrorizing children who he is supposed to be guiding and helping to learn - NOTHING DOES! -, but as a plausible summary of Snape's background and personality, I *completely* accept the believability of what you wrote and how you put it in that paragraph.

Laura


whitehound - Jan 8, 2007 6:05 am (#1156 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 8, 2007 6:24 am

One must also remember that Snape's teaching style is only slightly stronger than what would be regarded as quite normal in a British boarding school. Many teachers have a sarcastic, snarly manner etc..

In fact, he reminds me strongly of my chemistry mistress at (not boarding) school - who even looked like a short, female Alan Rickman. Some people found her alarming but I was always very fond of her, and thought she was a hoot. Somebody told me recently about a teacher at her son's school (in the US) who was very like Snape - harsh, overbearing, sarcastic - and many of the pupils actively sought to spend more time with him, because they could learn some great lines that way.

The only thing we've seen Snape do in class that was really out of the ordinary was to break Harry's potion-sample deliberately. That *was* very unprofessional - but he'd been extremely provoked, and we don't know whether or not he knew Hermione had destroyed the rest of the potion in Harry's cauldron.


T Vrana - Jan 8, 2007 6:34 am (#1157 of 2959)
mickey- You are all giving Snape to much credit for caring about the kids. The Wesley boys say he has always been like that.

No, I'm not. I didn't say he cared about anyone. I said he has no idea how to deal with children. Yes, he has always been that way. By my theory he only knows how to teach as he was taught before Hogwarts by a demanding parent with high expectations, with threats and sarcasm.

laura- Thanks!

whitehound- Good points about the name calling by other teachers, and don't forget McGonagall tearing into Neville in GoF not to embarrass the school.

Solitaire- I wasn't excusing Snape's behaviour or denying that it is mean. I was theorizing, based on some info we have about Snape, why he might have such a brutal approach to teaching. It may explain his treatment of Neville, with Harry it is more personal.


The Artful Dodger - Jan 8, 2007 7:07 am (#1158 of 2959)
All I can say is there must be reasons why Rowling called Snape a deeply horrible person. What do you, whitehound and wynnleaf, think are these reasons, if not Neville's boggart?


whitehound - Jan 8, 2007 7:16 am (#1159 of 2959)
Edited by Catherine Jan 8, 2007 8:34 am

I think she called him a deeply horrible person because she wants people to think he murdered Dumbledore, so she can "surprize" us when he turned out to be acting on Dumbledore's orders. And don't forget, she also said of him "I would hesitate to say that I love him."

To put things in perspective - this is going to be long, for which I apologize, but I thought it would help people to see Snape's teaching practises more objectively.

It's a description of the behaviour of an actual, and not that untypical, British or Irish boarding school teacher called Bill the Bull in 1928. It's taken from an essay called Noulded into a Shake by the Anglo-Irish essayist and humourist Patrick Campbell. The Dr Farvox refered to is the author of a book on ventriloquism. Patrick has been practising ventriloquism in class. The book advises him to smile.

# ***

I smiled. Smiling, I whispered, 'Take Ted's Kodak down to Roy.'

To my absolute horror I found myself smiling straight into the face of Bill the Bull.

He stopped dead. He was in the middle of something about the growth of common law, but my smile stopped him dead in his tracks.

'Well, well,' said Bill, after a moment. 'How charming. And good morning to you, too.'

I at once buried my face in my books, and tried to shove the mirror and Ventriloquism in Three Weeks on one side.

Bill rolled slowly down the passageway between the desks. He was an enormous Welshman with a bullet head, and very greasy, straight black hair. He took a subtle and delicate pleasure in driving the more impressionable amongst us half mad with fear at least five days a week.

'Such pretty teeth,' said Bill. 'How nice of you to smile at me. I have always wanted to win your admiration.'

The other boys sat back. They knew they were on to something good.

I kept my head lowered. I'd actually succeeded in opening my constitutional history somewhere near the middle but the corner of Dr Farvox was clearly visible under a heap of exercise books.

Bill reached my desk. 'But who knows,' he said, 'perhaps you love me too. Perchance you've been sitting there all morning just dreaming of a little home - just you and I. And later, perhaps, some little ones ...?'

A gasp of incredulous delight came from the other boys. This was Bill at his very best.

I looked up. It was no longer possible to pretend I thought he was talking to someone else.

'I'm sorry, sir,' I said. 'I was just smiling.'

Suddenly, Bill pounced. He snatched up Dr Farvox.

'Cripes,' he said. 'What in the world have we here? Ventriloquism in three weeks?' He turned a couple of pages.

'Scholars,' he said, 'be so good as to listen to this.'

He read aloud: 'To imitate a Fly. Close the lips tight at one corner. Fill that cheek full of wind and force it to escape through the aperture. Make the sound suddenly loud, and then softer, which will make it appear as though the insect were flying in different parts of the room. The illusion may be helped out by the performer chasing the imaginary fly, and flapping at it with his handkerchief.'

'Strewth,' said Bill. He looked round the class. 'We'd better get ourselves a little bit of this. Here am I taking up your time with the monotonies of constitutional history, while in this very room we have a trained performer who can imitate a fly.'

Suddenly, he caught me by the back of the neck, 'Come,' he said, ' my little love, and let us hear this astounding impression.'

He dragged me down to the dais.

'Begin,' said Bill. 'Be so kind as to fill your cheek with wind, and at all costs do not omit the flapping of the handkerchief.'

'Sir,' I said, 'that's animal noises. I haven't got that far yet.'

'Sir,' squeaked Bill, in a high falsetto, 'that's animal noises. I 'aven't got that far yet.'

He surveyed the convulsed class calmly.

'Come, come,' he said, 'this art is not as difficult as I had imagined it to be. Did anyone see my lips move?'

They cheered him. They banged the lids of their desks. 'Try it again, sir!' they cried. 'It's splendid!'

Bill raised his hand. 'Gentlemen,' he said, 'I thank you for your kindness. I am, however, but an amateur. Am I not right in thinking that we would like to hear something more from Professor Smallpox?'

They cheered again. Someone shouted, 'Make him sing a song, sir!'

Bill turned to me. 'Can you,' he said, 'Professor Smallpox, sing a song?'

It was the worst thing that had ever happened to me in my life. I tried to extricate myself.

'No, sir,' I said. 'I haven't mastered the labials yet.'

Bill started back. He pressed his hand to his heart.

'No labials?' he said. 'You have reached the age of fifteen without having mastered the labials. But, dear Professor Smallpox, we must look into this. Perhaps you would be so kind as to give us some outline of your difficulties?'

I picked up Ventriloquism in Three Weeks. There was no way out.

'There's a sentence here, sir, that goes, "A pat of butter moulded into the shape of a boat".'

Bill inclined his head. 'Is there, indeed? A most illuminating remark. You propose to put it to music ?'

'No, sir,' I said. 'I'm just trying to show you how hard it is. You see, you have to call that, "A cat of gutter noulded into the shake of a goat".'

Bill fell right back into his chair.

'You have to call it what?' he said.

'A cat of gutter, sir, noulded into the shake of a goat.'

Bill's eyes bulged.

'Professor,' he said, 'you astound me. You bewilder me. You take my breath away. A cat of gutter - ' He repeated it reverently, savouring each individual syllable.

Then he sprang up. 'But we must hear this,' he cried. 'We must have this cat of gutter delivered by someone who knows what he is at. This - this is valuable stuff.'

He caught me by the ear. 'Professor,' he said, 'why does it have to be noulded into the shake of a goat? '

'Well, sir,' I said, 'if you say it like that you don't have to move your lips. You sort of avoid the labials.'

'To be sure you do,' said Bill. 'Why didn't I think of that myself. Well, now, we will have a demonstration.'

He turned to face the class. 'Gentlemen,' he said, 'Professor Smallpox will now say, "A pat of butter moulded into the shape of a boat," without moving the lips! I entreat your closest attention. You have almost certainly never in your lives heard anything like this before.'

He picked up his heavy ebony ruler. His little pig-like eyes gleamed.

'And,' he went on, 'to make sure that Professor Smallpox will really give us of his best I shall make it my personal business to give Professor Smallpox a clonk on the conk with this tiny weapon should any of you see even the faintest movement of the facial muscles as he delivers this unforgettable message.'

Bill brought down the ruler with a sharp crack on my skull.

'Professor,' he said, 'it's all yours.'

I don't have to go into the next twenty-five minutes. The other boys yelled practically on every syllable. I got the meaningless words tangled up, and said, 'A cack of rutter roulded into the gake of a shote.'

At times Bill was so helpless with laughter that he missed me with the ruler altogether.

When the bell went for the end of the hour he insisted on being helped out into the passage, wiping his eyes with the blackboard cloth.

After that, I gave up ventriloquism, feeling no recurrence of interest even after reading Bill's observation on my end-of-tenn report: 'He ought to do well on the stage.'

EDIT: Whitehound, please realize that we have a whole Forum dedicated to FanFiction. Please feel free to submit your writing to that Forum. This thread is dedicated to discussion Severus Snape. Any questions, please email me at [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] . --Catherine


wynnleaf - Jan 8, 2007 7:36 am (#1160 of 2959)
Wow. That was interesting, whitehound.

As regards the "deeply horrible" comment. That was said very early in the series when she had really mostly (not entirely) shown Snape as a sort of 2-dimensional nasty guy. I think it was just after PS/SS

I think JKR wanted to convince people early on the Snape was very bad, because she had to work with that since she was going to be presenting other evidence later that would show other aspects of Snape.

Here's a quote from her website:

Similarly, Sirius claims that nobody is wholly good or wholly evil, and yet the way he acts towards Snape suggests that he cannot conceive of any latent good qualities there.

This implies that in fact there are latent good qualities there, but Sirius just can't see them.

Further, JKR has also said of Snape, "I hesitate to say I love him," which sounds rather odd way to phrase your thoughts on a character you truly feel is deeply horrible. And she also has said Snape is a "gift of a character," which also sounds rather strange if he's just a 2 dimensional, thorough-going villian.

Last, the reason Snape inspires so much discussion isn't because a bunch of people like evil people. It's because JKR wrote him to be ambiguous, and to send all sorts of clues that he might not be evil or nasty after all. It is because of JKR's intentional writing that the character is seen by many to be evil, but by many others to be not evil and possibly somewhat good. I don't see her writing that way for a character that she truly considers "deeply horrible."


T Vrana - Jan 8, 2007 7:59 am (#1161 of 2959)
artful dodger- She calls him deeply horrible, because he is. What she hasn't fully told us, is why. I have made a stab at why. And I agree with whitehound and Wynnleaf that how horrible she really finds him is debatable. She has surely given us more to ponder than just how horrible he is.

Again, it does not excuse Snape's behaviour, but it may explain some of it. Was Snape born "horrible"? I doubt it. The folks who see no redeeming qualities in Snape have complete compassion for other characters, especially if they are likable, but none for the greasy 11 year old who arrived at Hogwarts and was bullied by his peers with apparently no help in sight. At least Neville, Harry and everyone else knows Snape is mean to just about everyone and they are not alone.

whitehound- LOL!


Mrs Brisbee - Jan 8, 2007 8:18 am (#1162 of 2959)
The folks who see no redeeming qualities in Snape have complete compassion for other characters, especially if they are likable, but none for the greasy 11 year old who arrived at Hogwarts and was bullied by his peers with apparently no help in sight.

These folk are the opposite numbers to those who think Snape is secretly wonderful and put upon by that silly Harry Potter who is just can't understand what a great person Snape actually is, right? I wouldn't worry about it. We don't seem to have too many of either variety of those folk on these forums (and thank goodness). most people are quite capable of discerning shades of grey in characters they admire, or don't admire.


wynnleaf - Jan 8, 2007 9:02 am (#1163 of 2959)
By the way, I note that Catherine thought that the short essay whitehound included was fan fiction. Maybe I got this wrong, but my understanding is that it was

an essay called Noulded into a Shake by the Anglo-Irish essayist and humourist Patrick Campbell.

and that it was a humerous account of a true incident and was posted to give us an idea what "old school" British teachers were sometimes like.

Is that correct?


whitehound - Jan 8, 2007 10:11 am (#1164 of 2959)
She calls him deeply horrible, because he is.

Let's consider the evidence for Snape being "horrible".

He's abrasive and critical, that's certain - at least when he's around Harry. He doesn't seem to be good at explaining things, or to try very hard to attempt to, at least judging from the Occlumency lessons - although that may be partly because Occlumency comes so naturally to him that he doesn't know how to explain how he does it.

He was unpleasantly obstructive to Harry when Harry tried to get in to see DD about Barty Crouch Snr - but apart from the fact that he may have personal reasons to dislike Crouch, he wasn't really that much more obstructive than McGonagall was when Harry tried to see DD in first year; and Snape at least probably did know that DD would be down shortly.

He's biased about taking house-points - but DD is biased about giving them, and as for Quidditch we're told that Snape and McGonagall are as biased as each other.

He's also biased in letting Draco (whom he has probably known since he was in nappies) get away with things like turning up late for class but we know he *doesn't* condone bullying by Draco, because when Draco flashes the Potter Stinks badge at Harry he makes sure Snape has his back turned first. And this is a bias which presumably springs from affection for a child whom he watched growing up, not hatred for everyone else: it's unprofessional, but hardly horrible.

He's sarcastic - but sarcasm is well-regarded in Britain, is rarely seen as a genuine attack and as such is not necessarily a sign of real nastiness.

He isn't as angry or biased towards Harry as Harry thinks he is. During the Occlumency lessons Harry keeps expecting that Snape will punish him for having seen into his mind etc., but in fact Snape praises him, and only becomes angry when he learns that Harry has endangered himself and everyone else by not practising. Harry thinks Snape is angry with him because he goes white at the memory of Cedric's death, but in context it's clear Snape is angry on Cedric's behalf. And he is almost chatty to Harry (albeit in a rather prickly way) about the Order.

He baits Sirius and winds him up at every opportunity - but in so doing he is only doing what Harry does to Dudley, and for exactly the same reasons.

When we see him with other people, he is guardedly kind towards Narcissa, who seems to regard that as normal. Even when he is having a fight with Draco in HBP, he shows a rather stiff sympathy about the effect Lucius's arrest will have had on the boy. When Draco is injured he reassures him that he won't be scarred - a kind touch which goes beyond mere professionalism. DD obviously regards him as a friend; he teases McGonagall about Quidditch which is also probably friendship of a sort; he comes to Sluggy's party and doesn't recoil when Sluggy puts his arm around him.

He also frequently puts himself in danger to save students. He goes down a tunnel in the dark to confront two people who once tried to kill him, in the very place where they tried to kill him, one of whom he sincerely believes to be a mass-murderer and Voldemort's agent, and the other of whom he *knows* to be a werewolf who is about to transform, because three children he doesn't even like are in danger. He runs through the school in his nightshirt because he heard the Triwizard Egg (which sounds like somebody screaming in pain). He tears through a closed door, grey in the face and probably not knowing what or who's on the other side, because he heard a girl scream "Murder!"

Most selfless of all, perhaps, for someone who hates to be jeered at, in Harry's first year he allowed his colleagues to think he wanted to referee the Quidditch match in order to bias the results, just so he could protect a boy he later overheard gloating over how much everybody hates him.

The idea that he's hugely cruel or nasty seems to me to rest mainly on two things. He forced Harry to view James's and Sirius's detention notices, knowing it would upset him, and he made a very nasty remark to Hermione about her teeth.

In the first case, Harry had just nearly killed another student, and then is standing there radiating rage and sullenness (which Snape as a Legilimens can probably feel). Snape doesn't know that Draco tried to Crucio Harry, who was acting in self-defence, so he must think that Harry is turning out just like Sirius who once tried to kill a fellow student for kicks. So he wants to drive home the fact that Sirius was a poor role-model.

As for Hermione, you have to consider Snape's whole relationship to her. In second year she put Harry up to causing a dangerous explosion which seriously injured several fellow students, and which could potentially have killed somebody, just so she could rob Snape's private store (of probably-expensive ingredients which he may well have had to pay for himself). He must know she was involved, even if he doesn't know she masterminded the raid, because the ingredients which were stolen were for Polyjuice and she later turned up furry.

In third year, she was part of a group who threw him into a wall, to his serious injury (and yes, it was necessary to prevent him from arresting Sirius, but he probably doesn't know they were only trying to disarm him, because a blow to the head usually wipes out the memory of what happened just before it), and then left him lying on the floor, bleeding and unconscious and with his head at a worrying angle, and didn't bother to seek medical assistance for almost an hour.

If a student at a school near you caused an explosion which endangered the lives of other students, in order to create a distraction while she robbed a teacher, and then threw that teacher into a wall and left him to bleed and didn't even seek medical assistance for him, and *all* that teacher did about it was make one admittedly cutting remark, would you think that teacher was "horrible" - or would you think he was soft to the point of idiocy? Anybody care to speculate what McGonagall would do to a student who deliberately endangered other students, robbed her and threw her into a wall?

[It has also been suggested that when Snape said "I see no difference" he meant that he saw no difference between Draco's spell which caused Hermione's teeth to grow, and the Swelling Solution which Hermione caused to be splashed all over Draco and other Slytherins in second year, and which nearly blinded Goyle.]

Altogether, I think the evidence for Snape's horribleness rests almost solely on the fact that he has an unfortunate, defensive, abrasive manner: but that's not surprizing in someone from a dysfunctional home who spent his schooldays being bullied ragged instead of learning social skills.


Die Zimtzicke - Jan 8, 2007 10:18 am (#1165 of 2959)
I agree with the earlier statement that Snape's teaching style is only slightly stronger than what would be regarded as quite normal in a British boarding school. It is quite true that many teachers have a sarcastic, snarly manner. All boarding school literature that I know of has a teacher like this. You have to put this is context. This isn't a modern American magnet day school, after all. And the wizarding world is quite Victorian in many ways. They cook on fireplaces and write with quills most of the time, don't they?

The sarcastic, snarly teacher is quite a common thing. Look at "The Worst Witch" series which was a little kid's version of what would come later with the Harry Potter series. The sarcastic, snarly potions mistress there, Miss Hardbroom, might as well be Snape in drag again.

I also agree, I don't know why Neville, being so scared of Snape, would bring Trevor to that class anyway.


whitehound - Jan 8, 2007 10:19 am (#1166 of 2959)
By the way, I note that Catherine thought that the short essay whitehound included was fan fiction. Maybe I got this wrong, but my understanding is that it was [cut] a humerous account of a true incident and was posted to give us an idea what "old school" British teachers were sometimes like.

Is that correct?

Yup. From the writing of the late great Patrick Campbell, 3rd Baron Glenavy, an Anglo-Irish humorous essayist who once described himself (accurately) as looking like a mad ferret nine feet tall.


whitehound - Jan 8, 2007 10:24 am (#1167 of 2959)
I agree with the earlier statement that Snape's teaching style is only slightly stronger than what would be regarded as quite normal in a British boarding school.

Thanks. And oh, yeah, another thing to remember about Snape is that he started teaching when he was only 22, and his first lot of 6th and 7th years had been 1st and 2nd years when *he* was in 6th and 7th year. Plus, he was working with colleagues who had known him since he was eleven, and probably tended to treat him as if he still was.

Keeping order under those circumstances must have been a nightmare - some of his students probably called him Snivellus to his face, and he got into a bad habit of ruling by fear because that was the only way he *could* rule, at first.


Catherine - Jan 8, 2007 10:50 am (#1168 of 2959)
By the way, I note that Catherine thought that the short essay whitehound included was fan fiction. Maybe I got this wrong, but my understanding is that it was [cut] a humerous account of a true incident and was posted to give us an idea what "old school" British teachers were sometimes like.

Is that correct? --Wynnleaf

Yup. From the writing of the late great Patrick Campbell, 3rd Baron Glenavy, an Anglo-Irish humorous essayist who once described himself (accurately) as looking like a mad ferret nine feet tall.--Whitehound

Apologies if I misunderstood, and it appears that I did not realize that Whitehound was directly quoting--I thought by "taking," it was inspired by. A closer reading of Whitehound's post shows my error.

Usually, we discourage posting long works by other authors on this forum. That being the case, and the fact that I did not see quotations, or italicized font, nor the volume from which the essay was taken, I assumed that the work was Whitehound's creation.

So, I apologize for incorrectly characterizing Whitehound's post, but I would like to encourage Forum members to refrain from posting long quotes from other authors' works on the Forum.


journeymom - Jan 8, 2007 11:19 am (#1169 of 2959)
"I don't know why Neville, being so scared of Snape, would bring Trevor to that class anyway."

Oh, for gosh sake, it drives me up a wall that Neville can't see fit to put Trevor in a pet carrier to begin with. Put the darned thing in a terrarium, already! I know, I know, there'd be no sub-plot of Neville always hunting for Trevor. And who names their toad Trevor? That's like naming the dog James or the cat Melissa.


The Artful Dodger - Jan 8, 2007 12:28 pm (#1170 of 2959)
He's sarcastic - but sarcasm is well-regarded in Britain, is rarely seen as a genuine attack and as such is not necessarily a sign of real nastiness.--whitehound

I know, from personal experience, that sarcasm feels exactly like that to some. And that should matter in the way Snape is judged.


TomProffitt - Jan 8, 2007 1:08 pm (#1171 of 2959)
Before Severus Snape and Harry Potter had ever had a chance to speak with one another, Severus on the first day together in class, attacked Harry by making him look an idiot in front of the class.

Severus routinely is abusive, rude, and sarcastic to people who have a limited ability to fight back, such as his students and Peter Pettigrew. Severus treats people with deference who have an ability to strike back at him, Lucius, Dumbledore, and Umbridge. This is pretty much to me the definition of a bully.

Severus is a not nice person.

There are only two characters in Harry Potter on the extreme edges of black and white. Dumbledore & Riddle. Everyone else is a shade of grey. Snape is not as black as Lucius, Pettigrew, Belatrix, and Umbridge, but that's about it. There is much mitigating evidence as to why Snape is the jerk that he is, but there is really very little exculpatory evidence.


T Vrana - Jan 8, 2007 1:22 pm (#1172 of 2959)
Tom- Pettigrew deserves the treatment he gets. Did Snape really make Harry look like an idiot? I don't think so. I don't think anyone, except Hermione, had any clue what the answers were. The appreciative laughs and the thumbs up from Seamus tell me that much of the class saw the moment for what it was, Snape picking on Harry for no apparent reason.


Soul Search - Jan 8, 2007 1:43 pm (#1173 of 2959)
When it comes down to it we have very little hard evidence of any kind for Snape.

A couple of snapshot scenes from Harry's occulmency lessons in OotP have been drawn into a bad childhood for Snape, where he has learned negative lessons he is passing on to students. Bit of a stretch, in my opinion.

We have one scene of Snape as a fifteen-year old student, but not one that, necessarily, should be extrapolated to his entire life at Hogwarts. We also have a few remarks from Sirius, who can't be trusted to give a true picture of Snape.

We do have a lot of examples of his mistreatment of Harry and a few of other students.

There are very few scenes where Snape is interacting with Hogwarts staff. None that could be called representative of normal interaction. Many were with Lupin.

The only time we have seen Snape outside Hogwarts was in the HBP "Spinners End" scene, which can't be interpreted as "typical" of Snape.

We do know that Snape was at Hogwarts as a double agent. Not only to Voldemort, but also to death eaters who weren't sent to Azkaban: Lucius Malfoy, for example.

Is there anything we can say for sure about Snape? All I can come up with is:

Snape is an especially skilled wizard.

He is clever and very careful.

Snape is not a "nice" person.

Snape isn't overly fond of Harry, or students in general.

Other than those statements, I am not sure how much we can really say ... for sure.


whitehound - Jan 8, 2007 1:45 pm (#1174 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 8, 2007 2:10 pm

Severus routinely is abusive, rude, and sarcastic to people who have a limited ability to fight back,

Just like Hagrid. Is it OK for Hagrid and not OK for Snape?

Peter Pettigrew.

Just the way Harry gets his own back by scaring Dudley, in fact. So do we think Harry is a horrible person?

Severus treats people with deference who have an ability to strike back at him, Lucius, Dumbledore, and Umbridge.

Uh - we've never, *ever* seen how he interacts with Lucius, and since he was probably responsible for Lucius getting arrested at the end of OotP that hardly constitutes being deferential. He argues with DD and is cheeky to and about him at every turn - in fact other than McGonagall he's the only member of staff who *does* stand up to DD - and he tricks and out-manoeuvres Umbridge in order to protect Harry, and risks being sacked by her in order to save Neville.

Severus treats people with deference who have an ability to strike back at him, [cut] This is pretty much to me the definition of a bully.

To me, too, but that's not *at all* what Severus does. He's rude to *everybody*.


Madame Librarian - Jan 8, 2007 1:51 pm (#1175 of 2959)
Snape is one of the most intriguing characters in the series--possibly the one that holds the most fascination for me--probably because it's darned hard to peg him as a good guy or bad.

For whatever reasons (inherent nature, childhood abuse, being the geeky outsider amongst his peers, jealously over Lily, bitterness at not being recognized for his talents, etc.), Snape's is just plain nasty in so many ways. It could be said that his only redeeming characteristics in the first few books are that he refrains from killing Harry (or letting him get killed) when he has the opportunity, and does manage to teach him a bit of potions magic.

Harry, also a victim of abuse and definitely an outsider in many ways, starts out disliking Snape and gradually develops a full blown hatred of the man. It is an elegant irony to me that if Harry had chosen to become a Slytherin, he and Snape might have developed a deep understanding of each other and possibly a close relationship as student and mentor. However, Harry takes another path and his hatred of the man reaches it culmination in HBP, of course, when it appears that Snape has murdered DD, and aided the DEs in their attack on Hogwarts.

So, in addition to Snape being a crucial and most interesting character in his own right, I think he functions as one of the ulitmate tests for Harry. One of the themes of the series, including the Big Reason that baby Harry survived V's attack is that Love conquers Hate. Jo has carefully developed pasts for both Snape and Voldemort that allow a teensy bit of room for pity and understanding for both of them. Harry will have his hardest test when he tries to find that. The epic struggle will not be won through Hate, rather Love will rule the day.

Don't get me wrong. I fully believe there will be some huge battle, people will die, get hurt. But at a certain point Harry will have to lose the Hate in order to prevail (not necessarily survive, but prevail).

Snape is the better character to provide this test for Harry, because from the get-go, Voldemort is presented as less or more than human, almost a force beyond everyone's (except DD, maybe) true comprehension. Snape is fully human and a factor is Harry's life on an almost day-to-day basis.

Ciao. Barb


whitehound - Jan 8, 2007 2:10 pm (#1176 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 8, 2007 2:29 pm

When it comes down to it we have very little hard evidence of any kind for Snape.

Well, we have more background information on him than on any other character except Harry and the Weasleys. Way, *way* more information than we have on Hermione.

A couple of snapshot scenes from Harry's occulmency lessons in OotP have been drawn into a bad childhood for Snape, where he has learned negative lessons he is passing on to students.

You have to ask yourself what plot-points those scenes served. Since they obviously suggested an unhappy childhood, presumably they were meant to - that's what JK meant us to understand from those scenes. We *don't* know whether the people we saw were his mother and father but we do know he comes from a disruptive background.

We have one scene of Snape as a fifteen-year old student, but not one that, necessarily, should be extrapolated to his entire life at Hogwarts.

Taken in conjuction with the jeering voices on Marauder's Map; the way James and Sirius clearly regarded him as standard source of entertainment; the nature of the nickname Snivellus - which implies that they knew how to make him cry, and that he was notrorious for it - the fact that James could produce no excuse for ill-treating him except "he exists"; the fact that Sirius excused his ill-treatment if him by dismissing him as "just this little oddball", the fact that James continued hexing him right into seventh years and the fact that that bullying escalated to attempted murder, I think we're entitled to assume that the bullying was a long-term thing which started well before the Pensieve incident and continued into seventh year, although we don't know exactly when it started.

We do have a lot of examples of his mistreatment of Harry and a few of other students.

He's perhaps overly critical - but not to a degree much worse than is normal in a boarding-school teacher. And he is also excessively *tolerant* of Harry - Harry would probably be expelled if he cheeked McGonagall the way he cheeks Snape, let alone the little matters of robbing him, throwing him into a wall and nearly killing another student. Remember, McGonagall said Snape let Harry off lightly in HBP.

There are very few scenes where Snape is interacting with Hogwarts staff.

There are very few scenes where we see *any* of the staff interacting. But when we do see Snape with his colleagues he appears to get on well with them, and he speaks up for all of them against Lockhart.

The only time we have seen Snape outside Hogwarts was in the HBP "Spinners End" scene, which can't be interpreted as "typical" of Snape.

On the contrary I think we must assume it was. He's known Narcissa since he was a schoolboy: if his behaviour to her in that scene wasn't what she expected it would incite suspicion. Ergo, guardedly kind is how she expects him to be, and how she's known him to be possibly for 27 years.

Is there anything we can say for sure about Snape? All I can come up with is:

Snape is an especially skilled wizard.

Snape is not a "nice" person.

Snape isn't overly fond of Harry, or students in general.

Snape is half-blooded, or less.

Snape is very brave: whichever side he's on he's risking torture and death for a cause he believes in.

Snape is prepared to take risks for the students even if he doesn't like them.

Snape is a superb Occlumens - again, whichever side he's on he's fooling one of the two best Legilimens alive - and since he would have to be able to ceate false memories to fool anyone who tries to read his mind, he's probably intensely self-aware.

Snape is a bitter person, much given to brooding and sulking.

Snape is intensely competitive, at least over Quidditch.

Snape wishes to appear cool and emotionless and he does try, but his control keeps slipping and in fact he often ends up showing his emotions more openly than any teacher except Hagrid, or Trelawney when drunk.


journeymom - Jan 8, 2007 2:17 pm (#1177 of 2959)
"To me, too, but that's not *at all* what Severus does. He's rude to *everybody*. "

No, he is not rude to Dumbledore, McGonagall, Narcissa or Bellatrix. I can't remember, was he rude to Fudge at the end of PoA? Or just hysterical?

Good point about Lucius. He was 'indirectly' responsible for Lucius getting arrested. I'm sure he didn't mind Lucius being swept out of the way. What a windfall!

Whitehound, are you really comparing Hagrid's actions to Snape's? It's crystal clear to me that JKR does not intend us to do that. Hagrid gave Dudley a pig tail because Dudley was eating Harry's birthday cake, the greedy pig! Oh, poor Dudley! The boy had been terrorizing and abusing Harry for as long as Harry could remember. If Hagrid gave Neville a pig tail and was then portrayed for entirety of the six books as a sarcastic, sneering bully, you might have a point. But he didn't and he's not. Dudley, not Hagrid (and not Harry) is the one who is abusive and rude to Harry, who had almost NO ability to fight back. Hagrid, who was Harry's guardian at that moment, was giving Dudley a dose of his own medicine, in the way Hagrid knew how best to do it.


wynnleaf - Jan 8, 2007 2:32 pm (#1178 of 2959)
Hagrid, who was Harry's guardian at that moment, was giving Dudley a dose of his own medicine, in the way Hagrid knew how best to do it.

While I agree, journeymom, that JKR doesn't want us to see Hagrid in the same light as Snape, we cannot say that Hagrid was giving Dudley a dose of his own medicine, because Hagrid had no way of knowing the kind of kid Dudley was or how he'd treated Harry in the past. All he knew was that there was a heavy kid eating Harry's birthday cake without asking.

Yes, I think JKR did want us to probably just see this as "oh, how fun! Dudley get's a taste of his own medicine." But in fact, Hagrid was willing to harm Dudley for very little reason. We don't see him do this again, that I can recall. On the other hand, we never see Snape attempt to physically harm a kid, unless you want to count his shoving Harry (or pushing, can't recall) after Harry entered his pensieve.

I think the main point in bringing up Hagrid isn't "look how bad Hagrid is in comparison," but to point out that we readers react very differently to Hagrid's action because we dislike Dudley, feel he deserved it, and we like Hagrid.


Thom Matheson - Jan 8, 2007 2:38 pm (#1179 of 2959)
All I can say is at this very present time, there is one undisputible cold hard fact.

Snape MURDERED Dumbledore, and in front of witnesses. You all can speculate about why, and if I knew how to underline I would underline speculate, but the fact remains. He killed Dumbledore. None of us have any kind of physical proof or canon or anything else for that matter to dispute this.

There can be no worthwhile reason or cause that sanctions that action.

If Dumbledore felt the need to fall on his own sword he should have done so. Nope, Snape is a killer, and there is no reason to redeem anything.


journeymom - Jan 8, 2007 2:41 pm (#1180 of 2959)
Hm, perhaps I over reacted. Yes, you are right, Whitehound was trying to make a point about Snape, not Hagrid.

However, I still think Hagrid is a poor example to use. We react differently to Hagrid's actions because we have good reason to like Hagrid and every good, logical reason to loathe Dudley.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 1181 to 1220

Post  Mona Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:15 am

wynnleaf - Jan 8, 2007 2:42 pm (#1181 of 2959)
Snape MURDERED Dumbledore, and in front of witnesses. You all can speculate about why, and if I knew how to underline I would underline speculate, but the fact remains. He killed Dumbledore. i None of us have any kind of physical proof or canon or anything else for that matter to dispute this.

There can be no worthwhile reason or cause that sanctions that action.

If Dumbledore felt the need to fall on his own sword he should have done so. Nope, Snape is a killer, and there is no reason to redeem anything.

Thom, with all due respect, if it was that simple why is JKR having to keep anything a secret about Snape's loyalties? She won't answer those questions. If everything is as cut-and-dried as you say, then why does she avoid talking about Snape and Dumbledore's death?

Surely JKR must not think it nearly so obvious as you state.


Thom Matheson - Jan 8, 2007 2:45 pm (#1182 of 2959)
I have no speculative answer about JKR. I do know that Dumbledore is dead, and Snape pulled the trigger. Now if JKR wants to come out in DH and tell us that DD was dead already and there was no real AK, I can accept that. But, for now, Snape for all the speculation for or against, is a murderer.


whitehound - Jan 8, 2007 2:48 pm (#1183 of 2959)
No, he is not rude to Dumbledore, McGonagall, Narcissa or Bellatrix.

He's not rude to Narcissa - he has no reason to be. But he's *incredibly* rude to Bellatrix, sneering at her openly. He argues with Dumbledore about Lupin and Sirius and tries to go behind his back to have Sirius Kissed - which isn't very nice, but certainly doesn't suggest crawling respect. He also argues with Dumbledore about what is probably the Unbreakable Vow, telling him he takes to much for granted etc..

As for McGonagall, she's always complaining about Snape teasing her about Quidditch.

I can't remember, was he rude to Fudge at the end of PoA? Or just hysterical?

Not hysterical - concussed. Irrational, literally spitting rage is a symptom of concussion. Any period of unconsciousness due to a blow and lasting more than ten minutes is considered life-threatening, and he'd been knocked out for almost an hour.

Whitehound, are you really comparing Hagrid's actions to Snape's? It's crystal clear to me that JKR does not intend us to do that. Hagrid gave Dudley a pig tail because Dudley was eating Harry's birthday cake, the greedy pig!

No. That's only in the film, and the films aren't canon, and it wasn't JKR who had Dudley eating the cake: just some film director. In the book, Dudley has done nothing at all except cower behind his father, and yet Hagrid insults him and then curses him with the pig's tail which, in the book, is not just humiliating but extremely painful. In effect, he tortures a terrified 11-year-old.

Oh, poor Dudley! The boy had been terrorizing and abusing Harry for as long as Harry could remember.

Sure, but Hagrid doesn't know that. If he knew Dudley was a terrible bully I wouldn't have a problem with this scene, but so far as we know he knows nothing at all about Dudley. He's just hurting the child because he doesn't like the father.

But he didn't and he's not.

He is a racist, though. He tells Harry that there's not been a wizard alive who went bad that wasn't in Slytherin, when he knows perfectly well that one of the Gryffindor Marauders became a mass-murdering Death Eater (even if he's wrong to think it was Sirius when it was really Peter). He also tells Harry that there's no hope for Draco and that Draco is born bad because he has bad blood, and that all the Malfoys are born bad.

Dudley, not Hagrid (and not Harry) is the one who is abusive and rude to Harry, who had almost NO ability to fight back. Hagrid, who was Harry's guardian at that moment, was giving Dudley a dose of his own medicine, in the way Hagrid knew how best to do it.

But Hagrid has no idea of how Dudley has treated Harry. Dudley has done nothing in his presence except cower behind his father. Hagrid is quite simply attacking a child because he doesn't like his father.

To some extent that's what Snape does to Harry, but Snape has deep, serious reasons to hate James which mean that the sight of Harry probably really freaks him out, and al he does to Harry is be rude to him. He doesn't intentionally hurt him (except with a magical slap at the end of HBP) and goes out of his way to save him when he's in danger, even if he does so with a rather poor grace.

Hagrid had no deep-seated reason to hate Vernon, no reason to fear him, no reason to be freaked out by him that we know: he just found him irritating. And because he was irritated, he physically attacked a child who had done nothiong at all to him or in his presence, and did so in a very painful and humiliating way.


Soul Search - Jan 8, 2007 2:56 pm (#1184 of 2959)
Madame Librarian,

"Snape is one of the most intriguing characters in the series ..."

I strongly agree. Gray characters are always more interesting that black and white ones.

A (long) while back I suggested that the whole point of the Harry Potter series was Snape and Harry, NOT Harry and Voldemort. If the series is teaching anything, I think it will be revealed when Harry resolves his hate for Snape.

I like most of your other points, too. (Not sure about the "if Harry was a Slytherin" part. I don't think Harry and Snape would have got along under any circumstances.)

whitehound,

"Well, we have more background information on him than on any other character ..."

I agree. However, in spite of there being a lot of scenes with Snape, there always seems to be something preventing a clear, for sure, interpretation. For example, the OotP occlumency scene would suggest that Snape's family life wasn't that good, but we don't know enough to say it was "abusive."

The same can be said of the OotP pensive scene. I have to say that the scene probably typified any Sanpe/marauders interaction, but would not extrapolate it to Snape and other students. He did have a crowd he hung with.

Clearly, JKR wants to give us a "gray" message as she develops Snape's "gray" character.

I agree with most of your additions to the list, although some are specifics under a listed general category (good wizard, for example.)

I do agree that Snape is brave, bitter, intensely competitive, and tries to control his emotions.

I think the point I was trying to make is Snape's character development has, largely, been intentionally vague. Readers who see Snape as on the "good" side look for "outs" in scenes that would, otherwise, make him look especially bad. Readers who see Snape as on the "evil" side certainly find the worst, but tend to overlook anything that might suggest "good" in Snape.

I am on the "Snape is good" side, but still don't like him.


The Artful Dodger - Jan 8, 2007 3:30 pm (#1185 of 2959)
But he's *incredibly* rude to Bellatrix, sneering at her openly.--whitehound

If that is incredibly rude, then Snape is incredibly rude to his students, too.

About Hagrid not knowing about Dudley. Book 6 shows that Dumbledore was informed about Harry's life with the Dursley's, and it is not beyond imagination that he told Hagrid. So, perhaps Hagrid knew.


T Vrana - Jan 8, 2007 5:17 pm (#1186 of 2959)
"He is a racist, though. He tells Harry that there's not been a wizard alive who went bad that wasn't in Slytherin"

That's not racism. The houses are not divided by race, or even blood, but by personal tendencies, and as we see with Harry (and perhaps Hermione whom the Sorting considered putting in Ravenclaw) choice matters as well.

Hagrid immediately realized he lost his temper and admits he should not have. I hesitate to call it torture. I see the reason for the comparison, but it is not a perfect one.


Catherine - Jan 8, 2007 5:49 pm (#1187 of 2959)
This thread discusses issues about Severus Snape. Please debate/discuss Hagrid in the appropriate thread.


whitehound - Jan 8, 2007 6:10 pm (#1188 of 2959)
If Dumbledore felt the need to fall on his own sword he should have done so.

Since Snape had made the Unbreakable Vow, DD falling on his own sword would have killed both of them, and left Harry with no support and the Order in tatters. Having Snape kill him was a way of embedding Snape deeper in Voldemort's camp, where he could do the most good. You have to see these people as *soldiers* - there's nothing that odd about a commander choosing to sacrifice himself in a way that advances his army.

And, militarily, there wasn't anything else Snape could do. Think of the situation. DD was down, very possibly already dying and certainly in no position to fight. Harry was a sitting duck because DD wouldn't unbind him. Draco was vulnerable and there was no knowing which side he'd fight for. So it was Snape alone against four Death Eaters - five if Draco sided with them - or at best, Snape and Draco against four Death Eaters. And exactly how good do you think Draco would be in a fight?

The certain result of Snape trying to save DD would have been Snape, DD, Harry and probably Draco dead and Greyback - a predatory werewolf whose hobby is eating children alive - loose in the school with no-one to control him.

DD's death was certain (unless he and Snape faked it - which they may possibly have done, although JK's statement in New York seems to put paid to that). However, by having Snape kill him he has ensured that Harry will live, and he and the Order will have a powerful weapon in Voldemort's camp.

In any case, Harry is in much the same position as Snape. The reason DD was too ill to defend himself - the reason his death was certain - was because Harry fed him poison, on his own orders. Harry, in fact, has done exactly what Snape did. So do you think that Harry is now beyond forgiveness? Or is the rule Harry=Good, Snape=Bad even when they do exactly the same thing?


T Vrana - Jan 8, 2007 6:43 pm (#1189 of 2959)
Edited by Catherine Jan 9, 2007 3:30 am

Catherine- Hagrid was only being discussed as a poster compared his actions to Snape's.

EDIT: I realize that Hagrid was being used as a comparison; some posts, though, were overwhelmingly about Hagrid. Feel free to take concerns and comments to email rather than posting to a thread.--Catherine


wynnleaf - Jan 8, 2007 6:46 pm (#1190 of 2959)
Yes, the comparison is whether or not we view Snape and Hagrid's actions differently simply because Hagrid seems more likeable and the object of his action (Dudley) is so unlikeable. Whereas when Snape does actually less drastic actions (verbal insults rather than physical harm), it tends to be viewed as evidence of his nastiness. In order to discuss this, we almost had to discuss Hagrid for a bit.


journeymom - Jan 8, 2007 7:46 pm (#1191 of 2959)
============HAPPY BIRTHDAY EVE, SEVERUS SNAPE!==================

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>~0O0~<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

(7:45p.m. Pacific Time)

Here's a bottle of Ogdens Single Malt and a Delux pass to Madame Huile de Capillaire's spa. Also, a coupon to Healer Howser, laser tattoo removal specialist.

"Radiator Amplifor Lumos!"


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 8, 2007 8:02 pm (#1192 of 2959)
TomProffit wrote (a dozen posts ago) - There are only two characters in Harry Potter on the extreme edges of black and white. Dumbledore & Riddle. Everyone else is a shade of grey. Snape is not as black as Lucius, Pettigrew, Belatrix, and Umbridge, but that's about it.

I agree there is black&white symbolism set up between Vold and DD, with Severus so excruciatingly, frustratingly, in the middle. But when it comes down to it, I see DD much less "white" than Vold is "black". That is DD's strength, he is not an idealist. Otherwise, why on earth would he have Filch, the man utterly desperate for torture to return to Hogwarts, as caretaker? I think Severus has been embraced by DD in the same way Filch, Hagrid (ostracised), and probably many others have been.

whitehound wrote - You have to see these people as *soldiers* - there's nothing that odd about a commander choosing to sacrifice himself in a way that advances his army.

I certainly hope that is not what this story is about, and Dumbledore's Army is cheeky and that's all.


journeymom - Jan 8, 2007 8:21 pm (#1193 of 2959)
Hm. Who else at Hogwarts would otherwise be endangered, shunned or persecuted? Trelawney, Hagrid, Lupin for a time, perhaps Filch, perhaps Irma Pince. Firenze. Slughorn, once he decided to commit to it. Dumbledore was very welcoming.


TomProffitt - Jan 8, 2007 8:45 pm (#1194 of 2959)
"I think Severus has been embraced by DD in the same way Filch, Hagrid (ostracised), and probably many others have been." --- me and my shadow 813

That's quite true. Dumbledore has embraced many people who are probably a bit more tainted by evil than we would like to consider. The real Moody is no saint, and Dumbledore has sent missions to both Giants and werewolves. Sirius wasn't exactly a good role model himself. Dumbledore, with Severus's help, sought to bring Karkarof to his side. Harry's not all that dark for a modern literary hero, but he is "for a children's book."

So Severus Snape isn't alone in being less than a perfect person in JKR's world. In my mind he's still more than a touch too far across the line to be called "good."


Thom Matheson - Jan 8, 2007 9:13 pm (#1195 of 2959)
Whitehound, You are suggesting nothing short of Dumbledore creating an Assisted Suicide for the good of the cause? Dumbledore wouldn't do that, JKR wouldn't write that, and there is no factual evidence for your supposition that I am aware of. Albus is not a taker of life, including his own. You are assuming that he was dying rather then stunned on the tower. You are assuming that there was the intro of some stopper of death administered. These are all guesstimates.

Snape committed a murder and I do not care what the reason. I would be very disappointed if what you suggest were to come out in the end. I'll give you that Snape will figure in the end and will likely assist Harry to end Voldemort, but he murdered Dumbledore and will pay for that crime.


wynnleaf - Jan 8, 2007 9:50 pm (#1196 of 2959)
Thom,

I am a bit surprised. I guess I'm assuming you've read the threads where we've discussed many possibilities for what occurred on the tower. Many do include theories where DD went out that night planning to die.

But that is not necessitated in the scenario that, without prior plans to die, DD simply realized that the only way to get the locket horcrux was to risk his life, or that the only way to ensure saving Harry and Draco's lives on the tower was for him to die. This is not suicide, it is self-sacrifice -- that sort of "greater love hath no man than that he give up his life for his friend" kind of willingness to die so that others can live.

Personally, I agree with the idea that JKR will not have written DD as specifically planning to die. I don't think, based on my "read" of her books, that she will tell us in Book 7 that DD arranged a kind of assisted suicide for himself. I just don't think she'd go in that direction.

But that doesn't mean that DD couldn't give up his life, realizing that the only way to save Harry and Draco was for him to die. That's not suicide.

And not all killing in fiction is murder. Someone else (can't recall who) has used the "Last of the Mohicans" example. Nathaniel does leave the major in the Huron village, knowing that he will be killed, because it was the only way to ensure the safety of other people. And then Nathaniel shoots the major in the end, in order to keep him from dying a horrible death at the stake. That's a good example where the killing is not murder.

If Snape killed Dumbledore, at Dumbledore's request, in order to be able to save Harry and Draco, or to prevent DD's more terrible death from a poison from the cave, that is not murder.


Laura W - Jan 9, 2007 4:37 am (#1197 of 2959)
"Whereas when Snape does actually less drastic actions (verbal insults rather than physical harm)," (wynnleaf)

What you call "verbal insults" - and I know that is how you honestly see them, - others call "emotional abuse." Same old argument, eh? (weak grin) It all depends on how one sees things.

*I* happen to believe, based on Snape's comments to, attitude towards and behavior towards Harry from the first Potions class of the first year, that Snape does everything he can and takes particular pleasure in making Harry look and feel bad. This includes telling him in front of the class how stupid he is in Potions and giving him zeros; in sneering at and making cutting comments about the fact that Harry is famous - albeit Harry didn't ask for it, and his fame came at the price of his losing his parents - and thinks himself better than others - which Harry doesn't -; in taking points from Gryffindor whenever Harry does the least little thing wrong in class while never taking points from the Slytherin side of the room; in humiliating Harry in front of the other students by reading the Witches Weekly article about him and Hermoine in front of the whole class; by giving Harry detentions which will not only punish him (which is the purpose of detentions, of course) but will knock him down a peg or two (ie - such as having him view his dead father in an unfavourable light (which I find to be exceedingly cruel, even if it's true about James) and making him miss Quidditch which is the one thing he does well after 10 years of being told he's worthless); and by allowing the Slytherin half of the class to wear Potter Stinks badges in the schoolroom instead of telling them to take the badges off while in his dungeon.

Any one of these things, on their own just constitutes "nasty" or "unfair" to me, but Snape's relentlessness when it comes to this - almost as if it were a self-imposed mission of his - goes way way beyond those relatively benign terms.

Again, I see the Occlumency lesson chapter of OoP differently than you. "Verbal insults" does not begin to describe how I see it. Sorry to bring Lupin in again here, but what strikes me is both the similarities and the differences between that chapter and the chapter The Patronus in PoA. In both, professors are teaching Harry particularly difficult magic which a lot of adult wizards are unable to do. Whereas Lupin is patient and encouraging with Harry, Snape is ridiculing and mocking when Harry can't do the task; whereas Lupin apologizes when the unsuccessful efforts actually physically hurt Harry, and suggest they suspend class for the day; Snape ignores the fact that Potter smashed his knee on the desk and keeps falling to the floor - hard; when the class is over, and Harry feels both emotionally and physically drained and beaten up by it, Lupin gives him chocolate for the trauma he has suffered in the interests of learning a new magical technique; when the class is over and Harry again feels physically and emotionally drained and beaten up, Snape just tells him, very rudely, to do his homework and to come back next Wednesday.

It is very important to remember that when we are talking about Harry and Severus we are not talking about two kids (like Harry and Draco) or two adults (like Snape and Sirius). This is not a level playing field. (And with Neville, it's even more unlevel.) We are talking - whether it be First Year or Sixth Year - about a boy and a grown man in his mid-thirties. And Snape is supposed to be playing the role of the adult here.


TomProffitt - Jan 9, 2007 4:37 am (#1198 of 2959)
"If Snape killed Dumbledore, at Dumbledore's request, in order to be able to save Harry and Draco, or to prevent DD's more terrible death from a poison from the cave, that is not murder." --- wynnleaf

Well, actually and technically it is murder, but the mitigating circumstances are very strong.

Unless Severus is a true bad guy I don't think Jo went this route. If it turns out the Severus is on the good guy side I think Jo tricked us on this issue in some fashion to keep Severus from having to actually deliver a killing blow. I suppose there is also the third possibility of Severus having actually lost it and killed Dumbledore and then later repent of it, a course I don't find very likely.

EDIT: cross posted

"And Snape is supposed to be playing the role of the adult here." --- Laura W

More than just being the adult he is in a teacher role and has an added responsibility and obligation to be impartial and fair. I'd feel a lot less animosity towards Snape if he and Harry were equals, but they are not.


wynnleaf - Jan 9, 2007 6:51 am (#1199 of 2959)
Well, actually and technically it is murder, but the mitigating circumstances are very strong. (TomProffitt)

It depends on whether or not it's considered a "war" situation or not. In a war, I don't think it would necessarily be considered murder, although such an action would definitely have to be thoroughly investigated given that it could be murder. In civilian life, it is technically murder, although if it could be proven that the person had no other choices other than to let more people die, the person would possibly get off based on mitigating circumstances.

Unless Severus is a true bad guy I don't think Jo went this route. If it turns out the Severus is on the good guy side I think Jo tricked us on this issue in some fashion to keep Severus from having to actually deliver a killing blow. I suppose there is also the third possibility of Severus having actually lost it and killed Dumbledore and then later repent of it, a course I don't find very likely. (TomProffitt)

Actually, I agree with you. It was one of the reasons (besides all the clues) that I supported the idea that DD faked his death. I still believe all those clues that seemed to suggest he faked his death mean something, I'm just not sure what. I will not be surprised if we discover in the last book that Snape did not deliver a killing blow to DD.

Laura, while I agree that Snape is very harsh toward Harry, I think that it's easy for the reader to view Snape's actions as totally unprovoked and (except for the initial class), they are not. Harry does not act the same way in Snape's class that he does with the other teachers. He lies repeatedly to Snape and Snape knows it. He has stolen from Snape. He intentionally caused explosions that injured innocent students. He carries on conversations in class. He reads other material in class. He spies on Snape and listens in on his private conversations. He knocked him out and then didn't bother to do anything to safeguard a man unconscious for over an hour. Snape knows Harry breaks lots of rules and doesn't usually get caught. When Snape tries to catch him on rule breaking, Harry usually lies to Snape. He's often very cheeky in class -- the HBP "sir" comment comes to mind. He's a lazy student and Snape probably knew within a year or so that Hermione was helping Harry get by with his homework. When he took occlumency, he didn't even try at all.

Snape is an impatient, on-edge, and sarcastic person. He's actually nicer than the sort of "old school" teacher in the essay Whitehound posted, but he's basically a harsh, old-school type teacher. Harry is not some cowed student, going around with his self-esteem injured by Snape. Nothing Snape says or does has gone anywhere to curtailing Harry's behavior in regards Snape.

Therefore, it's not surprising that Snape would consider Harry arrogant -- at least from Snape's point of view.

Snape should not loose his temper to the degree he does with Harry. He should not personally insult him. But even though everything started with Snape's questions to Harry in the first class, I don't think we could ever expect Snape to just drop everything Harry does and not consider it, simply because it was Snape that started their bad relationship in the first class. In general, the detentions Harry gets, or the points lost, are deserved -- and if Harry occasionally gets a detention or points off that he didn't deserve, there are plenty of things that he does in Snape's class for which he does deserve punishment where he doesn't get it.

Some of your examples:

in humiliating Harry in front of the other students by reading the Witches Weekly article about him and Hermoine in front of the whole class;

On the other hand, they should never have been reading that in class. And Snape did not read private correspondence in class; he read a public newspaper article which everyone else was reading, or going to read, anyway. It was insulting, but they should never have had it out in class.

Potter Stinks badges in the schoolroom

Students were wearing these all over school. Did any teacher tell students to remove them? Should there have been a school-wide order to quit wearing them? Is Snape the only staff member at fault in this?

making him miss Quidditch which is the one thing he does well after 10 years of being told he's worthless

Even in our schools, kids in sports that get what amounts to detention aren't allowed to play in that week's games. There's nothing cruel in Harry missing Quidditch for almost killing another student.

The detention files. Was this cruel? It was cruel the way Snape commented on it and presented it. Was it cruel for Harry to learn about his father and Sirius' past? No. He was 16 and had just almost killed another student. Sirius, at 16, almost killed another student. I think it was not a bad idea for Harry to go through those files. A wiser person would have presented the detention to Harry differently and addressed the issues of what he'd done in a way that might have impacted Harry better. But having him organize the detention files that would bring to light James and Sirius' actions was not cruel.

Look, I'm not saying Snape isn't harsh toward Harry. But it's easy to see everything from Harry's point of view. Harry doesn't think he should get any of those punishments. He seems to think he should be free to break whatever rules necessary to accomplish whatever he sees fit. He feels most of his actions are justified, whether stealing from the potions stores, setting off explosions, knocking out a teacher, lying to teachers, etc. If we only see it as poor, put-down Harry who never did anything to warrent Snape's displeasure, then we'll naturally see Snape as practically Harry's torturer. But I think there are two sides to it all. Sure, Snape got things started with his actions in the first class. But Harry certainly keeps up his end of the problem, and much of what Snape does is his response -- however harsh -- to Harry's very real wrongdoing.


T Vrana - Jan 9, 2007 7:04 am (#1200 of 2959)
But when it comes down to it, I see DD much less "white" than Vold is "black". That is DD's strength, he is not an idealist. Otherwise, why on earth would he have Filch, the man utterly desperate for torture to return to Hogwarts, as caretaker?

This assumes that 'white' means that white never interacts with grey. DD would be alone in a room. It also assumes that white thinks everyone should be white, but then white would be judgemental, distant and, well, condescending. No, DD is pure white, but he uses his purity to fight the dark, see the best in others, do what is right, not easy, sacrifice etc. DD is white, but very intelligent, white can't fight alone. He makes mistakes, but that is not at all grey, it is with the best intentions, not with any selfish intentions.

If DD were to hire only perfect people, he would have a few vacancies. Plus, it is not a perfect world. If DD were to make Hogwarts a perfectly safe warm and happy place, he would not be preparing his students for the real world. Overcoming bad teachers and nasty caretakers is as important, IMO, as DADA and potions. Life lessons. And everyone except poor Myrtle seems to make it through.

Jo calls him the epitome of goodness. Doesn't get much whiter.


Steve Newton - Jan 9, 2007 7:15 am (#1201 of 2959)
I think that it is is "The Killer Angels" that one of the characters describes Robert E. Lee as having no faults but allowing others to have theirs. This is sort of like Dumbledore.


whitehound - Jan 9, 2007 7:29 am (#1202 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 9, 2007 7:32 am
Whitehound, You are suggesting nothing short of Dumbledore creating an Assisted Suicide for the good of the cause? Dumbledore wouldn't do that

Thom: do you really think so little of Dumbledore, that you think he would expect a friend who is 115 years younger than him, and whom he has known since he was eleven, to die for him? Because of the Vow, if Dumbledore didn't die Snape would, and everything we've seen of Albus says he would choose to be the one to die, rather than his friend.

And again, even without the Vow, do you really think so little of Dumbledore that you think that he would take a huge risk of Harry, Snape and Draco dying, and of Greyback ending up loose in the school and killing the students, just for the sake of a tiny, almost non-existent chance of saving himself?

And if Snape hadn't fired on Albus, and Albus had died of the poison which Harry fed him, would you now be baying for Harry's blood?

I thought the whole point of the chess game in the Philosopher's Stone was to point up the fact that the person who is playing the game may have to sacrifice an important piece - even themselves - if they really want to win.

in humiliating Harry in front of the other students by reading the Witches Weekly article about him and Hermoine in front of the whole class

This seemed to me to be a perfectly normal thing for a teacher to do to a student who had been caught reading a magazine in class.

(ie - such as having him view his dead father in an unfavourable light (which I find to be exceedingly cruel, even if it's true about James)

But Harry had just nearly killed another student, had shown no remorse about it, and Snape didn't know that it was partly self-defence. As far as Snape was concerned, Hary was turning out like Sirius - i.e. trying to kill another student for kicks - and he needed to show him that James and more particularly Sirius were bad role-models.

Look at this realistically. McGonagall told Harry that Snape was letting him off very lightly and that he ought to have been expelled. And in a real life/Muggle school Harry wouldn't just have been expelled for what he did - he'd probably be facing a long prison sentence.

allowing the Slytherin half of the class to wear Potter Stinks badges in the schoolroom instead of telling them to take the badges off while in his dungeon.

No, he didn't. We're specifically told that Draco and co. waited until Snape's back was turned before flashing the "Potter Stinks" message. All Snape saw was "Support Cedric Diggory". And the fact that we're told that they *did* wait until Snape's back was turned before flashing the rude message shows that they knew Snape wouldn't approve.

Again, I see the Occlumency lesson chapter of OoP differently than you. "Verbal insults" does not begin to describe how I see it.

He also praised him for good work, even when Harry physically hurt him and invaded his mind.

when the class is over, and Harry feels both emotionally and physically drained and beaten up by it, Lupin gives him chocolate for the trauma he has suffered in the interests of learning a new magical technique; when the class is over and Harry again feels physically and emotionally drained and beaten up, Snape just tells him, very rudely, to do his homework and to come back next Wednesday.

Yes, well, that's part of the point JK is making, isn't it - that "nice" doesn't neccessarily mean "trustworthy"? Lupin was ever-so kind to Harry, but he put his life in extreme danger, not just once but for an entire school year, by not telling anybody that Sirius Black (who everybody *including Lupin* thought was a deranged mass murderer out for Harry's blood) was an Animagus, by keeping the Honeydukes tunnel a secret and by not making the Marauder's Map available to the castle's defenders. And he did so not because he believed Sirius to be innocent - because he didn't - but because he didn't want to admit to Dumbledore that he had deceived him when he was a schoolboy.

Snape, rude and abrasive though he undoubtedly is, risks both his life and his public face with the other teachers in order to save Harry. Nice sweet Lupin repeatedly risks Harry's life to save his own public face.

And incidentally, on the subject of being nice or horrible, Snape only *threatened* to kill Sirius if he didn't do as he was told. Nice sweet Lupin and noble brave Sirius were quite prepared to kill Peter Pettigrew (for exactly the same crimes which Snape mistakenly but sincerely believed Sirius to be guilty of) as the man grovelled at their feet and begged for mercy.

Who is nice and who is horrible here? The foul-tempered, foul-mouthed man who restrains his own capacity for violence even when he is hysterical with fear and rage, or the sweet-tempered, mild-mannered man who will kill a man in cold blood and without a trial - and not even out of rage, from the way they were talking about it, but just as an exercize in male bonding with an old friend?

No, DD is pure white

Even when he was tormenting the Dursleys with the wine glasses when he knew, or ought to have known, that they didn't just dislike magic but were terrified of it? I've always got the impression that DD had a very large malicious streak - and that that was why he got on so well with Snape.


Catherine - Jan 9, 2007 7:39 am (#1203 of 2959)
Even when he was tormenting the Dursleys with the wine glasses when he knew, or ought to have known, that they didn't just dislike magic but were terrified of it? I've always got the impression that DD had a very large malicious streak - and that that was why he got on so well with Snape. --Whitehound

Hmmm...I would agree that Snape has a malicious streak, but not Dumbledore. If Dumbledore and Snape get along well, it may be the social glue of manners. Dumbledore is usually courteous even to individuals he dislikes. I disagree that Dumbledore was engaging in malicious behavior at the Dursleys; he was "zinging" them about their own lack of manners and hospitality.

For the most part, I do not think that Dumbledore would admire a malicious streak in anyone, including Severus Snape.

As an educator myself (I currently teach middle school, although I have taught in high school and college), I do not admire Snape's tactics in the classroom. I've made that point many times in the past, so I'll just leave it there.


T Vrana - Jan 9, 2007 7:42 am (#1204 of 2959)
Even when he was tormenting the Dursleys with the wine glasses when he knew, or ought to have known, that they didn't just dislike magic but were terrified of it?

Yes. The Dursleys' are rude and intolerant beyond belief. Their personal dislike magic and magical people is not acceptable. If a person dislikes and fears a person of color, we call them a racist and do not condone it. If a person dislikes a person for being magical, DD does not have to condone that. He offered them a glass of fine wine and they chose ignore it. He could have done much worse to them for the way they treated Harry. As it is he offers them a glass of wine (they as his host should have invited him in and offered refreshments) and eventually told them that they did a horrible job with Harry (and Dudley). Being white doesn't mean you don't have a sense of humor or justice. The Dursleys got off easy for what they did to Harry.

Tormented? Try 9-10 years sleeping in a spider infested closet without ever getting a present for Christmas or your birthday, without ever having clothes that fit, without any affection or sign of love from anyone, being reminded everyday you are worthless and a burden. Tormented!!! If DD had a hint of grey the Dursleys would have had a more fitting experience that night...


wynnleaf - Jan 9, 2007 8:35 am (#1205 of 2959)
whitehound, basically I agree with your entire last post except the bit about Dumbledore. I think "tormented" is too strong a word for his treatment of the Dursleys. He sort of "picked on" them a little. I can't think of a good word for it, but it was a lot milder than "torment." Did he mean it maliciously? Well, sort of. I suppose you could call it that. Dumbledore wasn't acting out some sort of righteous judgement, after all. Does he have a malicious streak? Well, he is willing to do things that are slightly malicious toward a few people. Like his comments to Lockhart and Fudge, and even Snape. But even there, I think malicious is too strong a word. My family used to have an expression, to "gig" somebody, like someone gigs a mule to make them go. That reminds me of what Dumbledore has done a few times.

Does he like Snape? Yes, I think so. I always felt his humour when Snape is so angry in POA is not because he's being mean to Snape or disregarding his feelings, but because he knows him so well and knows how completely incensed he can get, and in a strange way, he finds it sort of humourous. Since I've felt that way myself over the tantrums of my children, I tend to think Dumbledore's humour over Snape's anger is a sign of his liking Snape.


T Vrana - Jan 9, 2007 8:55 am (#1206 of 2959)
Malicious is way too strong. It implies intent to harm. 'Gig' works for me, as does tweak (or is it tweek?). Pointing out peoples SELFISH/BIGOTED/RUDE short comings with non-malicious humor is not a fault. Being white does not mean DD has to approve of or condone malicious behaviour in others.

The Dursleys were only bonked on the head because their own bigotry prevented them from accepting a gracious offer. Did DD enjoy the moment? No doubt, as did I...But it was far from malicious, not close to mean, not rude, not harmful...It would have been rude not to offer, and it was rude not to accept or politely say 'no, thank you'.

DD did nothing wrong in offering the Dursleys the refreshment he was sharing with Harry. They 'punished' themselves. As DD said, it would have been more polite to accept the offer. Certainly Vernon has no qualms about drinking. And when they asked DD removed the 'offending' goblets immediately.


T Vrana - Jan 9, 2007 9:27 am (#1207 of 2959)
Missed the edit window...
Did DD know they would not accept the wine? NO, but I bet he strongly suspected. Why would they not take it? Was it poisoned? Bad? Do they not drink alcohol? No. They did not take it because they are closed minded bigots who care more for their lawn than a child, more for what the neighbors might think, than a child's well being (telling neighbors and relatives he goes to a school for the incurably criminal), more for money than decency.

As I said, if DD had not offered, that would have been rude. As he says at the end, 'these are manners'. Should he not have offered knowing they might not take it, or should he have been polite and offered them the wine and the opportunity to be decent themselves? Their rudeness and bigotry is not cause for DD to be rude or to change his polite ways. His action was completlyy acceptable and the right thing to do. Their actions are what resulted in the goblets insisting they either accept the offer or decline. They chose to decline and even that was not politely done, but DD politely obliged. Perhaps the goblets had a manners charm on them...

DD offerd them a drink. If he were a Muggle, DD would have extended a glass in their direction. The Dursley's ignores the offer. A Muggle would say "Excuse me, would you like a glass of wine?". The Dursley's ignore. A little louder, hand still extended "Pardon me, but would you like a glass of wine?" Ignore. A bit louder "I beg your pardon, but I'm standing here offering you a glass of wine would you like it?" "Take the ruddy thing away!" Acceptable behaviour when offered a glass of wine?

Now, DD is not a Muggle so he offered the wine, and the goblets did the follow-up. Who was being malicious...?


journeymom - Jan 9, 2007 9:52 am (#1208 of 2959)
Does Dumbledore have a malicious streak?! No, he is a righteous man with a mischievous streak. Dolohov or MacNair is malicious.


wynnleaf - Jan 9, 2007 10:05 am (#1209 of 2959)
No, he is a righteous man with a mischievous streak.

Lol, journeymom! I love that.


whitehound - Jan 9, 2007 10:32 am (#1210 of 2959)
Yes. The Dursleys' are rude and intolerant beyond belief. Their personal dislike magic and magical people is not acceptable.

Consider, though, what their experience of magic and magical people has been. Their sister (in law) was murdered in a war they can't even understand, and then Dumbledore used emotional blackmail to force them to take Harry in, without discussion, knowing that it made them potential targets in the war they cannot understand.

No effort seems to have been made to provide pastoral support; nobody ever advised them on how to deal with Harry's burgeoning magic; they were just dumped and left to deal with this alien in their midst.

Their experience of magic has been this: their son was sucked into a snake pit, cursed with a pig's tail by a bellowing, aggressive giant, cursed with a yard-long tongue and nearly Kissed by a Dementor. Their aunt was blown up like a balloon (the fact that she's a horrible person notwithstanding). An important business deal on which the family's livelihood probably depended was wrecked. Their fireplace was wrecked, and then Arthur had the gall to lecture them about manners. They haven't had a single experience of magic or magical people that was good, and few that weren't outright terrifying. Their experience has been, basically, that magical people patronize Muggles and treat them almost like cattle - hey, let's experiment on the Muggle kid.

And then on top of that, Albus comes and torments them with the wine glasses. It wasn't just a harmless joke - what he was doing was the equivalent of taking someone who's terrified of snakes, and then holding a live snake in their face and sneering at them for not being grateful.

Tormented? Try 9-10 years sleeping in a spider infested closet

Don't get it out of proportion. Their behaviour to Harry was extremely bad and neglectful, but his cupboard was big enough for Vernon - a very large man - to join him in it and to stand upright in it. That means it was probably no smaller than the small, windowless internal bedrooms which are common in Edinburgh flats (although less so down south where the Dursleys live). And there can hardly be a bedroom in the south-east which *isn't* spider-infested: London and the Home Counties are heaving with spiders.

The issue wasn't that Harry's bedroom was small - many people sleep in bedrooms that size, at least around here. It was that Harry was given this very small room while Dudley had *two* full-sized ones, so that it emphasized the fact that Harry was seen as less important than Dudley. But the closet was not that abnormally small or bad of itself.


journeymom - Jan 9, 2007 10:37 am (#1211 of 2959)
"Don't get it out of proportion."

Okaaaay.


T Vrana - Jan 9, 2007 11:00 am (#1212 of 2959)
whitehound- A cupboard that is just big enough for a very small boy and a man to fit in is fit living space for a child? A cupboard under the stairs where Dudley can pound above and shower him each morning with dust and dead spiders? He's never had a hug, a kind word, a present, a kind look, his own clothes, protection from Dudley. Don't blow what out of proportion?!? Dudley has every expensive toy known and Harry get nothing, not a smile, not affection, not a decent place to sleep.

As for their experiences with magic, all of Harry's reactions were reactions to being tormented at the hands, not of strangers, but relatives. Being harangued for hours by a drunken, nasty cow, having his DEAD mother, DEAD father and himself compared to poorly bred dogs...being bullied by Dudley.

If they had treated Harry like a relative and not the plague, Harry would have been enjoying the business dinner with them, Dobby would not have been in the kitchen blowing up desserts, and Vernon would have closed the deal.

The ton tongue toffee was not a good idea, but Fred and George hardly represent the WW. If the Dursley's didn't start with such closed minds, Arthur could have explained and fixed everything before it got out of hand. Their big concern is that the neighbors will find out.

As for Lily being killed, they don't seem to miss her.

They are closed minded and evil. DD has been polite and gracious in his correspondence with Petrunia, with the howler being perhaps a little gruff, but she was about to allow Harry to put in mortal danger. DD has done nothing to deserve their rudeness.

By your rationale, if I have a bad experience with a person of color, for instance, I may assume that every person of color is bad and may live the rest of my days a bigot. It's ok, I had a bad experience, I can now hate and fear every person of color, even if I started with a prejudiced view and brought the bad experiences on myself.

And then on top of that, Albus comes and torments them with the wine glasses. It wasn't just a harmless joke - what he was doing was the equivalent of taking someone who's terrified of snakes, and then holding a live snake in their face and sneering at them for not being grateful

He was graciously offering them a glass of wine (and as we've seen, Vernon does not have a fear of wine), and they typically reacted as the closed minded bigots they are.

You are right. It wasn't a joke, it was manners.


Thom Matheson - Jan 9, 2007 11:00 am (#1213 of 2959)
Gang. My point is that you are all presupposing that this was a great plan hatch between DD and Snape. You are presupposing that the "green liquid" in the cave basin was poison when we know that it is not the same liquid that Voldemort placed in the basin. Someone (RAB) got there first and there is no way of knowing what was in the liquid. All of these theories revolve around the same central issue. Dumbledore took a risk chasing after Horcruxes, and was showing Harry whqat and how the risks were involved.

First to assume that this was a plan by Dumbledore involving Snape you have to go back to the ring Horcrux where his hand was burned/destroyed. The first 3 chapters of HBP all take place in different parts of the country but on the same general night or nights. How would Dumbledore have known about the Vow when his hand and the repair you are all talking about by Snape had taken place much earlier? Those two things do not mix. Snape couldn't have talked about the vow until after Harry was brought in to the fray. Do you all think that Dumbledore would have died only from the ring Horcrux had their been no other?

We get to the tower scene and DD asks only for Harry to bring Snape to hin, in Hogsmead. Not until the dark mark notice did Dumbledore change his mind. At that point, Snape is not as important as his school. He leaves for the school and gets to the tower, where he incounters Draco. If Draco does the deed, where is Snape? Still in his office. You all know how the rest turns out, but ultimately, Snape had to be retrieved by someone in order to even place him at the scene of the crime.

No one forced Severius to pull the trigger. He looked around read the situation and made a DELIBERATE decision. I do not for a minute think that that Snape and Dumbledore hatched the outcome. They weren't even supposed to meet on the tower.

Some of you have talked about DD making the supreme sacrafice. Do you think that Dumbledore would have put Snape in harms way? He knew that Harry was a witness. For all your reasons about Dumbledore falling on his own sword you all have stated, is exactly why he would not want Snape up on charges for murder. Remember that Snape's career is now over. He can never go back to teaching. Snape the Slytherin knows the consequences. Nathaniel shot the Major to eliminate a slow death from the hostles. The DE were not torturing Dumbledore.

This whole thought with me began as the Snape thread seemed to expand into Snape being the good guy and it will come out in the wash with Harry forgiving him, blah, blah.etc. I can't covet the notion.

Snape made a deliberate decision to kill Dumbledure once he got to the tower. If Snape were a white or grey or gray character here why not start blowing up the death eaters? Why not get rid of the barrier so the OP guys could get to the tower. There is a lot that Snape could have done. But he didn't.

So technically, or otherwise, Snape committed murder. Dumbledore isn't around to help Snape avoid Azcaban or worse. Snape will be on the run. We can debate maybes but unless Rowling changes her plan for DH, Snape will be,IMHO, hunted as the killer of Albus.


T Vrana - Jan 9, 2007 11:26 am (#1214 of 2959)
Thom- You are presupposing that the "green liquid" in the cave basin was poison when we know that it is not the same liquid that Voldemort placed in the basin

We know no such thing. Two other possibilities:

1) Same potion, replaced by RAB with a refilling charm as shown by Harry with Sluggy's wine

2) Basin magically refills so as not to be emptied over time by multiple attempts at the horcrux, same potion.

First to assume that this was a plan by Dumbledore involving Snape you have to go back to the ring Horcrux where his hand was burned/destroyed. The first 3 chapters of HBP all take place in different parts of the country but on the same general night or nights. How would Dumbledore have known about the Vow when his hand and the repair you are all talking about by Snape had taken place much earlier? Those two things do not mix. Snape couldn't have talked about the vow until after Harry was brought in to the fray. Do you all think that Dumbledore would have died only from the ring Horcrux had their been no other?

I don't have any idea what you are saying. I can't even guess. Please clarify.


wynnleaf - Jan 9, 2007 11:43 am (#1215 of 2959)
I know we're getting off topic with the focus on Dumbledore and the Dursleys, but I do think there's something to look at here.

Personally, I think JKR sometimes leaves big holes that, if you look at them from a very objective position, changes the picture in a way that I don't think she intends.

I think she intends us to see the Dursleys as very prejudiced against magic and overall deserving of at least the smaller discomforts they receive from magic (the tail, the ton tongue toffee for instance), and taking some of the other experiences too negatively (Harry's pre-Hogwarts magic) or without consideration of Harry's safety, only Dudley's (the dementors). But what she has ended up doing is putting the Dursleys through so many negative and even life-threatening experiences with magic, that if you look at it objectively, it's a wonder they didn't try to send Harry away long ago. After all, even real-life foster families sometimes have to give up a foster child because he too negatively impacts their own family. Yet, apparently, they can't give up Harry due to some arrangement with Dumbledore. I'm not really sympathetic to the Dursleys, mainly because I really don't think JKR intends them to be sympathetic. But because she left out any mention of their having any choice in the matter of taking Harry, or any good experiences with magic, or any help from the WW in raising Harry, JKR actually left them in a situation that was in fact very difficult. They were awful people to start with, even before Dumbledore left Harry on the doorstep. It's hardly any wonder that they reacted as they did given the parameters of how JKR wrote their experiences.

I think, by the way, that JKR intends us to see Harry living in the cupboard as a very unusual nasty thing that the Dursley's have done to him. However, in the interests of comparison, I actually know a boy who lives in the closet under the stairs of his grandmother's house. My older kids think it fascinating (in light of the HP series), and he appears to like it quite well.

Now, how does this leave Dumbledore? Well, since I think JKR actually intended for the Dursley's to be fully responsible for their nasty behavior, and probably didn't intend for their objective experience of the WW to end up leaving them in such a bad position, I don't exactly blame Dumbledore for this. It's odd, I suppose, but for me it's more of a "blame the author." Don't get me wrong, I love JKR, but she does sometimes leave holes. That's why I don't really blame Dumbledore or let it impact my view of his character for him to have left Harry with the Dursleys for 10 years without really making sure Harry had any Wizarding support through that time.

I feel completely differently about Snape. I don't think JKR left any such holes with Snape. I don't think there's much to his backstory or within the current plot that hasn't been meticulously worked through in JKR's plans. So whatever he does or doesn't do, allows or doesn't allow, I think it's intended by JKR, not some hole that she left in the story surrounding his character.


Madame Librarian - Jan 9, 2007 12:05 pm (#1216 of 2959)
Golly, we're so off-topic, I'm sure we're about to be kipendo-ed. But I'll venture one more comment on the Dursley/DD issue:

There are a few times, maybe more (can't dredge up any specifics right this sec) where we learn that DD has put Harry with the Dursleys to enhance the protections given by Lily's magic. We also are told, I think by others in addition to DD, that Harry's existence was sort a top-secret thing until he could be brought into the protective walls of Hogwarts at age 11. It actually helped protect Harry (and by extension, the Dursleys) that they squelched the magic traits as much as they did. Whether their abusive behavior toward him also served this purpose, at least it did prevent Harry from becoming an egotistical, little prince sure to call attention to himself and his family. The Dursleys kept him as hidden, as unimportant as possible, and that helped to keep everyone safe for a while. This was all what DD probably intended would happen.

Ciao. Barb


Thom Matheson - Jan 9, 2007 12:40 pm (#1217 of 2959)
T, that is exactally what I said. Your two thoughts are possibilities, the same as my thought is a possibility, just different then mine. But, this thread is about Severus Snape and the discussion was as I was reading was about the likelihood of Snape doing Dumbledore for the "good of the cause". That or as I was reading it, that was my interpretation. My rif with it is that Snape killed Dumbledore. Not the back story if he and DD which is where this thread has gone off too.

Murder is no accident, and that is what I was attempting to debate, not Horcrux or Cave theories.

With that said, I can't find anything to be redeemed about when someone commits murder.


T Vrana - Jan 9, 2007 12:48 pm (#1218 of 2959)
Guess we have gotten off topic with the DD Dursley debate. I'll post my comments instead on the "Evil Malicious Dumbledore" thread, or maybe the "Good Kind Dursleys" thread. They shouldn't be too hard to find....

Thom- I agree, if he did commit murder. Some things about that night just don't add up.


Thom Matheson - Jan 9, 2007 12:53 pm (#1219 of 2959)
I totally agree that nothing adds up clearly, but the only facts we have, is an eyewitness in Harry. Before Snape said the incantation, he had to say to himself, "there goes my tenure at Hogwarts". He is going to be on the run. Whether he is allowed or even wants to is yet to be seen, but his only real ally and confidant is dead. Dumbledore can't pull him out of the fire this time.


T Vrana - Jan 9, 2007 1:02 pm (#1220 of 2959)
True...maybe...if DD is Properly dead...
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 1221 to 1260

Post  Mona Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:20 am

journeymom - Jan 9, 2007 1:11 pm (#1221 of 2959)
Wynnleaf, you hit the nail on the head when you used the word "intend" 5 times.

We KNOW what J.K. Rowling INTENDS in these instances. (Hagrid, Dumbledore, Dursleys)

I won't pretend that I know what JKR intends to do with Snape, though!


Die Zimtzicke - Jan 9, 2007 1:27 pm (#1222 of 2959)
Let's get back to a point about Snape (What a novel idea...LOL!) As was said several posts back, Snape is not overly fond of Harry, or of the students at Hogwarts in general. That much is indisputable, but he HAS to live at Hogwarts with all of those children, and he HAS to teach them, because Dumbledore wants him there. Heck, Voldemort wanted him there. Everyone seems to want him to be in the one place he isn't suited to be, because he's not good with kids. If he were real, I'd send him one of those T-shirts that says, "Do I look like a @#$%&! people person?"

The comparison of Harry at the Dursleys to Snape at Hogwarts might be more apt than we realize. Both of them were forced to stay in places that did not suit them at all.


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 9, 2007 3:49 pm (#1223 of 2959)
Die Z, I like your post. I don't believe Severus takes any pleasure in teaching at Hogwarts. As you said, he was given the order by Vold, then given the position as a chance for redemption by DD. I don't think Severus would remain a professor for one moment longer than he has to (and now he got his wish). Of course this is not an excuse for his abuse of Harry and Neville. But it is, unfortunately, where his life has taken him and he's trying to deal with it. He does find pleasure in cutting down Harry to ease his past humiliation and shame. He's pathetic in a lot of ways. I am so thankful for his presence in literature.

Edit: Happy Birthday Severus ~


whitehound - Jan 9, 2007 3:52 pm (#1224 of 2959)
Everyone seems to want him to be in the one place he isn't suited to be, because he's not good with kids. If he were real, I'd send him one of those T-shirts that says, "Do I look like a @#$%&! people person?"

Very apt! It makes it worse that he's teaching a subject that isn't his prefered choice, and that few pupils are really interested in. He'd probably be much less abrasive teaching DADA (interesting that we don't get shown many of his DADA classes) because there, at least, the students are likely to pay attention because it's a more obviously exciting subject.


TomProffitt - Jan 9, 2007 4:06 pm (#1225 of 2959)
"It makes it worse that he's teaching a subject that isn't his preferred choice, and that few pupils are really interested in." --- whitehound

I'm not sure I agree with you here. It really is the teacher that makes the subject. Just compare the different DADA teachers at Hogwarts. Quirrel - boring. Lockhart - humiliatingly boring. Lupin - fun & interesting. Crouch - terrifyingly interesting. Umbridge - infuriatingly boring. Snape - not worth mentioning (by the way JKR wrote it, I mean, she didn't mention it much).

As a nine year member of the Virginia Army National Guard I suffered through nine annual Riot Control Training classes. All but one were boring, the one that was not was a detailed review of how the shootings at Kent State University in 1970 came about and how we needed to do our job to keep that from happening again.

It's the teacher, not the subject.


T Vrana - Jan 9, 2007 4:14 pm (#1226 of 2959)
Sluggy found a way to make it more interesting...but then, he enjoys teaching it.

I'm not sure Snape would be running out the door at the first chance. He has power and enjoys it. He had the trust of the most powerful wizard in the WW. He seems to enjoy Malfoy's sucking up and involves himself with the Quidditch team. He place wagers with McGonagoll on Quidditch results. I don't think Snape would be truly happy anywhere.


journeymom - Jan 9, 2007 4:46 pm (#1227 of 2959)
When he told Bella and Narcissa that working for Dd kept him out of prison and gave him a cozy place to live, he wasn't lying. And it's true regardless of what side he's on.

Die Zim, I love the T-shirt.


Catherine - Jan 9, 2007 5:01 pm (#1228 of 2959)
I, for one, teach a subject that I was never "trained for," and I have done so multiple times in my teaching history. For the full story, see my published works.

In my experence, it is a sign of intelligence to adapt to new surroundings and expectations. Snape clearly MUST fulfill some basic expectations, or I assume that he would not be teaching under Dumbledore's watch too long.

This said, I have never assumed that Snape is an excellent teacher, by any regard. He may have excellent standards; he may have excellent students (some, hopefully); he may have excellent testing conditions. He may be truly excellent, even if I do not think so... and if his students are doing excellently...who am I to say Snape is wrong?

I think Snape, in the past, hand-picked his students, and they may have helped him to look good. I'm thinking especially about his NEWT kids, and if he would not allow anyone who did not have an E in his class..

In the US, you are NOT allowed to hand-pick students in federally funded, state-run schools. When I taught high school, we HAD to let EVERY student into AP courses. This led to some interesting results....


whitehound - Jan 9, 2007 5:47 pm (#1229 of 2959)
I think Snape, in the past, hand-picked his students, and they may have helped him to look good. I'm thinking especially about his NEWT kids, and if he would not allow anyone who did not have an E in his class..

He wouldn't allow anyone into NEWT class that didn't have an O - thought that may be partly a safety measure. NEWT Potions is probably quite dangerous, and incompetent students could easily kill themselves or someone else.

We are told, though, that he has a very high pass-rate at OWL and those students aren't selected at all, except in the very basic sense that students who fail really disastrously at a lot of subjects aren't allowed to continue at Hogwarts.


wynnleaf - Jan 9, 2007 6:01 pm (#1230 of 2959)
For 1st through 5th year students, Snape couldn't handpick his students. Everyone takes potions through 5th year. Apparently, Snape had a rather high rate of students getting passing OWL scores. I think there were 10 students in the 6th year class before Harry and Ron (who got Es) were admitted. That means 10 out of Harry's year got Os in Potions. Sounds pretty good to me. Of course, it depends on how big the school really is and JKR is terrible at consistency in numbers, but it always seems like there's not more than about a dozen kids in any house for any one year.

Anyway, ideas about what is a good teacher have drastically changed over the years. Whitehound posted an excellent essay showing something of a stereotypical "old school" teacher in England. A few years back I read the Laura Ingalls Wilder books to my young girls and a lot of it occurs in the school house. Wilder mostly describes the teacher (who she thought good), assigning readings, copying text, and memorization. Now, we'd think that terribly boring and not good teaching techniques.

At Hogwarts, Binns is probably the worst teacher, since students pay so little attention in his class that many are literally asleep. Trelawney is the next worst teacher, as she doesn't seem to impart any real usable information at all, and accepts the most appalling tripe from her students and can't tell it's not a real effort.

Being a very pleasant teacher, or even a very understanding teacher, doesn't mean students are necessarily learning a lot.

Slughorn does appear to be a good teacher. On the other hand, we only see him with the best students, so we have no idea how he would have dealt with Neville, or other weaker students.

Snape's actually teaching may not be that bad if it weren't for his being so harsh. But remember, in many schools in another era, that harshness was not atypical and not considered bad teaching.


Catherine - Jan 9, 2007 6:23 pm (#1231 of 2959)
Snape's actually teaching may not be that bad if it weren't for his being so harsh. But remember, in many schools in another era, that harshness was not atypical and not considered bad teaching.

Is Snape being graded on an anachronism curve?

I simply do NOT think holding students up to ridicule is a sound teaching practice. I have uiniversity level and much lower level feedback for this notion of mine. For the most part, whatever positive feedback I get, I realize it is because students ( or parents, in lower grades) realize that I "play fair."

In my opinion, Snape doesn't "play fair."


whitehound - Jan 9, 2007 7:05 pm (#1232 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 9, 2007 7:21 pm
Of course, it depends on how big the school really is and JKR is terrible at consistency in numbers, but it always seems like there's not more than about a dozen kids in any house for any one year.

I actually worked it out in some detail and I make it about twenty per house per year on average, but explaining exactly why would result in a very long off-topic essay. But it mainly has to do with the number of carriages required to convey years two through seven from the station to the school, and the probable population-size of wizarding Britain.

But even one student in eight getting top marks is quite good going. We also don't know, I think, whether there is only *one* NEWT potions class in each year, or two, as there are at OWL. If the latter there may well be around twenty students who got an O, or one in four.

Is Snape being graded on an anachronism curve?

Considering that he teaches at a school which is lit by candlelight, remains open while the students are being stalked by a basilisk or by a supposed mass-murderer, and only recently banned the practice of hanging students in manacles, yes I should think so.


wynnleaf - Jan 9, 2007 7:12 pm (#1233 of 2959)
I simply do NOT think holding students up to ridicule is a sound teaching practice. I have uiniversity level and much lower level feedback for this notion of mine.

Oh, I certainly agree with you! But the question, at least for me, isn't whether Snape passes muster under late 20th century, western world teaching practices, but how his practices compare to his fellow teachers in what appears as a very culturally anachronistic school.

For instance, if the HP series was set in the mid-1800s, would anyone really consider Snape to be such a terrible teacher? Sure, many would probably still see him as sarcastic, insulting, and mean, but how many would consider him a bad teacher, by the standard practices of the 19th century?

A lot of the Wizarding World and in particular Hogwarts does seem to be in a sort of cultural time warp of the past.


Laura W - Jan 9, 2007 7:15 pm (#1234 of 2959)
In light of everything I have written in previous posts - which I still believe with all my heart, by the way -, this may sound like a strange thing for me to say but, applying it to this one case only: I feel Harry should have been suspended from Hogwarts for a week *at least* (by McGonagall) for performing the Sectumsempra spell, and Malfoy should equally have been suspended for the same amount of time (by his Head of house) for throwing a Cruciatus Curse.

Dark magic should not be tolerated under any circumstances within the walls of the castle or on the grounds of any school run by Albus Dumbledore!! This is not Durmstrang, after all. What *both* these young men did in that washroom was not some minor rule-breaking like aiming a Bat-Bogey Hex at each other or stealing food from the kitchen or sneaking out after curfew to practice Quidditch or some such. Not in the "detention" category at all, in my opinion.

By the way, I don't think we hear of Draco getting punished at all for trying to use an Unforgivable - which would have taken had Harry not been faster on the draw - on Potter, do we? That doesn't seem quite fair, does it?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(And thank you for your respectful responses to my posts, wynnleaf. We will probably never agree about ... well, about almost everything and everyone in these books. But it's really nice to see that you and I can disagree (and disagree, and disagree -- smile) without getting disagreeable; not *too* disagreeable, anyway (wink). )

Laura


wynnleaf - Jan 9, 2007 7:23 pm (#1235 of 2959)
By the way, I don't think we hear of Draco getting punished at all for trying to use an Unforgivable on Potter - which would have taken had Harry not been faster on the draw -, do we? That doesn't seem quite fair, does it? (Laura)

No, it's not fair. But without Harry telling someone, no one would know. Draco certainly wasn't going to volunteer that info. If Draco hadn't been hurt so extremely, I'd say that Snape should have attempted to get his side of it and probably found out more information, but given that he was terribly injured, I don't think Snape would likely grill him for info.

Besides that, there were some extenuating circumstances for both. Snape was wanting to gain Draco's trust again and find out what Draco was up to with his "task." I don't think he'd want to do anything to further jeopardize that. As for Harry, he could have received an in-school suspension, and I'm not sure why he didn't, but he certainly couldn't be expelled or even suspended away from school.

Perhaps the Draco problem was at the bottom of why Snape didn't do more to Harry. If he'd punished Harry more, then whatever Draco must have done (and surely Snape would guess that Draco did something ), would come out. If Snape ended up in the position of having to seriously discipline Draco, it would only further undermine his efforts to win Draco's confidence.

And thanks, Laura.


whitehound - Jan 9, 2007 7:25 pm (#1236 of 2959)
Harry didn't tell Snape that Draco tried to Crucio him, though, and you can bet Draco didn't. And Draco is an Occlumens - so unless Snape actually forced his mind, probably nobody but the two boys and Myrtle *knows* Draco tried to Crucio Harry which, we are told, would carry an automatic prison sentence (though perhaps the law would be lenient as he is still some weeks short of seventeen).


T Vrana - Jan 9, 2007 7:43 pm (#1237 of 2959)
Laura- It isn't Durmstrang, it is Hogwarts and DD is kind, merciful and practical. If DD does know what went on in that bathroom, Malfoy can't be suspended without possible dire circumstances, and he knows it. If he doesn't, then, as pointed out, Harry is not a snitch. And, Harry made a mistake he immediately regretted. He did not know what it would do. Suspension for a genuine mistake is harsh.


whitehound - Jan 9, 2007 7:58 pm (#1238 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 9, 2007 8:22 pm
And, Harry made a mistake he immediately regretted. He did not know what it would do. Suspension for a genuine mistake is harsh.

Irritating though I find Harry, I have to agree. It was very irresponsible of him to use a spell without knowing what it did, but at the same time none of the Prince's other spells had been particularly dangerous, and Draco was attacking him with a spell he definitely *knew* was nasty and dangerous.

Mind you, if he'd bothered to learn any Latin (and you would think they must be taught at least the basics in Charms) he'd have *known* the spell was a magical flick-knife.

The meaning is interesting. Sectumsempra means something like "always cutting". One of the meanings of Severus is "cut off" - probably in the sense of "isolated", but it's possible young Severus chose to interpret it as "he cuts off", or Cutter, and that Sectumsempra is meant to be read as "Cutter forever". It would be of a piece with calling himself the Half-Blood Prince, after all.


haymoni - Jan 10, 2007 6:17 am (#1239 of 2959)
I don't have my books with me, but does Minerva actually know that Harry used "Sectumsempra" or does she just know that he attacked Malfoy? She certainly would understand why he would want to attack Draco, so maybe her punishment was not as harsh as it should have been.

Just as Lupin was unable to tell Dumbledore about the passages into the school, perhaps Snape was unable to say what spell Harry actually used because it was his spell.

If she does know, forget what I just said.


wynnleaf - Jan 10, 2007 6:28 am (#1240 of 2959)
As Harry understood it, all of the staff had been told exactly what happened as far as Snape knew the facts. Which means that no one learned about Draco using Cruciatus, but from what Harry thinks, it seems that McGonagall must have known that Harry used a Dark Magic cutting spell, even if she didn't learn the name of it.

I can see absolutely no reason for Snape to keep his teenage spell creating a secret from Dumbledore, since Dumbledore obviously knows about far worse things from Snape's teenage years and trusts him anyway. As for keeping the potions book in his storeroom, I can also see nothing wrong with that. As far as we know, the only dark spell in the book is sectumsempra, and Snape could easily have kept the book because of his notes in it, and forgotten about that one spell crowded into the margin along with so many other notes.

This is completely different from Lupin, aware of the active threat to the school from a supposed mass murderer, and even going through the motions of helping search the school, all the while suppressing crucial information from Dumbledore, simply for his own self-interest.

On a light note, I was reading other Forum member's "Happy Birthdays" to Snape up on the thread for JKR's site, and saw journeymom's info that Jan. 9 is, in addition to being the day celebrating Janus, also St. Adrian's day. I never knew that. Adrian means "dark one" (in the physical sense), which I know since a close family member is named Adrian.


whitehound - Jan 10, 2007 6:35 am (#1241 of 2959)
This is completely different from Lupin, aware of the active threat to the school from a supposed mass murderer, and even going through the motions of helping search the school, all the while suppressing crucial information from Dumbledore, simply for his own self-interest.

In fairness to Lupin, it's possible he wasn't so much selfish as depressed. He's permanently a bit unwell and (judging from his reply to Tonks) has low self-esteem, so he may have been suffering from borderline clinical depression which made it very hard for him to summon the willpower to confess to DD about the Animagi.

Given his extreme willingness to execute Peter, it's also possible that he didn't warn DD about how Sirius might be getting into the school because he wanted to meet him himself, on his own, and kill him.

Both are still extremely irresponsible, though, and compare badly with Snape's continuing efforts - however sour and ill-mannered - to protect Harry.

The feast of Janus is called the Agonalia and is a day of blood-sacrifice - which I hope won't prove to be prophetic Sad


T Vrana - Jan 10, 2007 9:59 am (#1242 of 2959)
This is completely different from Lupin, aware of the active threat to the school from a supposed mass murderer, and even going through the motions of helping search the school, all the while suppressing crucial information from Dumbledore, simply for his own self-interest.

Maybe I'm not thinking clearly today, but...

Is Lupin so dim that he couldn't find a way to warn DD about the tunnels without revealing his past?

DD knew Sirius knew about the Shack and tunnel, he sent Snape down that tunnel at full moon. Why didn't DD think to do more about the Shack?


journeymom - Jan 10, 2007 10:05 am (#1243 of 2959)
T Vrana, good point. Didn't Dumbledore set up the Shreiking Shack for Lupin?

But I didn't think Dumbledore sent Snape down the tunnel.


T Vrana - Jan 10, 2007 10:25 am (#1244 of 2959)
Sirius knew about the tunnel as he sent Snape down it....though I see in re-reading my sentance the 'he' is a bit vague....


wynnleaf - Jan 10, 2007 10:32 am (#1245 of 2959)
Dumbledore knew about the tunnel between the Whomping Willow and the Shrieking Shack, but what point would there be in gaurding that? That tunnel didn't lead into Hogwarts. So knowing that Sirius was aware of that tower would not help Dumbledore protect the castle.

It's the other tunnel -- the one that goes from Hogwarts to Honeydukes, that Dumbledore was not aware was known by Sirius. Lupin knew that Sirius knew all about that tunnel, and he did not make Dumbledore aware of it. He wouldn't have had to tell Dumbledore anything about the Marauders being animagi in order to let Dumbledore know about Sirius' knowledge of that tunnel.


whitehound - Jan 10, 2007 10:32 am (#1246 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 10, 2007 10:42 am

Well - we know that there's apparently no way out of the Shrieking Shack at the Hogsmeade end: it's a sort of cul-de-sac. So provided Sirius couldn't get into the school grounds, he couldn't get at the Willow and he couldn't get into the Shack. As far as DD knew it was safe.

But Lupin concealed both the fact that there were two other tunnels from Hogsmeade to Hogwarts which Filch didn't know about (one of which was blocked, but Lupin doesn't know that unless he's tried to get down it recently), and the fact that Sirius could sneak into the grounds as a dog, and could therefore get into the Shack from the Willow end and then hide there.


wynnleaf - Jan 10, 2007 10:42 am (#1247 of 2959)
Just to point out a bit more, until Lupin got hold of the Maruaders Map from Harry, he didn't even have a way of personally watching those tunnels. So he not only didn't tell Dumbledore about them, we can't even imagine that he watched them himself, since without the map he didn't have any way to watch them. And he certainly never saw Harry going in and out that tunnel.


T Vrana - Jan 10, 2007 10:45 am (#1248 of 2959)
wynnleaf He wouldn't have had to tell Dumbledore anything about the Marauders being animagi in order to let Dumbledore know about Sirius' knowledge of that tunnel.

That's my point. He could have pretended to stumble upon it. He didn't even have to say Sirius knew about it, just make DD aware it was there. No embarrassment. So, was Lupin being dim, did he have some other agenda, or is this just a little loosely written to achieve an end.


journeymom - Jan 10, 2007 10:51 am (#1249 of 2959)
I vote the third choice. But I don't like to think ill of our obviously 'good' guys, so there's my bias.


Die Zimtzicke - Jan 10, 2007 9:11 pm (#1250 of 2959)
Back to Sectumsempra, no, Draco probably did not tell anyone he tried to use a Dark Curse, and I'm sure Harry never did either, but Harry has tried to use that spell himself, so I don't know exactly how he feels about it. It's sort of, it's okay when I do it, but not when anyone else does, which I find annoying.

What stands out in the scene for me is that Snape saved Harry's backside by saving Draco's life. If Draco had died, Snape would possibly have been off the hook for the unbreakable vow, and he would have had Harry in major trouble. Not even Dumbledore could have gotten Harry off the hook for murder as I see it. It would have been really easy for Snape to let Draco die, perhaps let himself off the hook for completing Draco's task, (I concede I'm not sure about how that would have worked if Draco had died) and let Harry go to Azkaban.


journeymom - Jan 10, 2007 10:35 pm (#1251 of 2959)
Part one or two of the Vow indicated Snape was to protect Draco from harm, wasn't he?


Laura W - Jan 11, 2007 2:47 am (#1252 of 2959)
Part One: "Will, you, Severus, watch over my son Draco as he attempts to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes?" (S:"I will.")

Part Two: "And, will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from harm?" (S: "I will.")

Part Three: "And, should it prove necessary ... if it seems Draco will fail ... will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?" (S: "I will.")


whitehound - Jan 11, 2007 3:13 am (#1253 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 11, 2007 3:21 am

We don't know, however, whether or not Snape knew that Draco was in the bathroom at all. It's possible he was following him and had seen both him and Harry go in, or maybe only Harry; also possible he was just heading for the gents himself.

All we know for sure is that he heard a girl's voice scream "Murder!" from behind the closed door of one of the boys' bogs, and he shot through that door with his face livid (i.e. a nasty grey colour) and without checking what was on the other side or whether it was something which might endanger him (which, in a school which recently had a basilisk loose in the plumbing, was a real possibility).

Actually he's much more likely to have known that Harry was in the lav than that Draco was, since Harry had only just gone in and Draco had been in there for some time: so he may well have thought it was Harry who was being attacked. That would have added to his anger with Harry of course - "Here I am risking my neck for the brat yet again, and far from needing rescue I find he's attacked Draco."


haymoni - Jan 11, 2007 6:11 am (#1254 of 2959)
I still wonder on whom young Snape tried that spell.

And to come up with a song-like cure...not exactly a common counter-curse.


whitehound - Jan 11, 2007 6:17 am (#1255 of 2959)
I still wonder on whom young Snape tried that spell.

Well, we saw him use it on James in the Pensieve scene - but he seemed to be very careful and controlled with it, and just gave him a little flick on the cheek.

And to come up with a song-like cure...not exactly a common counter-curse.

It's wonderfully shamanic, isn't it? I think JK secretly must really love Snape (she did say "I would hesitate to say I love him", which is tantamount to admitting that she does), because she writes him with more of a real sense of power and magic than most of the other characters. The bit about him protecting Harry from Quirrell by locking his eyes on him and then muttering on and on under his breath is almost equally creepy and shamanic.


haymoni - Jan 11, 2007 6:44 am (#1256 of 2959)
It always reminds me of Dumbledore's comment about music in Book 1 - greater than any magic we teach here.


Madame Librarian - Jan 11, 2007 7:48 am (#1257 of 2959)
If Draco had died from the sectumsempra curse, there would have been some sort of trial, no? Or at least an investigation.

When asked where he had learned the curse, Harry might have explained about the textbook. The whole story of whose book it had been, and who devised the curse originally would have come out...maybe.

Would Snape out and out deny this, or put some "he's a lying, stealing, miserable boy" spin on what Harry said? Would the book itself provide sufficient evidence of past ownership?

It appears to me that Snape had many, many reasons in addition to the Vow for saving Draco, and does not report the incident to anyone else (he just gives Harry detention so he misses the quidditch match) to prevent any sort of investigation.

A side comment on Snape's name: We've discussed meanings and connotations a great deal, so this has been brought up a lot over the years. The "Severus" part of the name can remind us of "severe" (he certainly is) and "sever," to cut off (he cut off association with the DEs...or not).

I also think that "sever" implies "to separate" (from the Shorter OED: be or become separated into parts; divide a thing into two or more parts). Snape himself is possibly split, conflicted, in two separate parts--his loyalties may be shifting throughout the series depending on factors we as yet do not know about. JKR has embedded many clues in his name, but this one had not occurred to me till now.

Now what's especially weird to me is OED definition reminds me of..um...someone else who has split himself into parts. Sheesh!

Ciao. Barb


whitehound - Jan 11, 2007 11:03 am (#1258 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 11, 2007 11:10 am

Severus can also mean severe in the sense of "plain" or unadorned - there's a nasty possibility his parents gave him a name which could be read as "ugly".

Since neither Dumbledore nor McGonagall seemed interested in finding out where Harry learned such a dangerous spell, I would take it Snape told them all about Sectumsempra. In fact I've a suspicion DD actually planted the book for Harry to find - possibly without Snape's knowledge.

What I think happened is this. Neither DD nor Snape were expecting Draco to succeed in bringing Death Eaters into the school that night. What DD intended to happen was that his drinking the poison would force Snape's hand - there was no point any longer in Snape refusing to kill him, since he was already dying.

He thought he would have another week or two before Draco launched his final murder attempt, and in that time he would have told both Harry and Minerva that he was dying, and that therefore he had ordered Snape to stage his "murder" in order to ingratiate himself deeper into Voldemort's councils. He wouldn't neccessarily need to tell them about the Unbreakable Vow, or that part of his motivation in drinking the poison and choosing to die was to save Snape's life, and Harry and Minerva would then be Snape's witnesses to stop the Ministry flinging him in jail if they ever caught him.

DD would then have revealed to Snape that Harry had been using his book, and to Harry that Snape was the Half-Blood Prince. This would have shown Snape that Harry was capable of learning what he wished to teach him, if he would only calm down and explain things clearly; and shown Harry that Snape could be quite fun and likeable in his own prickly way.

But Draco's unexpected bout of efficiency blew the whole plan.


wynnleaf - Jan 11, 2007 11:28 am (#1259 of 2959)
It appears to me that Snape had many, many reasons in addition to the Vow for saving Draco, and does not report the incident to anyone else (he just gives Harry detention so he misses the quidditch match) to prevent any sort of investigation. (Madame Librarian)

Harry realizes later that in fact Snape did tell the whole staff what happened. If Snape had anything to hide, I'd imagine he'd at least try to limit who he told about it. Why should he hide his creating that spell? Dumbledore already knows he was a Death Eater, which is far, far worse.

Whitehound, you should check out the Dumbledore's Death, What Really Happened? thread. It's a long thread -- you could look at the first few pages and then the last ones if you're interested.

My own theory, in short, is that several things indicate that Dumbledore did expect an attack that night. In spite of watching the Marauders Map closely, Harry had never seen where Dumbledore placed so many Order members within the castle (on the 7th floor) as he did that night. He even brought in Lupin who had been on his spying mission with the werewolves. Further, Dumbledore made his walk through Hogsmeade obvious as though he wanted it reported back to someone. Snape appears to have been deliberately waiting in his rooms, rather than patrolling the castle with the other Order/staff members. When Flitwick finally alerted Snape, he ran directly without pause to the tower even though neither Flitwick nor anyone else could have told him that is where he'd find Dumbledore and Draco.

I think Snape knew, perhaps through other DE's (not Draco) that they would try to lure DD to the tower. I believe DD expected the attack and planned to link up with Snape before running into Draco. The big "glitch" in Dumbledore's plans was the speed with which the DE's got into the castle. I think DD wanted to get Harry out of the way after returning from the Cave, and intended to send him to get Snape (who would prevent Harry's return), rather than message Snape via Patronus.

When he returned from the Cave, he wanted to send Harry to Snape immediately (rather than the faster Patronus), but saw that the Mark was already up. So they went on to the tower. There DD tried to send Harry to Snape again, but was once again foiled by the speed of the attack and Draco got to the tower first. After that point, DD pulled a long stalling maneuver hoping that Snape (who he knew was in his rooms) would find out about the attack and realize plans were messed up and to come to the tower anyway. This is what happened.

Snape came to the tower, but instead of just finding Dumbledore, he found Draco, several DE's, and probably knew Harry was there, too (2 broomsticks that even Draco noticed). So whatever Dumbledore and Snape had planned was at least partly botched and Snape had to go ahead with the AK, in full view of Draco, DE's, and Harry -- who most especially wasn't supposed to see that.

The "What Really Happened?" thread goes into all sorts of theories of course.


whitehound - Jan 11, 2007 12:17 pm (#1260 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 11, 2007 12:44 pm

Well, DD certainly knew Draco would attack before the end of term, so bringing in extra heavies would be a sensible precaution whether he was expecting an attack that specific night or not.

Snape being in his rooms could just be because Albus told him to stay where he could easily be found, knowing that he and/or Harry might come back injured, and not being sure where he'd land - so he couldn't say "Wait for me on the Tower."

And I don't see anything odd about Snape running straight to the Tower. He probably knew that was where the Dark Mark was - you would expect Filius or a house elf to tell him so.

We know he has sharp ears because he ran through the castle from his bedroom to the screaming Triwizard Egg, and his bedroom seems to be deeper in the dungeons than his office is.

His office is close enough to the Entrance Hall to hear any loud sound there (he hears Trelawney screaming) and the fighting was happening near the entrance to the Astronomy Tower, which we know to be close to the main doors (the parapet around the Tower actually overhangs the main door) and hence close to the head of the main stair. So as soon as he left his office and started up towards the Entrance Hall, he would be able to hear that the fighting was somewhere up the main stair: so he would naturally sprint straight up until he came to the fighting, at the 7th-floor entrance to the Tower.

Then somebody probably pointed him up the stair (the fact that Minerva didn't see anyone do so doesn't prove they didn't - she was in the middle of a battle), or he may just have seen Neville run at the stair and be bounced back, which would tell him that a barrier had been set across the entrance to the stair, which would tell him that was probably where the action was *especially* if Filius had told him there was a Dark Mark over the Tower.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 1261 to 1300

Post  Mona Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:23 am

whitehound - Jan 11, 2007 3:19 pm (#1261 of 2959)
Snape being in his rooms could just be because Albus told him to stay where he could easily be found, knowing that he and/or Harry might come back injured, and not being sure where he'd land - so he couldn't say "Wait for me on the Tower."

Or, in fact, thinking about it, because Albus *expected* to come back via the main doors, which are only a short distance from Snape's office.


wynnleaf - Jan 11, 2007 4:56 pm (#1262 of 2959)
Yes, in most of the theories there's other alternatives for what could explain the various oddities that went on.

I still think that Dumbledore having so many Order members patrolling that night, including Lupin who had said that he was generally "underground" with the werewolves, seems to indicate that Dumbledore expected a much higher likelihood of attack that night. Remember, Harry had been watching the map closely for quite a while and he'd never seen a group of Order members patrolling the halls, much less the 7th floor.

Yet there they were, on Dumbledore's orders, the night he went with Harry to the Cave and the Death Eaters attacked.


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 11, 2007 5:51 pm (#1263 of 2959)
It's wonderfully shamanic, isn't it? I think JK secretly must really love Snape (she did say "I would hesitate to say I love him", which is tantamount to admitting that she does) - whitehound

I thought I was alone in those feelings... did she say that? She's always saying how scary it is that female readers have a thing for him.

Regarding the shamanic thing, it is really powerful that Severus is the only person we've seen using more than frivolous wandless magic. (edit - I know the Sectumsempra scene isn't an example of this but others are)... I have a little theory about that, but to make it short I wouldn't be surprised if Severus is quite accomplished at other wandless spells and that Lily was, too.

Also (whitehound) I second that you should check out the *DD's Death* thread if you already haven't. I don't recall seeing you posting on it. There's a lot of the same stuff you all have been discussing recently here.


whitehound - Jan 11, 2007 7:16 pm (#1264 of 2959)
I thought I was alone in those feelings... did she say that?

She said something like "He's a gift of a character to write - I would hesitate to say I love him...." So she was loving him because he's a gift to write, but at the same time it's hard to imagine her saying that about a seriously nasty character like Bellatrix even though she too is probably a gift to write. Plus she sends Snape a virtual birthday cake every year Smile

She's always saying how scary it is that female readers have a thing for him.

Yes, but she talked about Draco as well and about girls who have a thing for Bad Boys, so I would imagine she was talking about the sort of fans who think Draco or Snape are seriously nasty and yet fancy them that way. Those are the sort of girls who may end up dating a drug dealer in real life.

As for the Dumbledore's Death list I don't think I've got time - I started this Yahoo discussion list called Loose Canon, and even though we've only been going for eight days we're already averaging around 50 posts a day.


T Vrana - Jan 11, 2007 7:55 pm (#1265 of 2959)
Regarding the shamanic thing, it is really powerful that Severus is the only person we've seen using more than frivolous wandless magic.

I don't think it was wandless magic. It says he drew his wand and traced the wound as he recited the incantation.


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 11, 2007 8:15 pm (#1266 of 2959)
T Vrana, if you read the entire post I said I am aware this is not an example of wandless magic. Was that not clear?


Laura W - Jan 12, 2007 1:42 am (#1267 of 2959)
"I think JK secretly must really love Snape (she did say "I would hesitate to say I love him", which is tantamount to admitting that she does)," (whitehound)

What JKR *actually* said in an interview at the Edinburgh Book Festival, Aug. 15, 2004, was: "You always see a lot of Snape, because he is a gift of a character. I hesitate to say that I love him. [Audience member: I do]. You do? This is a very worrying thing. Are you thinking about Alan Rickman or about Snape?"

Anyone want to read what she thinks of Snape, check her many comments about mean teachers given in various print and other media interviews. I'm sure he's fun to write, though.

Or don't. It probably really doesn't matter what Jo thinks of her characters. We all see them through our own eyes, our own experiences, our own sensibilities and our own personal values anyway.

Laura


T Vrana - Jan 12, 2007 6:10 am (#1268 of 2959)
M & M shadow- It wasn't to me! My fault. You mentioned other examples of Snape using wandless magic? When?


journeymom - Jan 12, 2007 10:09 am (#1269 of 2959)
Over on the Discuss the Polls thread Mrs B made an intriguing reference to Kurt Vonnegut's book, Mother Night. It got me thinking.

Mrs B, your reference to "Mother Night" escaped me, as I've never read it. I looked it up on Wikipedia. This line stuck out: "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." I see the parallel you make between Snape and the spy, Campbell.

At the end, "Campbell [tells] us that he will hang himself not for crimes against humanity, but rather for 'crimes against himself.'" You make a really good point here. I'm not sure I can go with it, though. I see a difference between Snape and Campbell that I cannot ignore. Dumbledore tells Harry that Snape was sincerely remorseful about his part in the Potters' deaths. Dumbledore is a credible witness. He implies that Snape has been working to rectify what he can of the situation by spying on LV for him. Time and again we (Harry) are told Dumbledore trusts Snape, therefore we (Harry) should trust Snape.

The difference between Snape and Campbell, as I understand from my limited knowledge of the book, is Snape's choices after his initial 'sin', and Campbell's lack of action. The article does not say Campbell ever -did- anything to make amends. He realized he committed crimes against himself, but so what? Who cares if he can no longer live with himself? Snape may have realized he did the same. He may well have wanted to commit suicide. But instead of removing himself from the situation (suicide), he worked very hard to make amends. Even if he's not remorseful for what he did to the Potters, but is simply sad that he got caught. Remorse is useless unless it is followed up by action.

One more thing, "The real reason was that I was a ham ... I would fool everyone with my brilliant impersonation of a Nazi". Replace “Order of the Phoenix member” for Nazi and Snape says the very same thing to Bellatrix in “Spinners End. A brilliant parallel! The only difference is that Snape may have been lying to Bella.

And to take an even narrower approach this still works if Snape is out for himself. Perhaps it doesn't matter if Snape is currently Dumbledore's Man or His Own Man, if his actions are benefiting the fight against Lord Voldemort. And we simply do not know yet what other consequences of Dumbledore's death will be.

=========================

Mrs B, "Mother Night" is a great analogy. Thanks for introducing it. I may have to check it out from the library.


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 12, 2007 2:20 pm (#1270 of 2959)
Laura W, that's how I thought JKR felt about Severus, that she loves forming/writing him but thinks those of us who *have feelings* for him are barking. I agree with whitehound's assessment in that I feel there are two types who have a *thing* for Draco/Severus: a)those who really like bad guys either because they like evil guys or because they want to *fix* the guy; or, b) in the case of Severus (and possibly Draco) they're appealing because we believe they are *fixing* themselves. Redemption is sexy (can I use that word here? Oh well, just did.)

T Vrana, (excuse no exact quote, only book I own is HBP and currently have CoS from library) in PS there is canon of Severus using wandless magic during the Quidditch match. I wrote in my notes that Hermione commented, "You've got to keep eye contact and Snape wasn't blinking." This comment got me thinking about *eye magic* and how JKR was asked about Lily's eyes and Harry's eyes used for magic. I'm sure she could be alluding to Legilimency, I'm always speculating and could just be acting Luna-ish again, but here's the quote.

Now, can I ask you: are there any special wizarding powers in your world that depend on the wizard using their eyes to do something? Bit like ...

Why do you want to know this?

I just vaguely wondered.

Why?

Well because everyone always goes on about how Harry's got Lily Potter's eyes.

Aren’t you smart? There is something, maybe, coming about that. I’m going to say no more, very clever.

I suppose it is possible that JKR has a category for incantations without a wand and that they are not technically *spells*. However, I haven't heard or seen this delineation so far, so until I do, I consider the PS example to be a quite involved wandless spell or counter-curse. There are other examples not of Severus, like Quirrell with the ropes (I think), but I think that's more simple conjuring. Any thoughts?

~edited for clarity


journeymom - Jan 12, 2007 3:40 pm (#1271 of 2959)
Me and my, was Jo's above quote before or after OP was published? Because that's when Legilimency and Occlumency are introduced, both rather unusual magic that require eye contact.


T Vrana - Jan 12, 2007 6:38 pm (#1272 of 2959)
Do we know that Snape did not have his wand in his hand, but hidden from view? (similar to Shacklebolt's hexing of Marietta). It would have been too obvious for Quirrel to raise and point his wand at Harry, and for Jo's purposes of 'tricking' us, for Snape to do the same. I'm not sure we can say for sure that Snape was doing wandless magic.


me and my shadow 813 - Jan 12, 2007 8:21 pm (#1273 of 2959)
I'm not sure we can say for sure that Snape was doing wandless magic.


T Vrana - no, obviously we cannot and I am not saying for sure. There's no way of knowing whether or not Severus had his wand pointed at Harry at the time of the counter-curse during the Quidditch match during PS. It was not stated. I am inferring from Hermione's comment that "you've got to keep eye contact" that it is not a "normal" wand-conjured spell. There has been wandless magic used during the six books. I wonder if, as I mentioned, it is conjuring that is in a category unto itself, if there is a magic that is wandless, that isn't dark but using a remote power.

journeymom, yes the Q&A with JKR was done prior to OoP so it is possible she alluded to Legilimency.


Mrs Brisbee - Jan 13, 2007 8:43 am (#1274 of 2959)
journeymom, I'm glad you found the Mother Night analogy interesting. I sort of threw it out in passing, to explain my vote in the poll, but I didn't elaborate. I'm impressed you made such an effort to find out more about what I was alluding to. I have a bad habit of not explaining how something I mention relates to the matter at hand

At the end, "Campbell [tells] us that he will hang himself not for crimes against humanity, but rather for 'crimes against himself.'" You make a really good point here. I'm not sure I can go with it, though. I see a difference between Snape and Campbell that I cannot ignore. Dumbledore tells Harry that Snape was sincerely remorseful about his part in the Potters' deaths. Dumbledore is a credible witness. He implies that Snape has been working to rectify what he can of the situation by spying on LV for him. Time and again we (Harry) are told Dumbledore trusts Snape, therefore we (Harry) should trust Snape.

I agree that Dumbledore is a credible witness, and his trust in Snape is one of the very, very few things that leaves an iota of doubt in my mind about Snape's guilt. But as far as the trial went, Dumbledore is dead, he never told us why he trusts Snape, he can't be called as a witness to elaborate, and he was killed by the very man in whom he proclaimed his trust. Those are very good reasons to doubt that Snape is trustworthy.


whitehound - Jan 13, 2007 3:06 pm (#1275 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 13, 2007 3:15 pm

But as far as the trial went, Dumbledore is dead, he never told us why he trusts Snape, he can't be called as a witness to elaborate, and he was killed by the very man in whom he proclaimed his trust. Those are very good reasons to doubt that Snape is trustworthy.

But the belief that Snape is untrustworthy rests almost exclusively on the fact that he killed Albus.

Albus certainly seems to know about at least part of Snape's Unbreakable Vow, and he probably knows the whole of it (if Snape was secretly keeping the option of killing Albus to save himself open, there seems no reason why he should have forewarned him by telling him about *any* of it).

Now, forget about Snape and consider what we know about Albus. Is it likely, from what we've seen of Albus, that he would say to a man 115 years his junior "I'm sorry, my boy, but it was your mistake so you're just going to have to die for me"? There might be military reasons why he might some day have to send Snape on a suicide mission, but given a straight choice between Snape's life and his, does anyone think Albus would choose to live at Snape's expense? Especially just after telling Harry that he, Albus, was in effect expendable.

Then, just suppose Albus doesn't know about the Vow. Even if he doesn't know that Snape will die if he, Albus, doesn't, he knows that he, Albus, is disarmed and not fit to fight. Harry is frozen, unable either to fight or to take cover from a fight. No one knows which side Draco would fight on, but he probably wouldn't side *against* the Death Eaters - so if Snape tried to save Albus the odds would be, at best, Snape alone against four DEs: at worst, Snape alone against five, if Draco sided with Greyback and co..

Snape may be a good fighter, but Albus surely couldn't expect him to take down four or five enemies unaided, in a confined space with no cover. Albus must know, if he has any military sense at all, that if Snape tries to save him it is virtually certain that the result will be himself, Snape, Harry and possibly Draco all dead and Greyback loose in the school. Again, does anybody really think Albus would choose that option?

Everything we know about Albus says that he would choose to die, to protect the school, to protect Harry and Draco and to protect Snape. And since we can be certain that Albus wanted Snape to kill him, there's no reason to think Snape is untrustworthy.


Thom Matheson - Jan 13, 2007 4:00 pm (#1276 of 2959)
Or, Snape murdered him as written.


whitehound - Jan 13, 2007 4:52 pm (#1277 of 2959)
Or, Snape murdered him as written.

But in that case, we have to assume Albus was either vicious or an idiot - because in the position Albus was in, only somebody monstrously selfish or completely stupid could want anything *but* for Snape to kill him, because the alternative was Harry's death and Greyback loose in the school, killing and eating children ad lib. Once Draco had disarmed Albus, and the Death Eaters had got to the tower ahead of Snape, there was no possible way for Snape to save Albus (unless they *faked* his death, which is possible but unlikely, given what JK said in New York).

And you still haven't answered the question, why aren't you baying for Harry's blood? Harry fed Albus poison which was probably fatal, because Albus told him to - which is no different from what Snape did. Albus wouldn't have *been* weak and disarmed and unable to save himself if Harry hadn't obeyed him and, in effect, killed him.


Catherine - Jan 13, 2007 5:10 pm (#1278 of 2959)
But the belief that Snape is untrustworthy rests almost exclusively on the fact that he killed Albus.

Actually, there are JKR fans who believe that Snape is unworthy based upon more than Whitehound's above statement.


TomProffitt - Jan 13, 2007 5:11 pm (#1279 of 2959)
"But the belief that Snape is untrustworthy rests almost exclusively on the fact that he killed Albus." --- whitehound

I don't think that this is the case. Those of us who don't trust Snape(at least for me, although I think others would agree) our distrust comes from his less than exemplary personality.

I have thought that over the previous five-and-a-half books that if Severus had something that he had to do that he couldn't avoid (whether we're talking about treating people with respect, backing up Dumbledore, or fighting bad guys) he's done the right thing.

And during that same period when he could abuse people he disliked (Harry, Ron, Hermione, Neville, Sirius, and Hagrid for example) and get away with it, you could pretty much count on him to do that, too.

A lot of unexplained things happened on that Tower the night Dumbledore died. I personally don't know what happened and will give Severus the benefit of the doubt until I read DH. On the other hand Severus was in a position where he finally had to choose between Dumbledore and Riddle, something he may have been evading for fifteen years. Which side did he choose? I see good reasons for people picking either answer, and none of them rest on the Avada Kedavra that may or may not have slain Albus Dumbledore.


whitehound - Jan 13, 2007 6:10 pm (#1280 of 2959)
if Severus had something that he had to do that he couldn't avoid (whether we're talking about treating people with respect, backing up Dumbledore, or fighting bad guys) he's done the right thing.

He's also done the right thing when he *could* avoid it, though. Nobody but him had noticed Quirrel hexing Harry off his broom, and if he had chosen not to act no-one would have blamed him, because nobody knew he'd even noticed it. Nobody asked or required him to make hismelf unpopular with his colleagues by insisting on refereeing the match - so he could protect Harry.

Nobody asked him to sprint through the school in his nightshirt because he heard screaming, and nobody would have been any the wiser if he'd rolled over and gone back to sleep. Nobody but him knew that he'd seen Lupin go down that tunnel, and nobody would have known if he'd delayed to call for a Dementor, and left the children in danger. Nobody would have known if he'd waited to find out what was happening, and whether it was likely to kill *him*, before tearing through that bathroom door when somebody screamed "Murder!"

Most of what we've seen of him suggests he always or nearly always does the right thing whether he's forced to or not - and them moans about it, of course, because he's a great moaner.


Thom Matheson - Jan 13, 2007 7:10 pm (#1281 of 2959)
Whitehound, I can appreciate that you are obviously quite passionate about this, but you seem to be leaning toward Snape being the victim here. Perhaps I have misinterpreted your postings but I don't see it at all. Had Draco not gotten cold feet, Snape wouldn't have even made it to the tower. I do not think that the scene was staged for this outcome, it just happened. You discuss military tactics as if Dumbledore created this choice, and I must disagree. If anything Snape should have given himself up instead. What did Sirius say to Wormtail about James?

Snape can never go back to Hogwarts, he can never be a spy, and he will be on the run for the rest of his life. What was that for? Have we ever seen a Slytherin not look out for themselves? There is nothing yet published that supports a Dumbledore Snape conspiracy. But if the final battle were to take place anywhere near Hogwarts I would rather have both DD and Snape involved. This way we have neither. If that was the "plan", it was poor at best.

You mention the green potion(poison) that Harry gave Dumbledore. We don't even know what that was. Someone else got there first and drank it(presumably) to get the real locket out. Was it replaced by something else? Your point, I think is that Harry acted on Dumbledore's orders to drink it. But where does it say anywhere that Dumbledore said Severus kill me? It could just as easily mean Severus DON'T kill me. The potion made DD weak, no doubt, but dead? I'm just not so sure about that.

Snape is not a victim here, he just made a choice, albiet, a dumb one in my estimation. Now, if his intention is to stand next to the Dark Lord, well there you go, he is most certainly out of the closet now.


TomProffitt - Jan 13, 2007 7:46 pm (#1282 of 2959)
whitehound, I disagree again with your evaluation of examples when Severus could have avoided doing the right thing:

First, he saved Harry from Quirrel because of his life-debt as Dumbledore told us, not because he wished to do the right thing, he felt an obligation.

Second, he was out on the night Harry's egg was screaming because he was trying to find the thief who had been in his Potion supplies, he as much as told us in canon that he assumed the screaming would lead him to the thief (and it did).

Third, he wasn't going down the tunnel to save the children, he was on the way down the tunnel to get revenge.

And fourth, one would presume (I haven't checked the book) that students would have known if he was not taking action when Myrtle began screaming about Draco's injuries, and as far as he knew it was risk free to aid the student or students in trouble. Or possibly with his Vow he couldn't afford not to investigate.

What I am not saying is that Snape would intentionally avoid doing the right thing. What I am saying is that he intentionally chooses to bully those he dislikes when he can get away with it. That shows that he knows perfectly well what he can and cannot get away with. If it were only the matter of a bad temper we would see him losing that temper with his peers in front of Dumbledore (like Filch). The fact that that hasn't happened is to me more damning than what he has done to Harry (et al); it shows that he is in control of himself and knows what he can and cannot do. Not a good sign.


whitehound - Jan 13, 2007 7:56 pm (#1283 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 13, 2007 8:15 pm

Had Draco not gotten cold feet, Snape wouldn't have even made it to the tower.

And then Snape would have had a choice whether to stick close to the DEs or stay close to the Order: but since Draco *did* get cold feet Snape was stuck with the "kill Albus or die" of the Vow.

You discuss military tactics as if Dumbledore created this choice, and I must disagree.

But a good tactician must adapt fast to changes in the situation. Whoever set it up, Albus was *in* a situation in which there was no way in which he could be saved. Once they'd all arrived on that tower the options were these:

1) Snape kills Albus and then shepherds Greyback and the other DEs out of the school with as little collateral damage as possible.

2) Snape tries to save Albus. Snape is killed, either by the Vow or by the DEs. With no Snape to fight for them, Albus and Harry are both killed by the DEs - quite possibly, slowly eaten alive by Greyback. Greyback runs loose though the school, killing whom he can.

It would have been a different matter if Snape had got there before the DEs - but he didn't, and he didn't because Albus had told him to stay in his office and wait to be called.

If anything Snape should have given himself up instead.

But what good would that have done? The DEs wouldn't have taken him *instead* of Albus - they'd have taken him as well as!

Snape can never go back to Hogwarts, he can never be a spy,

Of course he can - all he needs is access to an owl, or even to send a Patronus messenger, and he can continue to report to the Order. They can't shoot at him from hundreds of miles away - and eventually they'll realise that his helpful tips are accurate.

He can also cosy up to Voldie and find and destroy the Horcruxes himself, of course.

and he will be on the run for the rest of his life.

Which, if true, will be a very horrible sacrifice which he has made because Albus asked him to.

What was that for?

To save Harry, so Harry could take Voldie down. Harry was frozen and helpless in the middle of all the lines of fire: if Snape had tried to save Albus up there on the tower, Harry would be dead and Voldie would rule for all eternity.

Have we ever seen a Slytherin not look out for themselves?

Absolutely. Draco is doing something he really doesn't want to do and which puts him in danger, and he's doing it to save his parents. Bellatrix, mad bint though she is, truly loves Tom Riddle and went through thirteen years in Azkaban for his sake. Narcissa risks the Dark Lord's displeasure to save her son.

The only reason people think Slytherins always look out for themselves is because Phineas says so - but who says Phineas is honest?

There is nothing yet published that supports a Dumbledore Snape conspiracy.

What were Snape and Albus arguing about, if not that? Hagrid heard Snape vehemently refusing to do something, and Albus telling him he'd promised to do it and that was that - which sounds like a reference to the Vow.

But if the final battle were to take place anywhere near Hogwarts I would rather have both DD and Snape involved. This way we have neither. If that was the "plan", it was poor at best.

Albus had a withered hand which wasn't getting any better, so he wasn't going to be up to much in a fight even if the necrosis didn't spread and kill him. This way, they can still have Snape - in fact they can *guarantee* to have Snape, because if Voldie thinks Snape is his best agent he will take him with him into battle. That way, even if Voldie thinks he's staging a surprize attack and getting Harry on his own without any Order members to protect him, Snape will be right there ready to shoot Voldie in the back when he least expects it.

You mention the green potion(poison) that Harry gave Dumbledore. We don't even know what that was.

No, but Albus assumed it was a slow-acting poison - something which would kill, but not immediately. Whether he was right or wrong that's what he thought it was, that's what he said it was, that's what he told Harry to feed to him and that's what Harry *did* feed to him.

Someone else got there first and drank it(presumably) to get the real locket out.

The usual theory is that Regulus got Kreacher to drink it and Kreacher survived, because house elves are harder to kill than humans, but he was driven mad by it.

But where does it say anywhere that Dumbledore said Severus kill me? It could just as easily mean Severus DON'T kill me.

Does Albus strike you as someone who would beg for his life? It's possible he was begging Snape not to go over to the Dark, but if he knew about the Vow - and he certainly seems to have done - well, think about it this way.

You've got an icon showing a little boy (apologies if it's a girl!) - your son, I'm guessing. If your son was grown up, and you were in a war, and a situation arose where one of you had to die - would you beg him to commit suicide and save you, or would you beg him to kill you and save himself?

Of course, Snape isn't actually Albus's son but he's probably the nearest thing Albus has to a son, aside from Harry - they're friends and colleagues and Albus has known Snape since he was eleven. And asking Snape to save him and die would almost certainly have killed Harry too, so that would mean Albus would have sacrificed *both* his "sons" to save himself.

Snape is not a victim here, he just made a choice, albiet, a dumb one in my estimation.

Absolutely, but the dumb choice he made was when he thought that by making an Unbreakable Vow without even knowing what he was swearing to he could get Bella and Cissy to tell him what the Dark Lord was up to. Once he'd done that, and Bella had painted him into a corner, he and Albus were stuck with it.

Now, if his intention is to stand next to the Dark Lord, well there you go, he is most certainly out of the closet now.

His intention, I'm sure, is to stand next to the Dark Lord just as closely as possible, in order to be ready to off him as soon as Harry destroys the Horcruxes. And that was what Albus intended: he sacrificed himself in order to advance his bishop (Harry) and his castle (Snape) across the board, the same way Ron did in the first book. Remember, JK has said that the first book is a model of the whole series, and that's pretty much the last thing before the final confrontation, in the first book: the chess-master knowingly sacrificing himself in order to win the game.


Thom Matheson - Jan 13, 2007 8:31 pm (#1284 of 2959)
Whitehound, Your rebuttal is great. Point by point you have made it fit. I just don't agree. We have seen Dumbledore take on 5 death eaters in the MoM and rope them all with one spell. We watched him fight off 4 others in his office. I am sure that Snape has much the same abilities. We don't know what would have happened were Snape to turn on the DE. Harry wasn't even around sort of by being under the cloak.

AS I reread the scene that paragraph keeps jumping out at me. "Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face". That doesn't sound like a team oriented, fall on your sword kind of act to me.


whitehound - Jan 13, 2007 8:58 pm (#1285 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 13, 2007 8:59 pm

Whitehound, Your rebuttal is great. Point by point you have made it fit. I just don't agree. We have seen Dumbledore take on 5 death eaters in the MoM and rope them all with one spell. We watched him fight off 4 others in his office. I am sure that Snape has much the same abilities.

Oh c'mon. We've been told I don't know how many times that DD is (or was) the most powerful wizard alive - in fact I think somebody said he was the most powerful since Merlin. Snape's not bad, but he didn't manage to take down the Marauders when they came at him mob-handed, and in PoA three 13-14-year-olds were able to throw him into a wall and knock him out for almost an hour. He's good, but he's not even vaguely in DD's league. His chances of taking down four DEs when he didn't even have any cover would be tiny.

We don't know what would have happened were Snape to turn on the DE. Harry wasn't even around sort of by being under the cloak.

Harry was stuck, frozen, quite close to the door out of the tower, and therefore close to where the DEs were standing. And the Cloak doesn't protect you from being hexed or hurt - only from being seen. Snape wouldn't *dare* fire on the DEs because Harry was right near them, and the chances were good that if he fired he'd kill Harry.

AS I reread the scene that paragraph keeps jumping out at me. "Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face". That doesn't sound like a team oriented, fall on your sword kind of act to me.

Oh, I'm sure he was very angry with Albus for forcing him to kill him after he'd told the old man he wouldn't do it (as Hagrid overheard), and very revolted by what he was about to have to do.

Plus, of course, we only have Harry's interpretation of Snape's expression and Harry's never been good at understanding Snape. When Snape saw Harry's memory of Cedric's death Harry thought Snape was angry with him because he went so white, when it was clear in context that Snape was angry about Cedric being killed. Harry also kept on and on thinking that Snape was angry with him, that Snape would punish him, every time he scored a hit on Snape during the Occlumency lessons - and in fact Snape just praised him for a job well done, and only got angry when he found Harry hadn't been practising. So, clearly, Harry isn't good at reading Snape's expression.

If Snape was a loyal servant of Voldemort why would he stop, in the middle of fleeing for his life, and give Harry a last quick DADA lesson on how to cast non-verbal spells?


whitehound - Jan 13, 2007 9:02 pm (#1286 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 13, 2007 9:12 pm

Oh, yes, plus, of course, we don't know quite how the Unbreakable Vow works but there was a good chance that if Snape even *tried* to defend DD instead of killing him he would, quite simply, drop dead. If that happened at least Harry wouldn't be killed in the fighting that wouldn't now have to happen: but Albus would still be killed by the DEs, probably slowly and horribly, and Greyback would still be loose in the school.


MickeyCee3948 - Jan 13, 2007 9:35 pm (#1287 of 2959)
whitehound-I must say that I do not often agree with your posts. But tonight you have been right on in my opinion. I also believe that Snape was put into a situation where he had no "reasonable" alternative. I just posted on the "What really happened to DD" thread almost the same sentiments. Only I also expoused how DD might eventually be able to save Snape from "being on the run for the rest of his life"

If he has saved a memory for Harry or the MOM either in his pensieve or one of his little bottles then possibly he can show Harry why he truly trusted and belived in Snape. He could also reveal the plan that I believe he and Snape had worked out to assist Harry in his quest. Of course none of this could come out until AFTER Harry has offed the Dark Lord. Would be a really good ending showing Harry where he had erred in his judgement of Snape.

Mickey


whitehound - Jan 13, 2007 9:48 pm (#1288 of 2959)
I really hope he has managed to leave a memory or a letter or something: the worry is that Draco pushed things forward faster than DD expected and he might not have had time to. But I'm fairly sure Snape and Harry will end up being reconciled in a way that they can both survive.


Laura W - Jan 14, 2007 1:11 am (#1289 of 2959)
This whole thing about how some people need for Harry to see what a great guy Severus Snape is in order for the WW to be saved is a very interesting angle for me. And not one I particularly buy.

As a great believer in truth, I want for the truth - regarding everything - to be revealed to everyone (ie - us and the characters) in DH. I am confident it will be. If Dumbledore's faith in Snape is justified (which I believe it is) because Snape has been working for Dumbledore at great risk to himself, I want Harry to find that out. Then Harry can say, "I was wrong about Snape still being a Death Eater. I should have trusted DD's judgement more." This does not, however, mean Harry forgiving Snape for the terrible, rotten human being he was in how he treated the children in his care. There is a big difference between an honest, fair recognition that somebody is working for the good side - and that you were wrong about thinking they were working for the bad side -, and forgiving them for their totally-unacceptable (to put it mildly) behavior in everyday life.

On the surface, it really looks like Snape killed Dumbledore on that Tower. The book says that Severus "raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore. 'Avada Kedavra!' A jet of green light shot from the end of Snape's wand and hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest." That is fact. The spoken "Avada Kedavra," the green light we know is associated with an AK, "hit Dumbledore squarely in the chest." Of course, there is a lot we do not yet know; was DD already dying, had he prearranged for Snape to kill him (for any number of reasons) even though Snape did not want to, etc., etc. But we do know exactly what happened, because Jo showed it to us. This is what Harry saw too. If it turns out that Snape did *not* kill Dumbledore, I want Harry to find out that truth too in DH.

For me, "reconciling" with Snape in Book Seven has to take the form of Harry learning the whole totally exposed truth about Severus Snape and, if Harry has been wrong about his teacher on any count, acknowledging where he has been in error. That would be important for me! Forgiveness for that which does not deserve to be forgiven, however, is not something I would like to see. Nor something I believe is necessary to defeat Voldemort.

I really think one of the many things Jo is telling us in these books is that you will not always like everyone who is on your side of a cause, issue, political or religious ideology, etc. Nor do you have to. Nor should you, in some cases. We chose our sides for many different reasons; and each group, organization or club is still made up of individuals. There is an old saying about politics making strange bedfellows and, if Snape is aligned with the Order, that just proves it. (grin)

I don't see Snape ever forgiving James Potter. We may even find out that whatever James *really* did to Severus is not deserving of forgiveness (even though DD calls James "noble" and "a good man"). After learning the whole truth about everything concerning Snape in DH, Harry can - and should - acknowledge that which Snape did which was right and good ... while not forgetting or sweeping under the rug what Snape did that was cruel or wrong. Because, for some of us, his wrongs are very wrong.

If, at the end of DH, Harry and Severus fall into each other's arms or Harry gives a eulogy at Snape's funeral saying how great and noble a wizard the Potions Master really was, I think I shall throw DH out in disgust.

And, just for the record, I agree with the majority of what TomProffitt wrote in post #1282.

Laura


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 2:42 am (#1290 of 2959)
For me, "reconciling" with Snape in Book Seven has to take the form of Harry learning the whole totally exposed truth about Severus Snape and, if Harry has been wrong about his teacher on any count, acknowledging where he has been in error. That would be important for me! Forgiveness for that which does not deserve to be forgiven, however, is not something I would like to see. Nor something I believe is necessary to defeat Voldemort. (Laura)

Whatever Snape did not do, which Harry mistakenly thinks he did do, does not need Harry's forgiveness, but only Harry's understanding of the truth. For instance, if Snape did not betray Dumbledore, Harry doesn't need to "forgive" him betraying Dumbledore. Similarly, if Harry ever sees that Snape did not kill Sirius, or even share a blame in his death, Harry would realize he doesn't need to "forgive" Snape for Sirius' dying.

If I owe a debt and the person I owe forgives it, they are forgiving something I actually owe. If it is discovered that I did not incur the debt, they have nothing to forgive me for. So I don't ultimately think -- in a technical sense -- Harry can so much "forgive" Snape for Sirius' death or for betraying Dumbledore, as he needs to accept that Snape did not do those things in the first place.

One does not forgive a debt that has been paid, but one that is not paid. If Harry forgives Snape for anything, it will be for things Snape has actually done, otherwise it is hardly forgiveness.

As to whether or not Harry will "forgive" Snape, JKR had Harry think at the end of OOTP that no matter what, he would never forgive Snape. I believe she set that line up to beg to be disproven -- not to foreshadow Harry never forgiving Snape.

What exactly would he forgive Snape for? Things he did not do, such as affect Sirius' death or betray Dumbledore? Or things he actually did?


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 4:03 am (#1291 of 2959)
There is a big difference between an honest, fair recognition that somebody is working for the good side - and that you were wrong about thinking they were working for the bad side -, and forgiving them for their totally-unacceptable (to put it mildly) behavior in everyday life. (Laura)

To be as clear as possible, what I felt you were saying, Laura, is that you want Harry to see the truth, including the truth of where Snape was not at fault. But you seemed to be saying that you don't really want Harry to forgive Snape for things Snape has actually done that are wrong.

Accepting that a person did not do a particular thing wrong in the first place, and therefore does not need one's forgiveness for the thing they didn't do, is not the same as forgiveness.

Therefore, the net result of your comments, as I see it, is that you do not think Harry should forgive Snape, only accept that there may be some areas where Snape is not in fact guilty.


Anna L. Black - Jan 14, 2007 4:44 am (#1292 of 2959)
wynnleaf, I interpreted Laura's comments differently. If I were to summarize the last three posts (1289-1291), Snape, as Harry will come to see it, has done things that can be divided into three (very broad and general) categories (assuming that Snape is on Harry's side, of course):

1. Things and actions that Harry will forgive Snape for doing, as he will come to realize that they were done for the benefit of the good side.
2. Things that Harry sees as Snape's fault, when they actually weren't (such as your example - Sirius's death was not entirely Snape's fault, and Harry puts far too much blame on him).
3. Things that Snape did to Harry that have nothing to do with his loyalties - his general discriminating treatment of Harry over the years (I know there were and are a lot of debates over the smaller incidents that may or may not demonstrate it - all those detentions or points taken...).

Now, I feel that Laura addressed the difference between #1 and #3 - Harry should forgive Snape for the former, but there's no reason why he should forgive for the latter. I think you (wynnleaf) were talking more about the difference between #1 and #2. But I might be wrong, of course

I'm not sure I was able to express myself very clearly


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 4:51 am (#1293 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 14, 2007 4:59 am

there's no reason why he should forgive for the latter

Which seems to fly in the face of all Albus's pronouncements about Harry embodying love, of course. I would have thought that means Harry *will* forgive Snape for being overbearing, prejudiced etc. That's not the same as saying they have to like each other - although Harry's affection for the boy in the book suggests they could do.

And, after all, Harry seemed to have no problems with forgiving Lupin for putting his life in extreme danger for nearly a year, rather than risk losing a little face with Albus.

Really, I think Harry's extreme reaction to Snape is just because he is projecting his feelings about Vernon onto him (with any luck, we'll get to see Harry "forgive" Petunia and Dudley too - and tell Vernon and Marge to take a running jump). But although Snape is rude and hostile to Harry he, unlike Vernon, puts himself out to keep Harry safe.


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 5:04 am (#1294 of 2959)
Oh, yeah, another thing. There are several places where Snape speaks as if he thinks Harry is arrogant, Dark etc. and he specifically tells Bella and Cissy that many people thought Harry could be the next Dark Lord. I suspect Snape's hostility to Harry is partly because, as a Legilimens, he can feel Harry's mental connection to Tom Riddle but doesn't realize what it is he's sensing - he just thinks that darkness and hatred is part of Harry's nature.

In which case, his hostility to Harry would be another thing requiring understanding rather than forgiveness.


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 5:05 am (#1295 of 2959)
Things and actions that Harry will forgive Snape for doing, as he will come to realize that they were done for the benefit of the good side.

Anna, the problem with this is that I cannot see why Harry will need to "forgive" Snape for doing something to benefit the good side. Harry hates Snape now for AKing Dumbledore, but if he learns that Snape's action of AKing Dumbledore was done at Dumbledore's orders to save the lives of Harry and Draco, as well as protect the school, and is ultimately little different from Harry's obeying Dumbledore's orders to pour the Cave potions down Dumbledore's throat -- why does Harry need to forgive him?

Harry would certainly need to accept that Snape's action was not what he thought it -- that instead of the worst betrayal, it was instead indicative of complete commitment to DD's cause. But once he accepted that, what is left to "forgive?"

My point is that if Harry comes to accept certain of Snape's actions as completely different from what he originally thought, then those actions no longer require forgiveness.

The forgiveness is needed for wrongs not for rights.

In which case, his hostility to Harry would be another thing requiring understanding rather than forgiveness. (whitehound)

I disagree with this. Suppose it was discovered (and this is a new and fascinating idea, whitehound), that part of Snape's animosity toward Harry was a result of Harry being a horcrux, or something else related to the connection between Harry and Voldemort, and Snape's connection to LV through the Dark Mark. This would explain, in part (or perhaps completely) Snape's actions toward Harry -- but it would not negate the fact that Harry had been harmed by it.

So because Harry had in fact been harmed by Snape, for whatever reason, he would still have something to forgive.

It is where Snape actually did things to benefit the good side (if such was AKing DD), that he does not need forgiveness.


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 5:20 am (#1296 of 2959)
I suppose it depends how you define forgiveness. I wouldn't myself really feel a need to forgive, as such, somebody who had done me harm whilst labouring under a genuine misapprehension. OTOH JK *does* use the word "forgive" in relation to Sirius and Remus each having thought the other was a traitor, which is a similar sort of situation: each of them acted on good evidence which in fact was wrong.

But since Snape's attitude to Harry would have been justified had he been the junior Dark Lord Snape possibly thought he was, what Harry would be forgiving Snape for would mainly be for jumping to conclusions, rather than for how he reacted to those conclusions.


Laura W - Jan 14, 2007 5:20 am (#1297 of 2959)
wynnleaf wrote in post #1291 ---

"To be as clear as possible, what I felt you were saying, Laura, is that you want Harry to see the truth, including the truth of where Snape was not at fault. But you seemed to be saying that you don't really want Harry to forgive Snape for things Snape has actually done that are wrong." (w)

You've got it. Going one step further, I do not feel Harry's forgiveness of Snape is *necessary* for things to work out for the good at the end of DH, as several people on the Forum have said it is.

"Accepting that a person did not do a particular thing wrong in the first place, and therefore does not need one's forgiveness for the thing they didn't do, is not the same as forgiveness." (w)

It certainly is not.

Dumbledore told Harry that Snape alerted the Order to the fact that Potter et al were going to the MOM. He also told Harry that Snape told Sirius to stay home. I believe Dumbledore. Snape is not responsible for Sirius going to the MOM and subsequently getting killed. This does not, however, mean that Snape did not continuously mock Sirius to his face over the summer of 1995 about the fact that he was staying "safe" in 12GP while the other Order members were out there facing danger. He did. Harry's assessment of Snape's treatment of Sirius was correct. His conclusion that this taunting brought Sirius out into the open, causing his death *was not*. I believe Dumbledore on this. Besides, I know how Black felt about Harry.

Now, if in DH, Harry finally realizes that Snape did exactly as DD said and was not at all responsible for the loss of his godfather, of course there is nothing for Harry to forgive. What *I* would have him do is acknowledge what Snape actually did and that he (Harry) came to the wrong conclusions in this particular case.

"Therefore, the net result of your comments, as I see it, is that you do not think Harry should forgive Snape, only accept that there may be some areas where Snape is not in fact guilty." (w)

If it is proven to Harry in Book Seven that some areas where Harry thought Snape was guilty, Snape was not in fact guilty, the decent thing would be for Harry to acknowledge this and see where he was in error about Snape in those particular instances.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I still see where there are plenty of places in the six books where Snape should get down on his knees and beg Harry's forgiveness (including treating Harry horribly because Snape cannot let go of his grudge against the Mauraders and move on with his life; what he did to Lupin; killing Dumbledore, *whatever* the circumstances behind it, and probably a few other things I have forgotten). I never expect him to do so. I actually don't want him to. (It wouldn't be in character for Severus to, in my opinion.) But, if he does, I don't think it would be necessary or realistic for Harry to say, "I now know you are really and truly on our side, so everything you have done and said to me and my friends and my family (including his "family" Sirius Black) is all right with me!" That is a scenario I hope I never have to read!!

I honestly believe that Snape can either be outed as a loyal Death Eater or can be shown to be so devoted to DD that he saves Harry from LV when it comes to the final showdown, with the result being Harry Potter vanquishing the Dark Lord. Either of the two delicious possibilities I outlined above would be fine with me. What I am disputing - since I have read it over and over again on the Forum - is that Harry has to forgive (or make-up with, or reconcile with, or be on the side of) Snape in order for things to turn out well in the end.

I wasn't so sure in your post 1290, but the wording of your post 1291 has convinced me you understand *exactly* what I was saying in 1289, wynnleaf.

Laura


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 5:38 am (#1298 of 2959)
"I now know you are really and truly on our side, so everything you have done and said to me and my friends and my family (including his "family" Sirius Black) is all right with me!"

But this is not forgiveness. Sometimes victims of even terrible crimes realize that they cannot move forward with their lives until they forgive the perpetrator of that crime. I realize not all people can or will do this. But for those that do, it is not that they are saying "all is right by me!"

What forgiveness actually is can certainly be debated, but one thing it is not is "I'm okay with everything you did."

I found this Wikipedia comment possibly helpful to this discussion, as it is a non-religious explanation. Obviously, since forgiveness has many facets, it isn't the only way to define forgiveness.

Forgiveness is the mental and/or spiritual process of ceasing to feel resentment or anger against another person for a perceived offence, difference or mistake, or ceasing to demand punishment or restitution[citation needed]. Forgiveness may be considered simply in terms of the feelings of the person who forgives, or in terms of the relationship between the forgiver and the person forgiven. In some contexts, it may be granted without any expectation of compensation, and without any response on the part of the offender (for example, one may forgive a person who is dead). In practical terms, it may be necessary for the offender to offer some form of apology or restitution, or even just ask for forgiveness, in order for the wronged person to believe they are able to forgive.

Whitehound, I personally agree with you, but realize that there are many who, if personally harmed, would still find it necessary to forgive the one who harmed them, regardless of intent or causes.

Let me amend that, whitehound. There are probably things I'd still need to forgive, even if it wasn't truly the other person's fault.


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 5:39 am (#1299 of 2959)
This does not, however, mean that Snape did not continuously mock Sirius to his face over the summer of 1995

In fact, we are clearly shown that Snape behaves towards Sirius exactly as Harry behaves towards Dudley (including trying to save him, in the end), and for exactly the same reasons. All you can really say against Snape is that he's 20 years older than Harry and really should have been a bit more mature than him.

And don't forget that the very first time Snape and Sirius met after Sirius's imprisonment, Snape stood under the Invisibility Cloak and listened to Sirius boasting about how he nearly murdered him, and saying that he had deserved it: deserved to die, presumably, or at least that's how Snape would understand it. They both act childishly but there is no doubt whatsoever that as far as their adult hostility goes, Sirius started it, and made no attempt to end it either.

(including treating Harry horribly because Snape cannot let go of his grudge against the Mauraders and move on with his life, and what he did to Lupin).

If you were a teacher at a school where you knew that one of the other teachers was a pathologically violent and dangerous schizophrenic, and you'd been told that they were safe because they were on medication, and then you found out that they'd stopped taking their medication and had narrowly been headed off from killing three students, would you just shrug and leave them to it, or would you decide it was time to blow the whistle and warn people what was going on before somebody died?

Lupin had spent an entire year risking Harry's life just to save face, and had just proved that he was an immediate danger to the students - as he himself admitted - although the blame for that part lay partly with Albus's inadequate security arrangements. And Snape was doing the same thing he did in PS over refereeing the match: knowingly making himself unpopular and inviting scorn and blame, in order to protect the children under his care.


TomProffitt - Jan 14, 2007 6:12 am (#1300 of 2959)
"And Snape was doing the same thing he did in PS over refereeing the match: knowingly making himself unpopular and inviting scorn and blame, in order to protect the children under his care." --- whitehound

Your interpretation of Severus's motivations does not ring true to me. We can deduce from Snape's gloating comment in the Shreiking Shack "two for the dementors" that he was motivated as much by vengeance (if not more so) than by protecting the children.

When I compare Dumbledore and Snape I see one man who is trying to find answers that best help everyone involved and another who seems to be doing things that help himself first and others second. It appears to me that Dumbledore is altruistic, doing good things because they are good without thought of personal reward. Severus on the other hand is self-serving, doing good things which fulfill his obligations to school and society when required, and doing bad or questionable things when he is not placed at risk for doing them.

Dumbledore cares about people. Severus cares about himself. I do not believe that an altruistic Snape is evidenced in canon.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 1301 to 1340

Post  Mona Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:29 am

Laura W - Jan 14, 2007 6:14 am (#1301 of 2959)
"I still see where there are plenty of places in the six books where Snape should get down on his knees and beg Harry's forgiveness (including treating Harry horribly because Snape cannot let go of his grudge against the Mauraders and move on with his life; what he did to Lupin; killing Dumbledore, *whatever* the circumstances behind it, and probably a few other things I have forgotten)." (Laura W)

Oops, forgot to include the Biggie ... telling Voldemort about the first part of the Prophecy. Sure, he didn't know - I am assuming - that V would go after the Potters; but in PoA in the Shrieking Shack, Sirius apologized to Harry and asked Harry's forgiveness for getting his father to make Peter the Secret-Keeper. When Sirius did that he had no idea (who would?) what the results would be, but he still asked Harry's forgiveness for the fact that he *did* tell James to do something which had terrible results for the whole family. Mighty decent of Black to admit his real but completely innocent culpability, and to apologize profusely to James' son for it.

whitehound, for my answer to your last paragraph (#1299), please see TomProffitt 's post #1282. It's how I feel - to a greater or lesser degree - too.


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 6:42 am (#1302 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 14, 2007 7:10 am
Your interpretation of Severus's motivations does not ring true to me. We can deduce from Snape's gloating comment in the Shreiking Shack "two for the dementors" that he was motivated as much by vengeance (if not more so) than by protecting the children.

I'm sure vengeance came into it as well - after Sirius had told him he'd *deserved* to be murdered as a child, and then they'd both sneered at him for daring to be upset about this. But if catching Sirius was all he cared about, he'd have taken the time to call a Dementor for backup. He knew the Shrieking Shack has no exit at the other end, he knew that once Sirius and Remus had gione down that tunnel they were in a bag: all he had to do was sit at the entrance and wait for them to come up.

He went down a tunnel in the dark, to the place where he was nearly murdered, to confront the two people who had nearly murdered him, one of whom he *knew* to be a werewolf on the point of transformation and the other of whom he sincerely, if wrongly, believed to be a mass-murderer and Voldemort's right-hand man. And the only sensible reason he might have done that, instead of just sitting by the entrance waiting to pick them off, or at least taking time to fetch a Dementor for backup, was because he thought that three children were in immediate danger.

When I compare Dumbledore and Snape I see one man who is trying to find answers that best help everyone involved and another who seems to be doing things that help himself first and others second.

Show me an example where we have *ever* seen Snape do anything which primarily helped himself, other than the petty satisfaction he gets out of sniping at people.


TomProffitt - Jan 14, 2007 7:17 am (#1303 of 2959)
"Show me an example where we have *ever* seen Snape do anything which primarily helped himself, other than the petty satisfaction he gets out of sniping at people." --- whitehound

In PoA in the Shreiking Shack Severus had the opportunity to use his known legilimens ability to determine if it was true that Pettigrew was alive. A half dozen people were present who had seen Pettigrew alive and Snape chose vengeance over truth. Potentially at the cost of two innocent people having their souls sucked out and a mass murderer going free.

I think that is the most egregious example. (EDIT: unless we count the debatable AKing of Dumbledore)


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 7:25 am (#1304 of 2959)
In PoA in the Shreiking Shack Severus had the opportunity to use his known legilimens ability to determine if it was true that Pettigrew was alive. A half dozen people were present who had seen Pettigrew alive and Snape chose vengeance over truth. Potentially at the cost of two innocent people having their souls sucked out and a mass murderer going free.

To do this he'd have had to focus a concentrated mental spell (and presumably all his mental focus), on one individual.

Yet to Snape, the room included two criminals -- a vicious mass murderer, and Lupin who had just finished admiting to deceiving Dumbledore for months and protecting the vicious mass murderer through that deception. Would it really have been a good decision to risk one of those individuals attacking him, while he legilimized the another? And as it turned out, there were three others in the room (students) quite willing to attack him as well.


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 7:34 am (#1305 of 2959)
Plus, he knew that Lupin was about to transform: it was imperative that he "bind the werewolf" before Remus changed and started killing the children. He could have done the Legilimency later.

Of course, if he'd listened to them about Peter everything afterwards would have been different: but his behaviour suggests he was almost hysterical with fear; and Sirius and Remus did nothing to calm him, instead snearing at him, calling him a fool and winding him up worse than he already was.

[And we know he's petrified of Remus because when he brought him the Wolfsbane he wouldn't turn his back on him or take his eyes off him, and he kept trying to persuade him to take an extra dose.]


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 7:37 am (#1306 of 2959)
You have to look at this from the perspective of Snape. He came into the room and saw Ron on the bed with an obviously badly broken leg, rather clearly caused by someone -- most likely (and in fact) the supposed evil mass murderer before them.

Snape overheard Lupin admit to his deception of Dumbledore and keeping vital information about a vicious mass murderer from authorities. Lupin revealed how he'd put all of the school at risk for the year.

He heard Sirius admit to having tried to kill Snape and still glad of it -- exactly the kind of comment that would make sense from a crazed mass murderer.

Snape did not hear anything about Peter being alive or Pettigrew being the traitor.

As a supposed Death Eater, Sirius would have been highly likely to use spells like imperius or confundus types of charms.

Lupin was about to transform into a werewolf.

Snape reveals himself.

And what do the supposed mass murderer and the about-to-transform-werewolf who just finished admitting to putting all the students at risk for his own self-interest want Snape to do? They want him to have a nice long chat and explain everything about how really, the evil mass murderer (who had just broken Ron's leg) never did anything and the guy he killed (whose finger was found) isn't really dead at all. And by the way, Snape should listen to something about a rat.

Yeah, right.

Can anyone really blame Snape for not wanting to stop and listen to this from one person who just finished commenting on how much Snape deserved to die, and another who just finished telling him that anger over the attempt on his life was a school-boy grudge?

As far as Snape knew, he was faced with an extremely volitile situation (well, considering that the students were willing to attack him, it was even more volitile than he thought).

In the end, Snape did not "choose vengence over truth," and he did not call in the dementors, choosing instead to take Sirius, along with the rest, on stretchers back to the castle.


Solitaire - Jan 14, 2007 7:45 am (#1307 of 2959)
Whitehound: I've always got the impression that DD had a very large malicious streak - and that that was why he got on so well with Snape.

This was about 100 posts ago, but I wanted to respond while it was in my brain. If I wait until I finish 100 more posts, I'll forget. While I agree that Snape has a malicious streak, I think malicious the wrong word for Dumbledore's behavior in the situation you were describing. I'd say mischievous is a more appropriate adjective. I'd also say Dumbledore was trying to make a point to the clueless Dursleys ... although I cannot deny they missed it completely.

I think Dumbledore knows that Snape behaves maliciously towards Harry and is surly to other students. I often wonder ... were there no other places he could have hidden Snape? Surely there are professions more suited to his abilities and temperament. There must be some reason he has kept Snape at Hogwarts all these years ... a reason other than just Snape's safety. Is it just to satisfy Voldemort?

Solitaire


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 8:08 am (#1308 of 2959)
Solitaire:

If Dumbledore really understood what he was doing it was, at best, very vicious mischief - it was like holding a snake in the face of someone who's phobic about snakes, and then sneering at them for cringing.

However - this really doesn't belong on this thread, but I strongly suspect Albus might have a mild touch of Asperger's Syndrome. It would go with his high intelligence and great height. It would explain his extreme eccentricity. It would explain why he doesn't care at all what people think of him *even where that harms his interests or those of causes he cares about*. It would also explain (since these things tend to run in families) why he has a brother who is a recluse with learning disabilities, serious hygeine issues and an obsession with goats.

Above all, it would explain why Albus seems to be genuinely kind and loving and yet to miss the most glaringly obvious emotional truths, such as, if you take in a lonely, neglected orphan and make yourself his father figure, and then without explanation refuse to speak to him or even look at him for nearly a year, it's going to damage him.

It would also explain, very well indeed, why he seems to understand Harry very well when he's with him and not at all when he isn't; and why he appears to be very fond of Snape and yet ignores his feelings.

If Albus is slightly autistic he would be blind to normal behavioural clues such as posture, facial expression and tone of voice, and have great difficulty predicting how other people would feel about things. He would compensate for this by using a little Legilimency, so that when he was actually *with* people he would understand them perfectly: all except Snape, who is immune to Legilimency.

And when it came to the Dursleys, unless he sat down and deliberately read them he wouldn't understand that they might see his little magic trick with the glasses in a very different way from the way *he* saw it, becauses autusts' default assumption is that everybody sees things the same way they do.


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 8:24 am (#1309 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 14, 2007 8:43 am

I think Dumbledore knows that Snape behaves maliciously towards Harry and is surly to other students. I often wonder ... were there no other places he could have hidden Snape? Surely there are professions more suited to his abilities and temperament. There must be some reason he has kept Snape at Hogwarts all these years ... a reason other than just Snape's safety. Is it just to satisfy Voldemort?

Snape is actually quite a successful teacher - neither he nor the class enjoys his lessons much but he does get nearly all of them through the exams successfully, with no fatalities that we know of.

And consider his position. In order to be a useful spy for the Order, he needs to stay close to Voldemort. To stay close to Voldemort he needs to be useful to Voldemort. His usefulness to Voldemort depends on his staying close to Albus.

So, in order for Snape to be a good spy for the Order he has to be working closely with Albus, so if Snape gave up teaching Albus would have to too. And the school *needs* Albus on-site, because Voldie has decided that the school is one of his main targets.

Also, having Snape as Head of Slytherin is ideal for Albus, because the children with DE sympathies will trust him and talk to him as they would not do to a teacher who wasn't an old associate of their DE parents: and then Snape can both spy on them for Albus and subtly try to influence them.

But it's not good for him, I think. I'm sure half his problems come from still living in the same place he's lived in since he was eleven (and where he was deeply unhappy), working with colleagues most of whom have known him since he was eleven, with them alternating between treating him as a colleague or as a student, and him not knowing from one minute to the next whether to act like an adult or a kid.

Because that's the real trouble with Snape. It's not that he's rude to the kids - we're specifically told that the things he says to them are the same things they say to each other. The problem with Snape is that he can't make up his mind which side of the adult/child divide he is, so if they answer him back in the same tone he usually gets all offended and adult and pulls rank.

[At the same time, he *is* fairly tolerant of them answering back. Can you *imagine* what Minerva would do to a student who pulled that "You don't have to call me sir" stunt on her?]


The Artful Dodger - Jan 14, 2007 9:32 am (#1310 of 2959)
I would like to return to the Shrieking Shack Scene for a moment. First, let us listen to Snape's explanation how he knew that Lupin and Sirius were there.

"I've just been to your office, Lupin. You forgot to take your potion tonight, so I took you a gobletful along. And very lucky I did... lucky for me, I mean."

Later, he tells Hermione that she and her friends are facing suspension because they are found "out of bounds, in the company of a convicted murderer and a werewolf." What's this? Snape runs to the Shack because he fears that three children are in danger, and thinks they should be expelled because they are?

That sounds so not like concern that I have to think vengeance was his only motive.

wynnleaf, you said the reader has to view it from Snape's perspective, and then left out an important point. In the hospital wing, Dumbledore believes the story about the rat, and Snape, knowing that, still refuses to. Apparently, the story wasn't, as you suggested, unbelievable. Snape just didn't want to, and that is choosing vengeance over truth, to me.


Solitaire - Jan 14, 2007 10:01 am (#1311 of 2959)
Whitehound, I completely disagree about Dumbledore. As I read on, however, I saw that others had responded as I would, so I'll leave it ... particularly as this is not his thread.

Dodger, I agree that Snape's behavior seemed more like vengeance than concern. I think, however, that we are in the minority. I've always thought it was a pity that Uncle Vernon and Snape didn't have the opportunity to get together and bad-mouth Harry. I think they'd have gotten on well, considering their respective opinions and treatment of him.

Solitaire


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 10:16 am (#1312 of 2959)
Edited by Catherine Jan 14, 2007 10:53 am

Later, he tells Hermione that she and her friends are facing suspension because they are found "out of bounds, in the company of a convicted murderer and a werewolf." What's this? Snape runs to the Shack because he fears that three children are in danger, and thinks they should be expelled because they are?

Of course - just the way mothers pull their children out of the way of a passing car and then slap them. And Snape's *always* threatening the Trio with expulsion, but when he has something serious on them that *could* get them expelled he never acts on it. It's just him exaggerating - he's a terrible moaner.

Think about Hermione - for example. In second year, she put Harry up to causing an explosion which seriously injured (and could have killed) several classmates, in order to create a distraction while she robbed Snape. And he must know she was involved, because what was stolen was the ingredients for Polyjuice, and she turned up furry. In third year she was part of a gang who threw him into a wall and left him bleeding on the ground with life-threatening injuries, and didn't bother to call for medical help. And *all* he does about it is make one catty remark about her teeth. He's all hot air when it comes to threats.

wynnleaf, you said the reader has to view it from Snape's perspective, and then left out an important point. In the hospital wing, Dumbledore believes the story about the rat, and Snape, knowing that, still refuses to.

Any period of unconsciousness resulting from a blow and lasting longer than ten minutes is considered potentially life-threatening. Snape was unconscious for around fifty minutes. He was, he *must* have been, badly concussed.

The sort of behaviour he was displaying that night - irrational over-the-top rage, not listening to reason etc. - is a standard symptom of concussion.

EDIT: Certain words are NOT acceptable on the Harry Potter Lexicon Forum. I substituted the word "exaggerating" for the unacceptable word. Any questions, please email me.--Catherine


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 10:27 am (#1313 of 2959)
wynnleaf, you said the reader has to view it from Snape's perspective, and then left out an important point. In the hospital wing, Dumbledore believes the story about the rat, and Snape, knowing that, still refuses to.

When Dumbledore decided to talk to Sirius and listen to his story (which he certainly had not done many years previously, by the way), he was in a completely different circumstance than Snape.

Snape was holding a wand on an about to transform werewolf who he believed to be in cahoots with a vicious mass murderer, with 3 children (one injured) who he believed to be confunded and whose lives were in immediate danger. Agreeing with the evil mass murderer and his apparent accomplice and having a nice chat was at that time a very unwise move to make.

Dumbledore, on the other hand, made a decision to sit down with a captured man, who had no accomplice nearby who could possibly attack or change into a werewolf, and there were no nearby children whose lives were in danger. Dumbledore was simply visiting a captured man in a closely guarded room. Of course he could take the time to listen to his story and use legilimency if he desired, etc.

To suggest that Snape should have done the same in the Shrieking Shack is to suggest that Snape allow the children's lives to remain at risk from the near to transforming werewolf and the crazed killer (who had supposedly killed 13 people at once, mind you), all so he could give them the benefit of the doubt and listen to their story.


Thom Matheson - Jan 14, 2007 10:40 am (#1314 of 2959)
Page 420 Amer. regarding Snape. "Oh, he's not unbalanced," said Dumbledore quietly. "He's just suffered a severe dissappointment."

No Order of Merit First Class


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 11:13 am (#1315 of 2959)
"Oh, he's not unbalanced," said Dumbledore quietly. "He's just suffered a severe dissappointment."

Sirius escaped. I think that was the severe disappointment.


Catherine - Jan 14, 2007 11:22 am (#1316 of 2959)
Hmmm...I have always read Snape's severe disappointment to include the loss of the Order of Merlin and that Sirius was able to escape under their noses.

Maybe I will reread that scene today and mull it over.


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 11:34 am (#1317 of 2959)
Lupin is not Snape's friend, and probably doesn't really know him personally very well at all. He almost certainly didn't talk to him at all the morning after the Shrieking Shack incident. Yet it is Lupin that asserts that Snape was terribly disappointed at the loss of the Order of Merlin and that it was the last straw.

I don't see why I should trust Lupin, who could simply have been trying to find a reason for Snape "outing" him that reflected primarily on Snape rather than himself. I certainly can't see how Lupin would know the degree to which Snape wanted that Order.

Naturally Snape had thanked Fudge earlier for the honor. But that doesn't mean it was of great importance to him.

At the moment Dumbledore mentioned him as being severely disappointed, Snape had been talking about Sirius' escape, not the Order.


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 11:58 am (#1318 of 2959)
You would think he *would* be disappointed by losing the Order of Merlin, though, since he's taken horrible risks for the Order of the Phoenix and got very little in the way of thanks or recognition. It would have been nice to get a little recognition.

And we must remember what he thinks Sirius is. He believes Sirius to be Voldemort's secret agent (bearing in mind that the Death Eaters don't all know each other's names). He thinks that Sirius, alive and free, will report back to the remaining DEs and tell them that he, Snape, tried to take down Voldemort's best agent. Then the DEs will know that Snape is a traitor to Voldemort's memory, and he'll be a target.

Whereas, with Sirius dead/Kissed, it will be only Lupin's word against his, and he can make up some story about what happened which makes his allegiance less clear. If Lupin is a loyal Order member he can be ordered to keep quiet to protect the Order's spy; if he isn't, people don't seem to place much credence in the word of a werewolf anyway.


journeymom - Jan 14, 2007 12:26 pm (#1319 of 2959)
I'm finally caught up and hope you can tolerate one more post about forgiveness.

Harry can only forgive Snape for actions Snape has done specifically to him. If it came to it, Snape cannot say, "Harry, would you please forgive me for killing Dumbledore?" Harry has no authority to forgive him for the death of another person.

What has Snape done to Harry? Aside from being a foul, unmitigated jerk, he took half of the prophecy to LV, which led to Harry's parents' murders. In this situation Snape could ask Harry to forgive him for his part in making him an orphan.

And all of this forgiveness is meaningless unless it's paired with action. Snape needs to fix what mess he is responsible for as best he can. From one point of view it looks like Snape protected Harry on several occasions. (Yes, there are other ways of viewing Snape's actions.)

I don't know if I made my point very well. I'm just trying to say that we have to be very specific what Harry can forgive.

=========================

Also, there's a difference between forgiving and forgetting, or letting go. We, the readers, might hope Harry will forgive Snape for... whatever, but we can't ask Harry to forget.


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 12:41 pm (#1320 of 2959)
Personally, I don't think the question is whether or not Harry needs to forgive Snape, in order for Snape to be forgiven in some sort of "cosmic" sense. In that regard, journeymom, you're right that Harry's forgiveness of Snape killing someone else certainly does not absolve Snape, or grant him some sort of cosmic redemption.

Harry can only forgive Snape for any injury he received from Snape -- but that can include the injury toward Harry from the loss of someone he loves -- his parents, Dumbledore, and Sirius. However, if Snape was not in fact injuring Harry through his actions (or nonactions) toward Sirius and Dumbledore, then Harry doesn't need to forgive Snape, but needs to accept that there's nothing to forgive there.

As regards LV targeting the Potters, and Snape's part in it, I agree that there he has injured Harry, in that his service to LV ultimately led to their deaths. But he has also (assuming he's loyal) done a lot toward trying to make up for that, and that could factor into Harry's willingness to forgive him.

There's a difference between forgiving and forgetting, or letting go. We, the readers, might hope Harry will forgive Snape for... whatever, but we can't ask Harry to forget.

That is true, but in addition to forgiving Snape, it's possible a changing view of Snape could change the way he views the past (in particular the relationship between he and Snape over the past 6 years).


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 12:58 pm (#1321 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 14, 2007 1:26 pm
It's noteworthy that the part of the prophecy which Snape heard -

'The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches ... born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies ...'

- does not specify that the "one" who is approaching is an unborn child. To my mind, most people hearing this and not knowing the rest of the prophecy would assume that the "one" was an adult (gender unspecified in this part of the prophecy) who *had* been born in the seventh month, and was now physically travelling nearer. After all, Voldie's been active since the fifties, so somebody as old as forty could easily have parents who had defied him three times - even if they are required to have done the defying before the actual birth, which is not specified.

I can see no reason why Snape would know or even strongly suspect that he was betraying a baby. Given how strongly he protects the children, even when he doesn't like them, finding out that he had done so was probably part of what freaked him into rejoining DD's camp.

Also, it's not absolutely clear that only one "one" is being referred to. Sybill began the prophecy with 'The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches' just as Snape approached the door, so I suspect it will end up having to be all three candidates - Harry, Snape and Neville - who have to work together to bring Voldie down.


Solitaire - Jan 14, 2007 2:06 pm (#1322 of 2959)
Whitehound, I have thought about The One being an adult, as well. My only trouble with it is this: How many Wizards or Witches with end-of-July birthdays have parents who have (or will have by the time they meet) thrice defied Voldemort? Do we know of any thus far?

Solitaire


The Artful Dodger - Jan 14, 2007 2:07 pm (#1323 of 2959)
When Dumbledore decided to talk to Sirius and listen to his story (which he certainly had not done many years previously, by the way), he was in a completely different circumstance than Snape.

Snape was holding a wand on an about to transform werewolf who he believed to be in cahoots with a vicious mass murderer, with 3 children (one injured) who he believed to be confunded and whose lives were in immediate danger. Agreeing with the evil mass murderer and his apparent accomplice and having a nice chat was at that time a very unwise move to make. -- wynnleaf

Harry, Ron and Hermione made that unwise move. But, more importantly,...

wynnleaf, you said the reader has to view it from Snape's perspective, and then left out an important point. In the hospital wing, Dumbledore believes the story about the rat, and Snape, knowing that, still refuses to. -- The Artful Dodger

... while I do believe Snape isn‘t worried at all about the children‘s lives, I never blamed Snape for not listening in the Shack, as you can see. The whole point of what I said lies within the word „still“.


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 2:30 pm (#1324 of 2959)
Solitaire: Whitehound, I have thought about The One being an adult, as well.

Well, the *second* part of the prophecy, the part Snape didn't hear, says "will be born", so that presumably refers to a child. But it's not clear there's only one "one" being refered to, so there could be an adult involved as well. Certainly I would expect Snape to have thought the bit he heard referred to an adult.

My only trouble with it is this: How many Wizards or Witches with end-of-July birthdays have parents who have (or will have by the time they meet) thrice defied Voldemort? Do we know of any thus far?

None that we *know* of: but then we don't know in what way the Potters or the Longbottoms defied Voldie either: we're just told that they did. It's quite possible that e.g. Snape's parents defied Voldie three times - once just by marrying at all.

And there's nothing in the prophecy to say that the seventh month referred to was July. It *could* be July. It could be September, whose name means "seventh month". It could be seven months from when the prophecy was made (which was probably somewhere around March). It could be the seventh month of the academic year. It could be a child born at seven months term, or born seven months after its parents' marriage.

Dodger: ... while I do believe Snape isn‘t worried at all about the children‘s lives,

Uhuh. And why do you think, then, that he put himself in huge danger, facing what he knew was an about-to-transform werewolf and what he thought was a mass-murdering high-rank Death Eater, down a nasty little trap there was no quick way out of, instead of just sitting by the entrance and picking them off as they came up?

And what self-interest do you think he was serving when he sprinted through the school in his nightshirt, ignoring a break-in to his own office on the way, because he heard somebody apparently screaming in pain (which we know is what the Triwizard Egg sounds like)?

I never blamed Snape for not listening in the Shack, as you can see. The whole point of what I said lies within the word „still“.

Exactly how many people have you met who were capable of rational thought whilst severely concussed?


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 3:05 pm (#1325 of 2959)
wynnleaf, you said the reader has to view it from Snape's perspective, and then left out an important point. In the hospital wing, Dumbledore believes the story about the rat, and Snape, knowing that, still refuses to. -- The Artful Dodger

... while I do believe Snape isn‘t worried at all about the children‘s lives, I never blamed Snape for not listening in the Shack, as you can see. The whole point of what I said lies within the word „still“. -- The Artful Dodger

If you look back in POA, in the conversation just prior to Dumbledore sending Hermione and Harry back in time with the time turner, Snape says to Dumbledore,

"I suppose he's told you the same fairy tale he's planted in Potter's mind?" spat Snape. "Something about a rat, and Pettigrew being alive -- "

It is clear that at that point he had not heard a full story, and Dumbledore had not had a serious conversation yet with Snape to explain what Sirius had said, whether or not Dumbledore believed Sirius or why.

Snape's following comments where he says "You surely don't believe a word of Black's story?" are perfectly understandable. Snape didn't believe the little he'd heard about Black's story and really had no reason to believe it. He obviously didn't have an in-depth discussion with Black like Dumbledore had, and he hadn't yet been able to hear Dumbledore's reasoning or opinions on the matter. He was basically going on what he'd heard in the Shrieking Shack and not much more.

Then Snape and Fudge go on upstairs to be presumably followed by Dumbledore after he talked to Hermione and Harry.

Before Dumbledore went upstairs to follow Snape and Fudge, Hermione and Harry were back and he let them back into the hospital wing.

Dumbledore must have met Snape and Fudge just after they discovered Sirius' escape, and returns with them to the hospital wing.

At no time during that did Dumbledore have any opportunity to tell Snape anything about what he'd learned from Sirius, or even to make it completely clear to Snape what his opinions were on the whole thing.

So when Snape fumed over Sirius' escape, he had not yet been given any information from Dumbledore as to what was really going on.

I think the first Snape really starts to catch on is when he is shouting about how it had to be Harry that was behind Sirius' escape and Dumbledore says, "Well, there you have it, Severus, unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in troubling them further."

My guess is that all the senior faculty, or at least Hermione's teachers, knew very well that she'd been issued a time turner, and Dumbledore had just passed along a cryptic hint to Snape that "hey, I've just approved the unauthorized use of a time turner, which means I've approved Sirius' escape and if you don't be quiet about this, Ministry officials are going to figure out that the time turner they let Hermione Granger use was likely a part of Sirius' escape."

Snape is still angry. He still knows nothing about why Dumbledore believed Sirius, or what really happened. But he immediately quits his rant and leaves the room.


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 3:17 pm (#1326 of 2959)
Oh, good point - I hadn't thought about it like that before but of course you're right, it's a "high sign" telling him to shut up about it.

And of course Snape doesn't believe what Sirius told him because I don't think anybody used the word "animagus" in Snape's presence, and Sirius and Lupin probably didn't realize that Snape had come into the room quite late in the conversation.

And Snape's default assumption is bound to be that Sirius has lied to Harry and co. and deceived them, because he knows Sirius once lied to *him* and nearly tricked him to his death.


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 4:11 pm (#1327 of 2959)
Just had a look at that scene in the hospital wing and it says that after Albus made the remark about being in two places at once Snape stared at Albus and Albus *twinkled* at him - gave him his "I'm up to something" look, in other words. And Snape accepted it and bit back his temper to serve Albus's interests - with however poor a grace.


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 4:53 pm (#1328 of 2959)
Exactly. Snape is understandably arguing about why anyone would think Sirius was innocent, because he's been given no explanations other than some bare mention of Pettigrew and a rat.

His fury over Sirius' escape makes sense. But as soon as Dumbledore gives him a strong hint that he (Dumbledore) orchestrated Sirius' escape, Snape bites back whatever further comments he may have had and leaves. He's still furious about it, but he drops it at least in front of Fudge, just as Dumbledore wanted him to.


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 5:03 pm (#1329 of 2959)
And let us not forget that both Albus and Remus were also convinced of Sirius's guilt - until they heard the story which Snape has not yet heard or, in Remus's case, saw Pettigrew appear on the map.

I imagine Sirius convinced Albus by a) turning into Padfoot for him and b) letting Albus read him - both of which he could have suggested to Snape, instead of winding him up harder by sneering at him.


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 5:26 pm (#1330 of 2959)
I imagine Sirius convinced Albus by a) turning into Padfoot for him and b) letting Albus read him - both of which he could have suggested to Snape, instead of winding him up harder by sneering at him.

I don't think even those suggestions would have done any good in the Shrieking Shack. Snape would still have had every reason to think Sirius was just an evil murderer, trying to buy some time until he and/or Lupin could make some sort of attempt to break away -- or use the students, who Snape thought Sirius had confunded, as weapons.

No, from Snape's position, it wouldn't have been a good idea for Snape to have done anything other than try to secure the "evil mass murderer" and his "accomplice" and somehow get the children to obey him and get along to Hogwarts.


rambkowalczyk - Jan 14, 2007 5:51 pm (#1331 of 2959)
His fury over Sirius' escape makes sense. But as soon as Dumbledore gives him a strong hint that he (Dumbledore) orchestrated Sirius' escape, Snape bites back whatever further comments he may have had and leaves. He's still furious about it, but he drops it at least in front of Fudge, just as Dumbledore wanted him to. wynnleaf

Proves that Snape is Dumbledore's man (if only in the third book) more than it proves that Snape is in it for himself.

I think forgiveness will be a major theme in DH. It is said that Harry's power that Voldemort knows not is his ability to love. Harry's duel with Snape at the end of HBP shows he is nowhere near ready to take on Voldemort.

I see three major areas that Harry needs to forgive Snape. 1 For giving the prophecy to Voldemort 2 For the general abuse Snape has given him in class 3 For killing Dumbledore

I know there are many people here who can't see that all three things are forgivable. They can accept that Dumbledore forgave Snape for giving the prophecy to Voldemort but because he killed Dumbledore he's used up his second chance. Some can't forgive him for his abusive teaching, yet Dumbledore tolerates it and we don't criticize Dumbledore for allowing it.

The forgiveness that Harry must feel must be the kind where he lets go of his anger. He forgives because he understands Snape. If Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him (and I don't think this), Harry can understand Snape's POV because Harry was put in a similar situation when Dumbledore ordered Harry to force him to drink the liquid in the cave.

I think it is possible that Harry and Snape had similar childhoods in that they were both neglected. Both were teased by bullys. We say that it was Harry's choice to still be a decent person. But Harry in his fifth year was more Snape like than usual. He was losing his temper, being sarcastic more often. After the Quidditch game he beat up Draco.

I think with Harry's power to love, he will see that Snape's life isn't all that different from his own and Snape's choices may not have been all that different either.

But wait, you say. Snape became a Death Eater. He knew what he was getting into. Harry was never tempted by the Dark Arts.

One main difference I see between Harry and Snape is that Harry has two strong friends and Snape has no one. Harry's friends have helped keep him from being bitter. Where are Snape's friends? Did he ever have any? Is this why he's bitter?

In GoF when Harry was looking in the pensieve and saw Death Eaters on trial, he was sympathetic to Karkaroff and Barty Crouch Jr. He identified with them more. In Deathly Hallows Harry will see Snape in a more truer light and will see that if he had Snape's choices he may not make the same ones that Snape did but he will understand why Snape did what he did. He will see Snape as Dumbledore saw him and forgive him.


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 6:08 pm (#1332 of 2959)
Yes, they're a lot alike in many ways, and I think JK means us to notice this.

In OotP the way Harry acts towards Dudley - taking pleasure in tormenting his own former tormentor, then doing his best to save him, then geting wrongly blamed for endangering him when he was trying to save him - is exactly the way Snape acts towards Sirius, except that Harry succeeds in saving his bully and Snape fails to save his.

In HBP in the Spinner's End scene Snape turns away from Narcissa's tears as if they are indecent, which seems rather cold, but at the end of the book Harry turns away from Lupin's emotion and it's described in exactly the same words.

And of course, Harry wants Snape to be to blame for Sirius's death because he doesn't want to admit that *he* is, and that's the same way Snape wants Sirius to be to blame for the Potters' deaths.

And now they have both done something fatal or potentially fatal to Albus, for the same reason - because he ordered them to.

I think we're supposed to understand that Snape at school did have some friends, at least of a sort, and they became Death Eaters so he followed them. If so it would mean that in that respect he acted like Lupin: going along with the wrong things his friends were doing, and probably knowing that they were wrong, but being desperate for acceptance and not wanting to end up out in the cold on his own.


TomProffitt - Jan 14, 2007 6:34 pm (#1333 of 2959)
I've seen posters use the word "forgive" quite a bit lately. I think that that is the wrong word.

Should it turn out that Severus is innocent of Dumbledore's murder, or that things leave him in a much better light than it would first appear what has to happen is "reconciliation."

If Severus is truly Dumbledore's man and it becomes necessary for Harry and Snape to work together to achieve victory, what has to happen is for both of them to set aside their differences and come to an understanding. For one to succeed at forgiving and moving forward and the other not, things will work very well for Mr. Riddle.

If there is no reconciliation between Harry and Severus (assuming Severus is one of the good guys) Riddle will win.


whitehound - Jan 14, 2007 7:18 pm (#1334 of 2959)
Yes. Which is going to be difficult, given that basically they each affect the other like fingernails on a blackboard. Possibly Madam Pomfrey should prescribe a nice calming draught - or a large slug of firewhisky, now that Harry's of age.


T Vrana - Jan 14, 2007 8:37 pm (#1335 of 2959)
A couple of days away and so many posts to catch up on. The problem I'm having is this, those who like Snape see everything he does as good and altruistic. Those who do not like him see see every action as bad and self serving.

I 'like' Snape, quite a lot, but I like him because he is neither completely good and altruistic, nor is he evil and completely self-serving. He is miserable, torn, trapped and struggling, IMHO. He is deeply flawed, but trying in his own demented way to do what he sees as right. He was thrilled to catch Sirius and Lupin and have them in his power and I've no doubt he was ready to take them to the Dementors, BUT, he was concerned about Harry, Ron and Hermione, and brave in a way to go after a convicted mass murderer and near transforming werewolf, but he was also typically condescending and furious when Harry, Ron and Hermione had the nerve to suggest he may not know all that was going on.

So, I like Snape, but I am beginning to weary of the 'Snape is really just a swell, misunderstood guy'. He's got major issues, and they cloud his judgement as much as anyone's issues cloud their judgement (Sirius included). He is not perfect and misunderstood, he is terribly imperfect and (I think) misunderstood. I am a little troubled by how quickly his fellow Order members jumped ship and turned on him. NO ONE questioned Harry at all. They all instantly believed Snape was a traitor. (All, except Hagrid...hmmmm.)

Why are we so intent to make Snape one-dimensional, either really good or really bad, (we already have really good and really bad wizards, by the way) when Jo has made him so incredibly multi-dimensional? Really good characters who are always really good are great, really bad characters who are always really bad, expected. Snape is an unexpected treasure, innately flawed, but working so hard to do the right thing within the bounds of his nasty personality. No wonder Jo loves writing him!


TomProffitt - Jan 14, 2007 8:44 pm (#1336 of 2959)
T Vrana, I have a similar view of Snape. Not quite so positive as yours (regarding his character), but similar. I am inclined by the strange inconsistancies on the night of Dumbledore's presumed death to give Severus the benefit of quite a lot of doubt. At the same time I am stunned and perplexed by people who profess that Severus should not be suspect at all as a murderer of Dumbledore.

"They all instantly believed Snape was a traitor." --- T Vrana

That seems to go with "having a criminal record." Snape having been a Death Eater before gets little or no slack (from the Wizarding World), while Harry having been victimized by Riddle receives quite a lot. Not really fair, but very much human nature.


wynnleaf - Jan 14, 2007 10:09 pm (#1337 of 2959)
T Vrana,

To use the discussion on the Shrieking Shack as an example...

Saying that what Snape did was brave, or that he followed DD's orders to drop his argument at the end, or that his best choice was to attempt to secure Sirius and Lupin and not listen in the Shrieking Shack to explanations, may appear to be arguing that Snape is purely altruistic, good and just (or whatever). But actually it is completely compatible with Snape also being "thrilled to catch Sirius and Lupin and have them in his power."

Reminding others that Snape did not in fact take Sirius to the dementors doesn't negate the fact that he did threaten to do so.

Nor do comments about his bravery in going into the tunnel and Shrieking Shack deny that he was also "condescending and furious when Harry, Ron and Hermione had the nerve to suggest he may not know all that was going on."

Perhaps it sounds more well-rounded to always state, along with a comment about Snape doing something brave, that he was also holding some negative emotion at the same time. But frankly, I don't think it's necessary.

I'm always surprised that when one defends certain aspects of Snape, if one doesn't add in a set of obligatory comments about Snape being sarcastic, or insulting, or what-have-you --- or even if one does (in my experience) -- the response is eventually going to come up that Snape is being considered purely good.

I have yet to see any poster, regardless how defensive of Snape, not agree that he can be immature in his emotional responses, sarcastic, insulting, etc. I have never seen any poster try to assert that Snape is completely good and altruistic, yet that invariably comes up as a criticism when some posters (including me) start defending Snape too much, or offering explanations for some of his more unpleasant scenes.

T Vrana, I don't mean to particularly pick on your comment. As you know, we generally agree. It's just that you happened to be the person making the "let's not see Snape as too good" comment this time around and I'm really responding to all of those kinds of comments, and by no means intending to characterize most of your comments in this way, especially since I don't recall your ever making that sort of comment before.


journeymom - Jan 15, 2007 12:10 am (#1338 of 2959)
wynnleaf, I could have written your post. Except that apparently I can't. I tried. I came to the same conclusion, typed up a whole tirade about how I don't want to be put in either a "Snape is always really great" camp or a "Snape is evil, on par with Voldemort" camp and that it doesn't seem like -anybody- here fits in either of these categories, so would people please stop using hyperbole and exaggerating to imply that certain posters -always- forget that Snape has been mean and nasty and appears to have murdered the Greatest Good or whatever.

But I couldn't write it without sounding a little tetchy. So I deleted it and helped my daughter make muffins. You did a much better job.

=====================================

Honestly, what makes Snape the most interesting character in the story but that he is such a rotter and might ALSO have been doing good deeds all along, and how interesting is it that J.K. Rowling has given us soooooo many little hints that indicate Snape could go either way? Yes, he murdered Dumbledore, but that does not negate the huge body of, not evidence, but interesting incidents that lead to -valid- speculation, thankyouverymuch.

Sorry, I just found out that we missed the season premire of House, so I think I need to log off and go. to. bed.


TomProffitt - Jan 15, 2007 5:04 am (#1339 of 2959)
"I have never seen any poster try to assert that Snape is completely good and altruistic, yet that invariably comes up as a criticism when some posters (including me) start defending Snape too much, or offering explanations for some of his more unpleasant scenes." --- wynnleaf

I understand this frustration, perhaps from the opposite end, but I understand it none the less. I don't see Snape as altruistic, but I don't see him as one who refuses to do the right thing just because he can, either.

I often feel that the arguments on this thread (and a few others) get lost in the fact that we aren't arguing over whether or not Snape is purely good or evil, just whether or no it is reasonable for him to be favoring one side more than the other. (That wasn't said as well as I would like.) You can take almost any of Snape's actions and argue them as being motivated by either good or selfish motives and come up with a decent argument. Yet, when you say that you think the selfish side (or good) dominates, you find yourself in an argument about whether that is the character's total make up.

I hope I made sense, there. I'm tired of not being sure what we're arguing about.


rambkowalczyk - Jan 15, 2007 6:25 am (#1340 of 2959)
I tend to think of Snape as flawed but no more than say Lupin. (I like Whitehound's analogy that Snape joined the Death Eaters because he couldn't say no to his friends just as Lupin couldn't say no to his friends).

Unfortunately Snape's choices just happen to have dire consequences.

When Sirius sent Snape to follow Lupin Snape could have died but James saved him. But when Snape gave the prophecy to Voldemort, Voldemort killed Lily and James. The evil that both Sirius and Snape did were about equal, but Snape's deed is seen as more evil because someone actually died.

Harry was a bad tempered prat who also hid behind sarcasm in book 5, but we are apt to forgive him because we know what Harry is going through. Even JKR said something about asking Harry to forgive her for putting him through so much.

Snape of course is a bad tempered prat for over fifteen years and there is an expectation that he should grow up and act as an adult. But being a bad tempered prat doesn't make someone evil.

What Harry may realise and Snape hasn't is that allowing your emotions to cloud your judgements hurts other people.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 1341 to 1380

Post  Mona Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:33 am

whitehound - Jan 15, 2007 7:11 am (#1341 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 15, 2007 7:23 am
Nobody who likes/supports Snape would deny that he's a difficult, ill-mannered, often vindictive person. I cited him on my website (along with Molly) as an example of complex, believably-flawed character-development, and described him as "brave, brilliant, honourable, dedicated, witty, also petty, vindictive, childish, tactless and sulky". Duj memorably described him as being a hot chili in the lives of all who know him - but some people like hot chili.

But the trouble is, many of those who dislike Snape go completely over the top about him and deny him any virtues, portray him as evil personified, want him to die etc. and that forces those of us who like him to concentrate more on his virtues, to prevent him from being unjustly vilified - when in a less polarized discussion we might be laughing about his faults.

=============================

Unfortunately Snape's choices just happen to have dire consequences.

So did Lupin's really. He was lucky that his failure to warn anybody about Padfoot didn't result in Harry's death; but his failure to interfere with what his friends were doing to Snape probably contributed, to a major extent, to Snape being pushed towards the Death Eaters - and all that followed, both good and bad.

[Because let us not forget that Snape's action in betraying the Potters led not only to the deaths of the Potters, which he hadn't foreseen, but also to Voldemort being knocked out of the running for thirteeen years which he also hadn't foreseen.]

When Sirius sent Snape to follow Lupin Snape could have died but James saved him. But when Snape gave the prophecy to Voldemort, Voldemort killed Lily and James. The evil that both Sirius and Snape did were about equal, but Snape's deed is seen as more evil because someone actually died.

Yes and no. Snape at least was presumably acting on behalf of a cause which at that time he sincerely believed in, and probably expected that the target was an adult. Sirius tried to kill a sixteen-year-old schoolmate for kicks, just because he found him irritating.

The timing of Sirius's attack on Snape coincides fairly closely with his break-up from his family, and I suspect he was having a nervous breakdown and that was why he wasn't expelled for what he did - so he perhaps wasn't fully responsible for endangering Snape's life and Lupin's education and career (at least - in fact I suspect that if Lupin had killed Snape he'd either have killed *himself* or been put down by the Ministry like a mad dog). But twenty years later he still insisted that Snape had deserved it, and justified his persecution and near-murder of a schoolmate by dismissing him as "just this little oddball".


Mrs Brisbee - Jan 15, 2007 7:28 am (#1342 of 2959)
But the trouble is, many of those who dislike Snape go completely over the top about him and deny him any virtues, portray him as evil personified, want him to die etc. and that forces those of us who like him to concentrate more on his virtues, to prevent him from being unjustly vilified

I often wonder if a few (I won't say "many", because I find most people to be up front, clear, and intelligent about their opinions, so I'm not going to insult them by pretending that they mean things they don't) that like Snape just assume that if someone dislikes Snape that automatically means they are totally vilifying him and consider him evil personified etc. Maybe its better just to say what you feel, and don't exaggerate it or swing to an extreme to compensate for someone else's supposed opinion. Many people who are all over the spectrum have interesting and intelligent things to say, if only we would all listen.


whitehound - Jan 15, 2007 7:44 am (#1343 of 2959)
Because there are plenty who *do* consider him evil personified, and say so in the strongest terms - that he can never be forgiven, that he has to die, that it doesn't matter how much good he's done, he's still totally despicable etc..


Solitaire - Jan 15, 2007 7:50 am (#1344 of 2959)
I think you hit the nail squarely on the head, TomProffitt.


Laura W - Jan 15, 2007 7:51 am (#1345 of 2959)
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." Dumbledore (CoS, p245 (Cdn edition))

Such a big theme of these books is how all these people (Harry, Sirius, Tom, Merope, possibly Snape, Neville in a manner) had horrible childhoods in one way or another but that they did not turn out the same way.

"Yes, Harry, you can love. Which, given everything that has happened to you, is a great and remarkable thing." Dumbledore, HBP, p.476 (Cdn. Ed.)

Sirius Black had a mother a father a brother and a large extended family. Yet, he was raised by viciously hateful parents (hateful to anyone non-pure-blood *and* to their eldest son). Living there was a total nightmare to Sirius, which is why he escaped to a happy family unit (the Potters) at age 16 and went out on his own at age 17. Even in OoP, when Sirius was a grown man in his thirties and his mother was dead, his "dear old Mum" lost no opportunity to loudly berate him in front of others and to and call him vile names from her portrait. It really is amazing he grew up to have any self-esteem at all.

Harry had a horrible childhood, and Snape - we are led to believe - had a horrible childhood. Harry was ridiculed and shunned in school by fellow students who thought he was a nutter or an attention-seeking show off in OotP and was bullied by Draco Malfoy for six years, and Snape was made fun of and possibly bullied in school by Sirius and James in particular (and probably others) because of his unappealing appearance and his general oddness. Well, I think you see what I am getting at.

The difference between the two is the choices they made. As I see it, in many ways Snape has never progressed beyond the 16-year-old boy who had a nasty, dangerous trick played upon him by Sirius Black. When people have been repeatedly physically or psychologically hurt early in their lives, some (ie - Snape) carry on this behavior towards others, and some become especially kind and loving because they know what it's like to be the recipient of physical or psychological pain (DD seems to believe Harry falls into this category). It's a choice.

"You fail to recognize that it matters not what someone is born, but what they grow up to be." Dumbledore in GoF

Re Snape being all bad or all good. If you believe he is a rotten human being and working for Voldemort, I guess he does fall into the "all bad" category. If you believe his motives for all of his words and actions in the first six books (including his treatment of the young students, his behavior in the Shrieking Shack and after in PoA, his killing of DD) are not-so-nice at worst, but altruistic and even kind in fact; *and* that he is also working for the Order one-hundred per cent, then I guess you fall into the "poor misunderstood Severus" camp. Either of those possibilities I outlined above could prove to be true, as we will find out in DH.

The third possibility is that Snape is a despicable human being - and a very unhappy one -, who also happens to be working against LV at great danger to himself. The two do not cancel each other out, in my view. *If* you take this position on Snape, you can hate him for how he has chosen to be in terms of his actions and behavior towards others (as well as his motivations for same actions and behaviors), while still appreciating what he has done and will do in defeating LV. I tried to say that in my post #1289 - as well as in the thousand others (it seems like -- (weak grin)) that I have written on the Severus Snape thread, but don't feel as though I succeeded. Oh well, I gave it my best shot. (resigned shrug)

Finally, as to my perspective on *how* Snape turned out the way he did as an adult (ie - the choices he made in his life and what was behind him making them), I bow to T. Vrana, in saying she has summed up my opinion on this exactly in the third paragraph of her post #1150.

Also, I have *never* said in *anything* I have written in the whole year I have been on HP-Lexicon Forum, that I wish for Snape to die and *if* anyone hints or more than hints that I have, that is a very inflamatory and incorrect thing you are accusing me of. I categorically do not wish for Severus Snape's death. Whoever he is, he is not Tom Riddle or in the same category as a few other of the "real baddies" (Bellatrix, Lucius, Umbridge).

'Nuff said from me for now. (can hear sighs of relief all around)

Laura


Catherine - Jan 15, 2007 7:57 am (#1346 of 2959)
The third possibility is that Snape is a despicable human being - and a very unhappy one -, who also happens to be working against LV at great danger to himself. The two do not cancel each other out, in my view. *If* you take this position on Snape, you can hate him for how he has chosen to be in terms of his actions and behavior towards others (as well as his motivations for same actions and behaviors), while still appreciating what he has done and will do in defeating LV. I tried to say that in my post #1289 - as well as in the thousand others (it feels like - weak grin that I have written on the Severus Snape thread, but don't feel as though I succeeded. Oh well, I gave it my best shot. (resigned shrug) --Laura W

I agree with this part of your post, and you summed up how I view Snape these days.


haymoni - Jan 15, 2007 8:30 am (#1347 of 2959)
I'm keeping every door open until I have read DH from cover to cover.

If Jo makes Snape a traitor, then I will enjoy the fact that Harry was right all along.

If Jo makes Snape a good guy instructed by Dumbledore to kill him rather than risk blowing his cover, then I will enjoy the greatness of Dumbledore and the bravery of Snape to complete this revolting task.

The only way that I will be disappointed is if Jo says nothing either way.


MickeyCee3948 - Jan 15, 2007 9:10 am (#1348 of 2959)
haymoni - I don't think we have to worry, DH will have alot of Snape. How JKR plays it out in the end will make some happy and some unhappy. After all this is her story and she will definitely play it out in the manner she believes most appropriate.

Mickey


T Vrana - Jan 15, 2007 9:53 am (#1349 of 2959)
wynnleaf- We do tend to agree, and I still think we do. I was a bit grumpy last night...but there are times when everything Snape does is given a positive spin (not by you, but others). No need to follow-up every defense with "but he is nasty", but I am puzzled by the need to find an excuse for everything he does. Sometimes he is just being a nasty git. (Example, Hermione's teeth).

journeymom- If you aren't one who is in either camp, no worries and no need to assume you are being placed or read as being in one camp.

Laura- Thanks for the kudos on post 1150. I will say that while it is about choices, Harry has an advantage over Snape. Snape seems to be alone, while Harry immediately develops friends. If we isolate their time at Hogwarts, while Harry is picked on by Malfoy and Snape, at least he knows he's not alone. It is Snape's isolation that troubles me. Horrible to be picked on and disliked on such a large scale and have no one, apparently (once Malfoy and friends graduated) to turn to.


wynnleaf - Jan 15, 2007 10:17 am (#1350 of 2959)
Laura, I agree that you have never said Snape needed to die. There are however, many fans who do think he has to die, either because he's so evil, or because only his death can possibly help to redeem him.

I will say that while it is about choices, Harry has an advantage over Snape. Snape seems to be alone, while Harry immediately develops friends. If we isolate their time at Hogwarts, while Harry is picked on by Malfoy and Snape, at least he knows he's not alone. It is Snape's isolation that troubles me. Horrible to be picked on and disliked on such a large scale and have no one, apparently (once Malfoy and friends graduated) to turn to. (T Vrana)

Agreed, T Vrana. When Dumbledore told Harry in COS that his choices defined him, he was speaking in response to their conversation about Harry's choice to beg not to be in Slytherin. But Harry only made that plea because he'd been 1. given false information that all dark wizards were from Slytherin and 2. because he'd met Draco Malfoy and Draco reminded him of Dudley. If Hagrid had never told Harry that all the dark wizards came from Slytherin, and if Harry had not met Draco before arriving at Hogwarts, he might well have accepted the first decision of the Sorting Hat. In Slytherin, Harry might have found himself with just as many problems as Snape in finding friends (albeit for different reasons), and found himself despised by the Gryffindors simply by virtue of being placed in Slytherin. Who knows how he would have reacted over the years.

Despicable Snape. Hm. One of the problems with the possibility of Snape being loyal to the Order, yet still despicable, is that I cannot see how a person could be willing to do the things he (if loyal) does, and still be despicable.

If Snape is loyal, then he agreed to take on tasks since Voldemort's return that place him under a huge amount of stress, responsibility, and danger on an ongoing, 24/7 basis. His act of AKing Dumbledore, while perhaps placing him in the strategically advantageous position of being deeply under cover with Voldemort as his most trusted DE, also destroys whatever positive things Snape had in his life.

For a person with practically no friends, he looses the only person that appeared to be a friend, and who trusted him. For an intensely private person, his life will be blown open for public scrutiny as newspaper accounts would probably print every possible thing known about him, while Ministry officials and aurors probably seize his possessions and sift through them for clues about Voldemort. He's become a suspect who could probably be killed on sight by aurors.

If he argued with Dumbledore that he didn't want to kill him, then he was willing to die rather than go through with the Vow. If he was willing to break the Vow, but completed it on Dumbledore's orders/request, then he took on all of the above, and lost everything positive in his life, for others -- there's no possible way he could have been doing it for his benefit.

I just can't reconcile that decision with a person who is despicable.


whitehound - Jan 15, 2007 10:43 am (#1351 of 2959)
I will say that while it is about choices, Harry has an advantage over Snape. Snape seems to be alone, while Harry immediately develops friends. If we isolate their time at Hogwarts, while Harry is picked on by Malfoy and Snape, at least he knows he's not alone. It is Snape's isolation that troubles me. Horrible to be picked on and disliked on such a large scale and have no one, apparently (once Malfoy and friends graduated) to turn to.

Yes, exactly. Also, Harry had loving and fairly normal parents until he was fifteen months old, and established good friendships as soon as he came to Hogwarts. It's quite possible Snape had neither of these things, and Snape certainly appears to have been bullied to a much greater extent than we've seen Harry being. Snape was also at the bottom of the social tree - a dirt-poor, funny-looking working-class half-blood - whereas Harry was rich, famous and cute (in the non-sexual sense). So Harry has had much better advantages in life than young Severus probably had (albeit Severus presumably didn't have to contend with Rita Skeeter).

Sirius probably had a horrible childhood: his parents may or may not have loved him before he rebelled against them but it was certainly a most unhealthy, crazed atmosphere. And Sirius, brought up in that horrible household, grew up to be the sort of boy who kills for kicks, because that wasn't just a joke he played on Severus. If James hadn't intervened, Sirius would have ended up being the equivalent of Luke Mitchell (assuming he really is guilty) or the Columbine Killers - and it was through no virtue of his that he failed to kill.

The only one we've seen who really overcame huge disadvantages to grow into a pleasant person (without the good infancy, sudden fame and fortune etc. that Harry had) was Merope, who seemed to be a decent sort, poor girl.


TomProffitt - Jan 15, 2007 11:02 am (#1352 of 2959)
"Despicable Snape. Hm. One of the problems with the possibility of Snape being loyal to the Order, yet still despicable, is that I cannot see how a person could be willing to do the things he (if loyal) does, and still be despicable." --- wynnleaf

I served in the US military for 9 years and knew more than a few racists, innumerable sexists, and one confirmed wife beater, yet each of these individuals was willing to make great sacrifices for their country (some already had). I've known many people as bad (or worse) as Snape and still willing to make great sacrifices for a cause they believed in. I have no problem believing in a truly despicable character being completely loyal to Dumbledore.

We also have to remember that while Dumbledore's motives have (to the best of our knowledge) been altruistic, that does not mean that people can be willing to support him and take great risks with out being altruistic in the least.


wynnleaf - Jan 15, 2007 11:40 am (#1353 of 2959)
TomProffitt,

I understand and find it believable that a despicable person might still be willing to give their life for a cause they believe in. And there are other sacrifices which all sorts of people make in war efforts -- that of leaving behind homes and families to go to war, expending great amounts of time, willingness to risk terrible injury, etc., -- all for whatever aspects of the "cause" they are committed to.

But in general, people who commit to war efforts do not commit everything they have to it. The willingness to give one's life is not the same as "everything," because it is still possible to retain self-respect, friends, privacy, the knowledge of loved ones that care, etc. And if one makes it through the war, there's the hope of a better future of some kind -- even if one is an awful person, there's still that person's idea of something better.

But as I see it, if Snape is loyal and AK'd Dumbledore against his will (having rather broken the Vow), then he gave up everything. He gives up his home and all belongings. He gives up the only person who truly trusts him and perhaps his only real friend. He gives up all appearance of honor in the world. He gives up his privacy. He gives up his livelihood. He places his life at even greater risk than it was before (not that it would matter too much if he'd rather have broken the Vow and died). He takes on the stress of living and working full-time around the enemy.

And unlike the soldier going to war, Snape would know that he was giving these things up probably permanently. Even if the good side won, and even if Dumbledore left some sort of proof that Snape acted on his orders, Snape would already have lost much that was irreplaceable, and would probably never regain things like the respect of others, his honor, and his job. If the war went on for long and he couldn't be proven on the good side, he'd probably permenantly loose all of his possessions as well.

Remember that Dumbledore said there were things that are worse than death. It seems to me, if Snape AK'd Dumbledore only on DD's orders, then he was willing to take on those things worse than death.

So I think that I'll stand by my opinion that a truly despicable person would not sacrifice everything for a cause without getting any personal benefit from it.


whitehound - Jan 15, 2007 12:32 pm (#1354 of 2959)
I'm not sure if that's entirely true, because Bellatrix seems to be thoroughly horrible and yet has sacrificed much for Voldie. But Bella seems to be crazy, so perhaps doesn't fully understand the implications of her actions: whereas Snape is rational (if a bit twitchy) and must have a good idea what he's letting himself in for.


wynnleaf - Jan 15, 2007 1:05 pm (#1355 of 2959)
Bella is loyal to Voldemort. So she has not given up everything. She retains the standing she had in Voldemort's organization. We might think it's terrible, but Bella is glad she's there.

Now if Bella had given up everything, and killed LV for the cause (of course, without LV there'd be no "cause"), and pretended to join the Order, and all the DEs thought her a traitor AND she lost all of her possessions, friends, etc. AND it was probably permanent -- yeah, well then I'd say maybe she gave up everything.

But Bella's actually got part of what she wants -- the "respect" of her comrades, direct service with the leader she loves, etc.

Snape has lost all it.


Catherine - Jan 15, 2007 4:07 pm (#1356 of 2959)
Edited Jan 15, 2007 5:42 pm

But as I see it, if Snape is loyal and AK'd Dumbledore against his will (having rather broken the Vow), then he gave up everything. He gives up his home and all belongings. He gives up the only person who truly trusts him and perhaps his only real friend. He gives up all appearance of honor in the world. He gives up his privacy. He gives up his livelihood. He places his life at even greater risk than it was before (not that it would matter too much if he'd rather have broken the Vow and died). He takes on the stress of living and working full-time around the enemy.

And unlike the soldier going to war, Snape would know that he was giving these things up probably permanently. Even if the good side won, and even if Dumbledore left some sort of proof that Snape acted on his orders, Snape would already have lost much that was irreplaceable, and would probably never regain things like the respect of others, his honor, and his job. If the war went on for long and he couldn't be proven on the good side, he'd probably permenantly loose all of his possessions as well.

Remember that Dumbledore said there were things that are worse than death. It seems to me, if Snape AK'd Dumbledore only on DD's orders, then he was willing to take on those things worse than death. --Wynnleaf

Assuming that what Snape Vowed with/to Narcissa was to kill Dumbledore:

If Snape has an obsessive love for Narcissa, (one strong enough for him to make the Vow), assuming that Narcissa and he survive the storm, Snape has something to gain, even now. I do assume, perhaps even unfairly, that Snape is working toward some end. Snape is smart enough that I don't even pretend to know what that end is.

We do not know in canon that Snape used the Avada Kedavra spell on Dumbledore on Dumbledore's orders. It may yet prove to be, but we do not know this. Forum members are certainly allowed to be skeptical in this regard until JKR makes it more clear.

As far as the term "despicable" being used, my opinion is that that Snape's behavior, in many ways toward his students, may well fit the term. Whether he as a man, or his soul, deserves that term, I hope that the seventh book makes clear. Snape's character may well prove murky, and thus, forever debatable.


whitehound - Jan 15, 2007 4:37 pm (#1357 of 2959)
Whether or not he may have had a "thing" with Narcissa when they were younger, there's nothing whatsoever in canon to suggest Snape has an obsessive love for Narcissa. Why invent something for which we have been given no indication, just so we can ascribe a base motive to his actions?

What we've been shown in canon is that he has some affection for Draco (whom he must have known since he was in nappies) and it's part of his job to worm information out of the Death Eaters: which between them provide an adequate reason for his taking the Vow.


Catherine - Jan 15, 2007 4:51 pm (#1358 of 2959)
Whether or not he may have had a "thing" with Narcissa when they were younger, there's nothing whatsoever in canon to suggest Snape has an obsessive love for Narcissa. Why invent something for which we have been given no indication, just so we can ascribe a base motive to his actions? --Whitehound

Of course there isn't anything in canon about Snape having a thing for Narcissa. I was simply trying to suggest that maybe Snape's Vow had a purpose that could have served him well, in response to Wynnleaf's post.

I didn't "invent" Snape having an affection for Narcissa, by the way. That theory surfaced soon after the release of HbP.


whitehound - Jan 15, 2007 5:24 pm (#1359 of 2959)
Having a possible affection for her isn't the same as having an obsessive love. And suppose he did? Throwing the whole of the rest of his life away for the sake of love would also not be the act of somebody despiccable, although it might be the act of somebody a bit cracked.


Solitaire - Jan 15, 2007 5:24 pm (#1360 of 2959)
there's nothing whatsoever in canon to suggest Snape has an obsessive love for Narcissa. Why invent something for which we have been given no indication, just so we can ascribe a base motive to his actions?

I believe this sentiment could also be applied to his possible love for Lily Evans Potter.

Solitaire


Catherine - Jan 15, 2007 5:36 pm (#1361 of 2959)
Throwing the whole of the rest of his life away for the sake of love would also not be the act of somebody despiccable, although it might be the act of somebody a bit cracked. --Whitehound

Well, he WOULD be cracked if he he had an obsessive love (Merope for Tom Riddle comes to mind) for someone named Narcissa (hmm--the name means "self-love"). Merope didn't fare so well with drugging a Muggle for her own romantic ends, no matter how pathetic and pitiful her person was. Her son didn't fare well, either.

Again, I never caterogized Snape as "despicable," although some of his actions may prove to be so.

Time, and the new novel, will tell.

Edit: I believe this sentiment could also be applied to his possible love for Lily Evans Potter. --Solitaire

Thanks, Solitiare. I have felt this way for a long time!!


wynnleaf - Jan 15, 2007 5:48 pm (#1362 of 2959)
I agree that the notion of an obsessive love for Narcissa has no grounds at all in canon (and yes, I know some other poster -- can't recall who -- came up with that idea).

But since the idea came up ..... I don't think it works for one primary reason. If Snape had an obsessive love, or really any strong romantic feelings, toward Narcissa, I would imagine that she'd have at least some inkling of it, if not a clear knowledge of it. And Narcissa is desperate for Snape's help. Yet she never uses the "do it for me " sort of plea. She calls on Snape's friendship with Lucius, and his regard for Draco and Draco's regard for Snape, but she never ever pulls the "do it because you care about me," card. And she would if she knew she had that card to play.


journeymom - Jan 15, 2007 7:08 pm (#1363 of 2959)
I think there's canon evidence for -something-, subject to personal interpretation. So I don't think the idea came out of thin air.

In Spinner's End Narcissa grasps the front of Snape's robes. Her face was close to Snape's, her tears fell on his chest. This is an intimate picture.

When Snape said he can try to protect Draco, Narcissa "slid off the sofa into a kneeling position at Snape's feet, seized his hand in both of hers and pressed her lips to it."

For the UV Snape and Narcissa kneel and hold right hands and Bella 'officiates'. It really looked to me like a wedding ceremony the first time I read it, and that was before I'd come here and learned to look closer at each scenario. *grin*

Maybe she knows he had a crush on her in school and is taking advantage of it. I can't imagine she ever reciprocated these feelings. You're right, she never asked Snape to do anything for her. That's a good point. If she didn't feel the same for him then maybe that's why she didn't put herself in it.

I think this is the first time we've seen Snape interact with a grown woman, other than McGonagall, who is old enough to be his mother. That counts for something.


Thom Matheson - Jan 15, 2007 8:57 pm (#1364 of 2959)
If all we were to look at is canon, what is to discuss? Why waste time on theories? I am amazed when theories become so heated,debated, what ever we shall call them, we all go back to canon.

We have canon clues which we use to shape ideas and interpret them to fit the theories.

As was stated earlier, I am one of those that find the act of murder for any reason, or feeble justifacation, a voluntary act if killing another, without regard for self defense. The law states that that is a one way ticket to Azkaban.

I will of course accept what ever JKR decides, in Deathly Hallows, but until then......See ya Severus


Die Zimtzicke - Jan 15, 2007 9:10 pm (#1365 of 2959)
We've often brought up the look Snape had on his face when he killed Dumbledore. A friend on another board was wondering if that was what he called "performance art". I'll try to explain what we were talking about there as concisely as I can and see how it flies here.

In his 6th year, while Harry has been jealous, annoyed, embarassed, horrified and frightened by turn, but it was a year Harry spent trying to be NORMAL, and he often succeeded. Instead of just being scared off from the DoM scene, Voldemort maybe just wasn't interested in Harry's normal, teenaged life. Harry said he was surprised his scar was no longer hurting. DD said he was not surprised.

Then we have the night Harry goes to the cave. Harry had gotten a nasty shock from Sybill. Then he went into a frenzy quite like the ones that he had had the previous year, when Voldemort was messing with his mind. Voldemort is the one who has control of the connection. He shuts it on and off, never Harry, who refused to cooperate with Snape and learn how to. How do we know for sure that Voldemort has not begun to wonder what was going on and deciding to check it out?

When DD brought up the subject of horcruxes in his office "Rage and resentment fought shock and excitement: For several moments Harry could not speak." Then while DD talks about going after the horcruxes, Harry's anger and desire to do something risky "had increased tenfold". Don't we know by now to be suspicious when Harry's rages come up unexpectedly, with no just cause?

DD even says, when he moves from the window and looks more closely at Harry, "What has happened to you?" If Tom had opened the connection, he might have started listening in and kept on doing so. It's right then that DD for the first time my friend and I can remember, does not remind Hary to call Snape "Professor". Did Dumbledore see Voldemort in Harry's eyes? Is that why he carefully repeats the story of Snape's remorse that Voldemort sent Snape to Hogwarts with, the story DD is careful to call a "likely story"? It would make sense then WHY DD wouldn't tell Harry at that point why he trusts Snape! And it would make a very good reason why DD sent Harry off to get his cloak, so he could warn Snape that Voldemort was seeing what Harry was seeing!

My friend thought there was something very "stagy" about that whole business in the cave, adn the tower, and Snape yelling about being the HBP. It would make more sense to us if Voldemort had witnessed it, and the murder of DD as well. Or Voldemort could certainly have left Harry's mind before that, without Harry knowing it, but Snape kept putting on the show, not knowing it.

The main argument against this is the fact that Harry's scar didn't hurt during that evening, but if Voldemort realized when he tried to possess Harry in the DoM that the scar worked like a warning bell, he might have figured out a way to get past it.

I'm going to try to stick this up by the Dumbledore's death thread, too, and see if anyone has any comments..


Thom Matheson - Jan 15, 2007 9:17 pm (#1366 of 2959)
Are you thinking that Voldemort, thru Harry witnessed the death? That could be interesting


Die Zimtzicke - Jan 15, 2007 9:24 pm (#1367 of 2959)
That's what a lot of us were wondering, on a private board. The death AND the cave, perhaps; definitely the discussion in Dumbledore's office.

I wanted to know if anyone here would think about it and let me know what they think.


Thom Matheson - Jan 15, 2007 9:28 pm (#1368 of 2959)
That suggests that Voldemort was pulling the strings all along and Snape knew it? That changes a bunch of perspectives. Leave it to you to find a third option.


Die Zimtzicke - Jan 15, 2007 9:31 pm (#1369 of 2959)
I'm not ALWAYS a pain in the rear.

What struck us hardest was DD asking, "What has happened to you?"


Thom Matheson - Jan 15, 2007 9:37 pm (#1370 of 2959)
This could be awesome. At first blush, that would mean that DD orchestrated the whole thing, but for other reasons then the most obvious of course. I'll need to think that over some.


whitehound - Jan 15, 2007 10:28 pm (#1371 of 2959)
It's also possible that Voldie watched it through Snape. We don't know what level of connectedness Voldie can exert on those who bear the Mark, but Snape's expression towards Albus does sound like the way Harry reacted to Albus when he had part of Voldie sitting in his head.


Solitaire - Jan 15, 2007 11:17 pm (#1372 of 2959)
Snape's expression towards Albus does sound like the way Harry reacted to Albus when he had part of Voldie sitting in his head.

Interesting observation, whitehound ... I had not noticed that before.

Catherine, I may have misinterpreted what I've read, but the mere suggestion of a relationship between Snape and Lily seems (to me, anyway) to have been snapped up by some folks who have run with the idea as if it were a foregone conclusion. I do believe there are grounds for some sort of friendship there, but I have a hard time picturing Lily in a dating relationship with someone who was so fascinated by the Dark Arts. Snape may have had a crush on her ... or perhaps she, like Harry, had a "saving people thing" and hoped to lure Snape away from the Dark Side ... but that is idle speculation on my part, not canon. In truth, I find it easier to believe that a crush on the beautiful young Slytherin Narcissa could have lured Snape into the DEs in the first place. Again, though, that is pure speculation on my part.

Unfortunately, my teaching load has precluded my being as active and "up" on all of the threads this year, so I have missed a lot of good discussion and debate on some of these issues.

Solitaire


whitehound - Jan 15, 2007 11:26 pm (#1373 of 2959)
Having spent 4½ years running a small occult shop, I have to say that a morbid interest in Dark Arts is absolutely normal for 12-year-old boys.


Catherine - Jan 16, 2007 3:27 am (#1374 of 2959)
Catherine, I may have misinterpreted what I've read, but the mere suggestion of a relationship between Snape and Lily seems (to me, anyway) to have been snapped up by some folks who have run with the idea as if it were a foregone conclusion. --Solitaire

I've noticed that, and that was how I read your post about Snape and Lily.

If all we were to look at is canon, what is to discuss? Why waste time on theories? I am amazed when theories become so heated,debated, what ever we shall call them, we all go back to canon.

We have canon clues which we use to shape ideas and interpret them to fit the theories. --Thom Matheson

Well, theories are not a waste of time; they can be an awful lot of fun and give us something to mull over while we wait for the next book. My point is that in some threads, a theory tends to take on a life of its own, and the discussion seems to assume that the theory is fact, versus being someone's opinion (no matter how well considered and written).

In this thread, I am simply suggesting that the discussion needs to allow room for individuals who do not assume that Lily and Snape were friends/a romantic couple and needs to allow room for those who do not necessarily think that Snape performed the killing curse on Dumbledore's orders.

OK, I got us off track--back to Snape.


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 7:15 am (#1375 of 2959)
Having spent 4½ years running a small occult shop, I have to say that a morbid interest in Dark Arts is absolutely normal for 12-year-old boys.

In Jo's world, where such curiosity can have real consequences, it appears that it is not.


Thom Matheson - Jan 16, 2007 7:27 am (#1376 of 2959)
Catherine, that is my point. We take canon and craft theories that we can use to assist in the formulation of that theory. That is the great fun. For me it is espically great just before a book release when we find out that we were all wet then laugh at ourselves. We were so convinvced.

As for the occult thing, what did Arthur say? "Don't trust anything that has a brain" or something like that. Jo's world is loaded with that stuff.


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 7:39 am (#1377 of 2959)
Thom- Yes, Jo's world is loaded with it, but a deep interest in it is not normal for most wizards.


whitehound - Jan 16, 2007 7:41 am (#1378 of 2959)
In Jo's world, where such curiosity can have real consequences, it appears that it is not.

Dunno - Draco's lot seem very keen on Dark Arts, Harry wants to know how to Crucio his enemies, the Marauders seem to have made a habit of hexing people in quite unpleasant ways and a lot of the Twins' tricks are pretty nasty. Out of the limited number of students we know much about, that suggests that as in real life, a high proportion of them see magic as a way of getting at their enemies.


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 7:49 am (#1379 of 2959)
Draco's lot seem to represent roughly 25%, and we do not know that they all have an interest in Dark Magic. I don't think we can compare growing someone's toenails to Sectumsempra.

Harry did not seek out Crucio because he was interetesed in Dark Magic, but once aware of it he did try to use it, a BIG mistake, IMO, when enraged at the man who he thought killed the epitome of goodness, the most powerful good wizard etc.

Yes, as magical beings, they use magic to pull pranks on each other, I hardly call that an interest in Dark Magic.


whitehound - Jan 16, 2007 7:59 am (#1380 of 2959)
Growing someone's toenails was one of Snape's tricks, and was typical of most of them. The *only* Dark spell we've seen him invent or use was Sectumsempra and he just gave James a little flick with it when James was, in effect, torturing him.

How does that compare with the Twins causing Montagu to end up stuffed down a soil pipe which, presumably, must have broken pretty-much every bone in his body and pulped some of his internal organs? Or even afflicting an unsuspecting Muggle with a three-foot-long tongue?

By "Draco's lot" I don't mean the Slytherins per se, I mean Draco's lot - the people he hangs out with. We don't know about the use of hexes by most Slytherins, just as we don't know about it for the other houses.

Come to that, the curse Hermione put on Marietta was pretty dark.
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Posts 1381 to 1420

Post  Mona Fri Jun 03, 2011 7:42 am

T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 8:15 am (#1381 of 2959)
NO, it wasn't. It was a clever bit of magic that exposed a snitch. Nice? No. Marietta will be scarred for life, but she was only scarred because she turned on her friends and cooperated with a clearly evil Umbridge.

You are trying to compare actions that we may not approve of, with an actual brand of Magic, frowned upon by the Wizarding World. There is a huge difference. One is a reaction at the moment, hexing someone, and the other is studying a side of magic whose only purpose is to hurt (seriously hurt, torture, not the silliness that goes on in the halls), kill or control.

The ton-tongue toffee, not nice, but still in the realm of prank. Sectumsempra kills, horcruxes require killing, crucio, torture that does not compare to embarrasment (though I highly disapprove of James' actions and cowardice), AK, instant death, Imperius, taking away a persons ability to act freely and forcing them to act as you want them to.

Dark Magic is a proper noun describing a branch of magic, not a judgement call of 'mean' acts. Dark Magic's only purpose is to kill, hurt, control or take power, and Jo has made it fairly clear that it is not normal for most wizards to be fascinated by it.

EDIT- The Snitch magic- its actually a real shame Hermione wasn't around to get the Potter's friends to sign a contract, then Sirius wouldn't have spent nearly half his life in jail.


wynnleaf - Jan 16, 2007 9:13 am (#1382 of 2959)
Long post -- sorry.

I really hope we don't get into a Marietta discussion here, as it tends to get so involved and has little to do with Snape. I avoid the Marietta thread now like the plague!

There's a problem in the HP series in that JKR doesn't really give us a definition of what, in her world, Dark Magic really is.

Yes, T Vrana, I agree that the unforgiveables -- which are Dark -- only seem to exist in order to kill, torture, or profoundly control another person against their wishes. Snape says that Sectumsempra is Dark Magic, but we don't actually know what it is about that spell that makes it Dark. One could conceivably see using that spell to cut anything, not just flesh. But perhaps not. Perhaps the spell is only to cut flesh. Even then, however, one could conceivably see the spell used to cut flesh in a health related context. Would it still then be "Dark?" Or perhaps the spell can only be used against enemies. Maybe that's part of what makes the spell work, in which case it could only be used to cut the flesh of an enemy. If that was the case, one could include it in the category of spells which, like the unforgiveables, only exist to kill, torture, etc.

But we aren't told that Dark Magic is only about spells that exist to kill, torture, maim and so on. We aren't told what other Dark Magic may be. Does it only include unforgiveables and things like "how to make a horcrux?" Or are there other avenues of Dark Magic which are not necessarily related to killing and other acts of evil against others?

The problem is, JKR hasn't told us.

So we don't actually know if it is somehow worse for a kid to be interested or curious about Dark Magic, or whether it's worse for a kid to spend their time paying off 11 year olds, making them ill with new magical spells and potions in order to see what happens and develop products to sell.

We don't know whether it's worse for a kid who is being bullied to develop a spell that he uses to nick a kid bullying him on the cheek, because he used Dark Magic to do it, or whether it's worse to injure another kid in such a way that he ends up with some sort of possible brain damage, all because he took points from your house.

This is where I'm going...

We aren't told all of what Dark Magic actually is . Maybe Dark Magic has a lot of areas that seem relatively benign at first glance. Maybe there are the simple, seemingly "innocent" aspects of Dark Magic that can get a person fascinated with it, drawing them in. But eventually the person starts to use that magic for personal benefit, or in an aggressive manner against "enemies" and becomes more and more inured to what he/she is doing. Ultimately, the person could find themselves involved in the extremes of Dark Magic, willing to use it to harm others in the worst ways.

BUT.... similar things can happen without Dark Magic. So you see students hexing each other in the halls -- no problem, everyone does it. But then you see a few kids willing to use their skill at hexing or creating new spells, etc., in ways that harm others to a greater and greater degree. To where eventually, the person who started with just the usual hexing in the hallways, is willing to truly injure someone long-term or permenantly and not care . This person has perhaps not reached the extremes of someone who becomes willing to use unforgiveables to kill and torture, but that person has still gone a lot further than the kid who is still just curiously reading about, or tinkering with the more mild or seemingly benign forms of Dark Magic (if there are such).

It strikes me as interesting that Crouch Sr., who presumably wasn't fascinated with Dark Magic as a kid, was willing to permit his aurors to use Dark Magic unforgiveables in the war against LV. How did he reach that point? What brought him to the point where the worst aspects of Dark Magic were acceptable?

And then you've got Harry. He's not going to become a Crouch, Sr., because JKR won't let him. But right now his hatred is so great, that he is willing to use Dark Magic. What brought him to that point? Is it perhaps just further down a continuum from where he and Ron were unwilling to pass along information about what happened to Montague, even though they had learned that Montague might have permanent or long-term injuries?

So how does this apply to Snape? Supposedly, as a kid Snape was interested in the Dark Arts. Slughorn says that some "wizards of a certain calibre have always been drawn to that aspect of magic." But by "that aspect," he is talking about horcruxes, not the broad topic of Dark Arts. Dark Arts must incorporate a lot more. Think of the DADA class. 7 years of "defense against the dark arts ." Not just "defense against enemies." Or simply "defense." So what I think we can assume is that everything taught in DADA has to do with things related to the Dark Arts -- which would include dark creatures (of which Lupin is one) and general tactics against wizards trying to hurt you (and not solely using unforgiveables). In fact, since one learns an great many tactics in Defense Against the "Dark Arts" for defending against all manner of spells which are not unforgiveables, it seems to me you could make a case that Dark Arts are not solely the spell itself, but also the intent of the user of spells. So students learn to use a protego against a stunning spell as a "defense against dark arts," even though the stunning spell can also be used for good to subdue an evildoer. It is the intent of the user of the stunning spell that made the protego a "defense against dark arts," not the stunning spell itself.

Back to Snape. As a kid he was interested in Dark Arts. Is this, in and of itself, any worse than another student's interest in bullying and hexing other students? Either interest can lead to bigger and worse things. Snape continued with his interest in the Dark Arts and joined LV. But another person could just as easily continue along their path of bullying and hexing until they are willing to seriously injure or kill another student.


MickeyCee3948 - Jan 16, 2007 9:17 am (#1383 of 2959)
Maybe were giving JKR several reasons to write more books. If not about Harry and his world after DH then at least further books on the magic community in her estimation.

Mickey


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 9:39 am (#1384 of 2959)
Wynnleaf- While Jo has not told us entirely what Dark Magic is, she has given us examples:

1) Crucio- used to torture

2) AK- used to kill instantly

3) Imperius- used to control other witches and wizards

4) The Curse that destroyed DD's hand and nearly killed him

5) The Cursed Necklace that Katie barely brushed through a tiny hole in her glove but put her in the hospital for weeks

6) horcruxes which require murder, soul tearing and soul removal.

I don't believe there are simple, innocent bits of Dark Magic that draw you in. The WW has labeled some Magic with a capital 'D' for a reason, because it's only purpose is Dark and Evil. Any bit of magic can be used to do evil, clearly, BUT, I would think to get labeled Dark, its intention has to be evil, and evil only. I could be wrong, but remember we are dealing with Epic Good vs Evil, not real life. A huge point is made that Dark Arts are just that , DARK.

HOWEVER, I have already stated that Snape arriving with all this knowledge is not a sigh he is evil. At eleven, I hardly hold him responsible:

1) Either someone in authority taught him, OR

2) Someone in authority turned a blind eye

3) Someone in authority saw and encouraged

4) Someone in authority left him alone enough that they had no idea what he was doing

No matter which it is, I blame his parent(s). The knowledge itself has also come in handy, and what he decides to do with that knowledge once he realized it is not encouraged, is more important than the knowledge itself.


Die Zimtzicke - Jan 16, 2007 9:46 am (#1385 of 2959)
Jo defined spells on her site, under the extra stuff section. If you believe what she says outside of the books is canon, then you've got what you need. Here's the quote:

Spell Definitions Every now and then somebody asks me for the difference between a spell, a charm and a hex. Within the Potter world, the boundaries are flexible, and I imagine that wizards may have their own ideas. Hermione-ish, however, I've always had a working theory:

Spell: The generic term for a piece of magic.

Charm: Does not fundamentally alter the properties of the subject of the spell, but adds, or changes, properties. Turning a teacup into a rat would be a spell, whereas making a teacup dance would be a charm. The grey area comes with things like 'Stunning Spells', which on balance I think are Charms, but which I call spells for alliterative effect.

Hexes: Has a connotation of dark magic, as do jinxes, but of a minor sort. I see 'hex' as slightly worse. I usually use 'jinx' for spells whose effects are irritating but amusing.

Curses: Reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic.


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 10:03 am (#1386 of 2959)
DIE- I do believe what she says outside her books is canon, what I don't believe is that when Hagrid refers to a Dark Wizard, or Snape is described as knowing more about the Dark Arts at eleven than anyone else, they were discussing wizards who were using amusing, but irritating magic.

Do we really think protecting one's toenails is covered in DADA?

What began this part of the discussion was an assertion that morbid interest in the Dark Arts is normal for 12 year old boys, but we have no examples to support this in the WW. In fact, we have no examples at all of any twelve year olds, except Snape, being interested, and it is odd enough that he was, to be mentionable.


Die Zimtzicke - Jan 16, 2007 10:18 am (#1387 of 2959)
I got the impression Draco was interested, when he used the leg locker curse on Neville. That seemed dark to me at the time, and Jo herself says curses have dark connotations. And a bit later Draco wanted to go to Durmstrang, which was known to be heavily invested in the dark arts. I would call him an example.


wynnleaf - Jan 16, 2007 10:53 am (#1388 of 2959)
The WW has labeled some Magic with a capital 'D' for a reason, because it's only purpose is Dark and Evil. Any bit of magic can be used to do evil, clearly, BUT, I would think to get labeled Dark, its intention has to be evil, and evil only. I could be wrong, but remember we are dealing with Epic Good vs Evil, not real life. A huge point is made that Dark Arts are just that , DARK. (T Vrana)

I agree that Dark Magic is considered Dark because it is evil. But when I used "innocent" and benign, I didn't mean truly innocent, but innocent or benign in appearance, in the sense that the user initially feels that he/she is involved in something that isn't terribly bad or wrong, or that it might be possible to learn aspects of Dark Magic that could ultimately be beneficial. For instance, the kind of magic that gave Voldemort a new body. That's obviously evil stuff. But couldn't you see someone trying to study and understand that kind of magic in the mistaken belief that they could "handle" it and make it of use for good?

This makes me think of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (the book, not the movie), because that is fairly close to the premise. In that story, the scientist thinks, given his great knowledge, that he can use very questionable methods to achieve good. Of course, he's an adult with adult intentions.

But could a young person also become involved or curious about Dark Magic, with the mistaken idea that there are aspects of Dark Magic that aren't really bad.

Curses: Reserved for the worst kinds of dark magic.

Yes. But that also implies that there are "kinds of dark magic" that aren't the "worst" kinds.

Naturally, the canon examples we have of Dark Magic are the ones that are being used in the plot to kill or torture people. Be we haven't been told that all of Dark Magic is used to kill and torture.

Anyway -- what I was really going after is the intent. Intent can take the non-Dark Magic user to more-or-less the same place as the Dark Magic user. And then, which is truly using Dark Magic if they are both in the same place?

So the students learn protego as a defense against the "dark arts." But what is it defending against? Spells like a stunning spell that can just as easily be used for good. My point is that the stunning spell becomes part of the Dark Arts when it is used for evil.

What began this part of the discussion was an assertion that morbid interest in the Dark Arts is normal for 12 year old boys, but we have no examples to support this in the WW. In fact, we have no examples at all of any twelve year olds, except Snape, being interested, and it is odd enough that he was, to be mentionable.

Well, we really have no clue yet what kind of Dark Magic would interest any 11 or 12 year old, Snape included. That's where part of my speculation comes in that there's Dark Magic that isn't among "worst kinds" of curses to kill, injure and torture.

T Vrana, you mentioned that DADA isn't teaching people to protect against toenail growing. True. But DADA is teaching people to protect against werewolves. Are werewolves evil? Is Lupin evil? He is a Dark creature. Does that make him evil?

DADA is teaching people to protect themselves against stunning spells. Is a stunning spell, in and of itself, evil? No, because it can be used for good, as well.

Therefore I think we can extrapolate from that and say that not all Dark Arts are about killing and torturing others. Some spells may not have an immediately evil appearance or built-in obvious intent, nor inheritantly evil. But they may lead a person to a further interest that becomes evil. Other things under "Dark" may not be evil at all -- like certain werewolves. And other things under "Dark" are always evil and unforgiveable because they only exist to kill, etc.

So, in real life, a normal 12 year old might find the idea of "Dark Magic" really interesting, perhaps mostly because he/she may have no real idea what they're getting interested in. In the WW it could be somewhat similar -- 1. if the kid is not being taught the dangers of Dark Magic, or 2. if the kid is discovering magic that he/she doesn't think seems all that bad, even if the "establishment" of the WW says it's bad -- and that is something that real life kids do all the time.


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 11:03 am (#1389 of 2959)
DIE--I'll give you that Draco is an example, but not that leg locker is dark. Would you see it as Dark if Harry used it on a DE rather than AKing to save himself? I still have to think Dark magic involves magic whose only use is Dark.

Curses ARE Dark. Hexes have connotations of dark magic. That is, they are darker than spells, have hints, overtones, suggestions of being dark, but not quite what one would call Dark Magic with a capial D, IMHO.

wynnleaf- No. Lupin is not evil, but in werewolf form he would be. No fault of his, but without the wolfsbane he would bite and kill. So, werewolves ARE evil.

You make my point. All magic can be used for evil purposes, so for a piece of magic to get the title "Dark Magic" it must mean there is not redeeming quality. It is intended for dark purposes only.


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 11:26 am (#1390 of 2959)
But couldn't you see someone trying to study and understand that kind of magic in the mistaken belief that they could "handle" it and make it of use for good?

When the magic involves forcibly taking blood from an enemy, and the chopping off of a hand..NO!

This is why DD doesn't get involved in Dark Arts. One can rationalize all sorts of good reasons to use bad magic, but then, where do you stop? (I am reminded of the One ring, good intentions mean nothing, evil is evil).

I hope Harry stops...soon....


wynnleaf - Jan 16, 2007 11:30 am (#1391 of 2959)
Basically what I'm getting at is that since being Dark Arts doesn't necessarily only equate to curses for killing and torturing people, a kid could develop an interest in Dark Arts without the goals of learning how to kill and torture people. And the interests or disposition that leads the kid to early involvement in Dark Arts may be no more awful than the interests that lead another kid to bully and hex other students, or to manipulate little kids into becoming guinea pigs for the unknown effects of new spells, potions and magical devices.


wynnleaf - Jan 16, 2007 11:35 am (#1392 of 2959)
But couldn't you see someone trying to study and understand that kind of magic in the mistaken belief that they could "handle" it and make it of use for good? (Wynnleaf)

When the magic involves forcibly taking blood from an enemy, and the chopping off of a hand..NO! (T Vrana)

Hey, hey.... I don't mean it's a good idea! I meant can't you envision someone getting involved in it thinking they could handle it?

That's the whole point of Frankenstein. That people really do, in the real world, get involved with things that are inheritantly evil and try to use them, or think they can control it, and it turns on them.

The fact is, people really do try to do that. I didn't mean it's okay, or right. I mean that sometimes people -- adults -- make these kinds of mistakes and they didn't intend evil, but evil eventually results, or they're drawn into it so deeply that evil takes over.

If an adult can do it, how much more so can a kid think they can try something and they can "handle" it, or it won't corrupt them, or whatever. I don't mean they're right. But that's the kind of thing that happens every day.

This is why DD doesn't get involved in Dark Arts. One can rationalize all sorts of good reasons to use bad magic, but then, where do you stop? (T Vrana)

Yes, and that's part of what I was saying. But it doesn't mean that the person intended to walk into evil in the first place.


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 11:37 am (#1393 of 2959)
Don't forget control and power. Basically, I have to believe a Dark Curse has no redeeming qualities or it would not be labeled Dark. So the kid who pursues it does not do so with any good intentions. But again, I do not hold an eleven year old responsible unless he has been told they are bad and frowned upon.

Other than power, control, pain, and death, what would make a spell Dark? (or making a new body with the sacrifices of others, but this goes with power, power over death, along with horcruxes)


wynnleaf - Jan 16, 2007 11:45 am (#1394 of 2959)
Basically, I have to believe a Dark Curse has no redeeming qualities or it would not be labeled Dark.

First, all dark curses are dark magic, but all dark magic isn't necessarily dark curses.

I almost said that I agree that all that is Dark must be at its roots evil, but then that makes all werewolves evil.

So the kid who pursues it does not do so with any good intentions.

Even if all dark magic were at its root evil, it does not necessarily follow that a kid must have evil intentions to attempt it, because the kid may not see the evil. Surely that would be an aspect of Dark Magic -- wouldn't you think? We haven't been told so in canon, but wouldn't you think there'd be a deceptive aspect to Dark Magic, in it's less "worse" forms?

You can't assume that all Dark Magic equates to "how to kill or torture your neighbor" and is therefore obviously evil even to any kid.

Other than power, control, pain, and death, what would make a spell Dark?

Well, we don't know, do we? We have been told by JKR that there are "worse" forms of Dark Magic, which implies lesser forms as well. But we're not told exactly what makes a spell Dark.


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 12:55 pm (#1395 of 2959)
Is a creature that bites and curses (for life) or kills its victims evil? I have to say yes. But that is different from a thinking rational wizard who chooses to kill.

All transformed werewolves bite and kill (without wolfsbane). Therefore all werewolves are Dark, are evil, when transformed! It is a curse to be a werewolf. Lupin is not evil, and if he could choose he would never transform into a werewolf, but once transformed, without wolfsbane, he is a Dark creature. He will kill or curse, and can not be reasoned with. Bummer for him. But, knowing that the werewolf will transform back to a decent human, it would not be acceptable to kill a werewolf.

That's a hard question to answer, as werewolves do seek humans to bite, but clearly are not the lucid creatures their human halves are....

You can't assume that all Dark Magic equates to "how to kill or torture your neighbor" and is therefore obviously evil even to any kid.

I don't. But I assume they all relate to power, control, pain, or death. And I did say I would not hold an eleven year old completely responsible, but I would hold them responsible if they knew they were dark and still wanted to use them.

Well, we don't know, do we? We have been told by JKR that there are "worse" forms of Dark Magic, which implies lesser forms as well. But we're not told exactly what makes a spell Dark.

I realize we don't know, I was asking for speculation. So far, all we have seen, involves control, power, pain and death. I can't imagine what else would classify as Dark and something DD will not allow at his school.

Even if all dark magic were at its root evil, it does not necessarily follow that a kid must have evil intentions to attempt it, because the kid may not see the evil. Surely that would be an aspect of Dark Magic -- wouldn't you think? We haven't been told so in canon, but wouldn't you think there'd be a deceptive aspect to Dark Magic, in it's less "worse" forms?

Do you have a 'for instance'? Again, just looking for speculation. Can you think of a possible bit of magic that would qualify as Dark, but can appear harmless?


Catherine - Jan 16, 2007 1:14 pm (#1396 of 2959)
The discussion going on recently is fascinating, but we really need to keep the discussion in this thread focused upon Severus Snape.


whitehound - Jan 16, 2007 1:34 pm (#1397 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 16, 2007 2:03 pm

Going back slightly -

The ton-tongue toffee, not nice, but still in the realm of prank. Sectumsempra kills

We are told that the Twins were seriously considering letting off Garrotting Gas, which we are also told is invisible and fatal, and presumably random. And Montagu was very lucky to get out of their "prank" alive.

When we saw Sectumsempra used by somebody who understood what they were wielding, it inflicted only a minor flesh-wound. It's basically a magical knife: you could probably carve a roast with it, or prune roses, if you wanted to.

So why is the Twins' serious intention of committing random invisible murder (albeit that they didn't carry it out in the end), using a spell (? or potion) whose sole purpose is to kill by stealth, somehow less dark than Severus inventing a magical knife which potentially *could* be used to kill, but which can also be used as a tool or to inflict minor wounds in self defence?

Is this another case of, it's OK if you kill another student so long as you're a Gryffindor and have cute freckles?

It's never actually been explained why the Unforgiveables are unforgivable anyway. There are circumstances under which AK-ing someone could be humane or defensive; even Crucio could be used to e.g. startle an enemy into dropping a weapon which they have trained on you, rather than to torture; and Imperio has many potential benign uses. Talking a would-be suicide down from a ledge, for example.

So why is AK Unforgiveable, and Garrotting Gas isn't?

Is a creature that bites and curses (for life) or kills its victims evil? I have to say yes.

Does that mean you think polar bears and tigers are evil, because they sometimes snack on humans?


azi - Jan 16, 2007 1:44 pm (#1398 of 2959)
We are told that the Twins were seriously considering letting off Garrotting Gas, which we are also told is invisible and fatal, and presumably random - whitehound

Where are we told this? The Lexicon merely states that it apparently knocks people unconcious. We aren't told the properties of the gas. Just because Ginny and the others told people it would hurt them, it doesn't mean it's true. They may have been relying on people being too stupid to realise what it was.


whitehound - Jan 16, 2007 2:11 pm (#1399 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 16, 2007 2:32 pm

They could hear people complaining; one surly voice said, 'I can't see no gas.'

'That's because it's colourless,' said Ginny in a convincingly exasperated voice, 'but if you want to walk through it, carry on, then we'll have your body as proof for the next idiot who doesn't believe us.'

===========

"Body" in this sort of context generally means dead body. I can't see any reason to think Ginny is lying about its effects. She's inventing an imaginary threat anyway: why would she invent an imnaginary threat which was something which anybody who knew their potions would recognize as not dangerous? If Garrotting Gas wasn't really a threat, she'd have said there was something else there that *was* dangerous.

When we hear about the Entrail-Expelling Curse we assume it disembowels people. Why assume any different about Garrotting Gas? Why would it be *called* Garrotting Gas if it didn't garrotte people (i.e. twist a thin cord around their necks until they die)?


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 2:13 pm (#1400 of 2959)
whitehound- Does that mean you think polar bears and tigers are evil, because they sometimes snack on humans?

Nope. They attack and kill to survive. We have no evidence that a werewolf needs to attack or kill to survive.

Is this another case of, it's OK if you kill another student so long as you're a Gryffindor and have cute freckles?

No, and I never came close to suggesting this. I DID say that any magic can be used for evil purposes, but since the WW world has gone a step further and labeled some as Dark and frowns on their use, they must have no redeeming qualities.

Also, did the Twins intend to seriously hurt Montague by shoving him into a cabinet? Again, the difference between some of their bad behaviour and Dark Magic, as far as we have seen so far, Dark Magic is intended to hurt, kill , control, gain power. We do not know that they intended Montague to get so badly hurt. We do not know that they knew he would be stuck, just sent some other place. Irresponsible? Yes. Same as using a curse you are certain will hurt. No.

You are again comparing an action that resulted in something we do not approve, and magic that seems to have only bad intentions. Why else would it be called Dark?

Snape called Sectumsempra Dark Magic, its his invention, so I don't think he's carving roasts with it.

There are circumstances under which AK-ing someone could be humane or defensive;

Clearly the WW does not believe in assisted suicide and hopefully has other solutions. As for defense, if you can AK someone you can hit them with a non-lethal spell to stop and detain them, so no need to kill.

Crucio to drop a weapon- Expelliarmus will do the same thing, why resort to torture?

Imperio for the jumper- Same as above, they have enough good magic without taking over someone's will.

Garotting gas- As you said, they didn't do it.


Catherine - Jan 16, 2007 2:13 pm (#1401 of 2959)
Again, this conversation needs to be framed around Snape. Snape's use or lack of use of Dark Spells is certainly fair game for discussion, but the conversation has drifted away from Snape's interest in the Dark Arts, or Snape's use of dark spells. Let's put this Dark Arts discussion in the appropriate thread, or frame it around Snape.

You never know when a Kippendo spell may come....


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 2:18 pm (#1402 of 2959)
Edited by Catherine Jan 16, 2007 4:43 pm

I mentioned Snape!

EDIT: OK. So let's work in some real Snape....-Catherine.


whitehound - Jan 16, 2007 2:57 pm (#1403 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 16, 2007 3:24 pm

# *You* didn't suggest that killing was OK if it's a Gryffindor doing it, but that does seem to be the attitude of most of the characters.

Many of the Twin's hexes are rather nasty or dangerous - OK, they probably didn't *mean* to nearly kill Montagu, but they didn't care either, and they must have known that shoving somebody into a sort of dimension-gate that was damaged would be very dangerous. Whereas other than Sectumsempra young!Snape's hexes were rather whimsical, and less nasty than some of the Twin's stuff.

And, OK, the Twins didn't let off the Garrotting Gas, in the end, but we're told they were seriously planning to. And no more did Snape do anything dangerous with Sectumsempra, that we've seen: just defended himself, in a very controlled and restrained way.

In reality, if this was a real school, which students would worry you more? A pair of rather manic, reckless twins who routinely used younger children as experimental subjects, who had seriously planned a terrorist attack with, let's say, sarin gas, and who would probably have done it if they hadn't been thrown out of the school before they could put their plan into action; or a sad, bullied loner who finally snapped and nicked one of the bullies with a penknife as they attacked him? Which students would you least like your kid to be at school with?

Yet, people in the books, never mind in the fandom, see Snape as wicked and the Twins as just harmless good fun, and the difference really seems to be that Snape *looks* sinister and the Twins look cute, so what Snape does must be wicked and what the Twins do must be just a bit of fun.

You are again comparing an action that resulted in something we do not approve, and magic that seems to have only bad intentions. Why else would it be called Dark?

We don't actually *know* why it's called Dark - many people have suggested that it's because it's chaotic or occult, in the sense of being hidden. It may tap into some intrinsic power of night, which is not the same as being evil.

There certainly seems to be no logic to what is considered Dark in JK's world. Being a Parselmouth seems to be widely considered to be Dark, yet there seems no reason why an ability to talk to snakes should be more evil than an ability to talk to squirrels. Imperio is Unforgiveable, yet Confundus is used by children and Obliviate and Veritaserum - all methods of messing with someone's mind without their permission - are government tools. Imperio was a government tool too, when it suited them.

The Dark Arts are taught at Durmstrang, yet although Durmstrang is regarded with some suspicion, the other schools don't react as if it was a training ground for torturers and murderers, and Viktor Krum seems a thoroughly sweet boy.

What makes one spell Dark, and the Entrail-Expelling Curse something to be celebrated in a portrait, really seems to be either arbitrary (not thought out in advance) or down to something we haven't been told about yet. The fact that AK has no counter-curse suggests it may be something to do with the type of magical energy which is being tapped, or the energy-level on which the spell operates, rather than whether its effects are good or evil.


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 4:07 pm (#1404 of 2959)
Let's remenber that the twins never seriously hurt anyone with intent. Snape became a DE.

No evidence they would have ever released garroting gas.

The only imperio I remember was used to thwart the government (Shacklebolt on Marietta).

Where is the entrail expelling curse celebrated?

Snape could have used other spells to fight back, not one that drew blood, enough to spatter James robes. (though I'm not defending James' despicable acts). In fact, he should have. Slashing James did not stop him, whereas stupefy would have.


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 4:40 pm (#1405 of 2959)
This debate is an example of what made me a little crazy a few nights ago. We have come to the point where every action of the Twins is viewed in the worst possible light, so now they are crazed mass murderers, and everything Snape does, including using Dark magic to slash open a few student's face, is seen in the best possible light. He is given credit for carefully controlling his dark magic to inflict minimal damage. We don't know that at all. In fact, there was little time for Snape to act and a huge gash in James face, that splettered his robes with blood.

Again, I'm not defending James, but here is an example of the danger of having Dark Magic in your bag of tricks, as Harry learned. In a moment of anger you can do real damage. As much of a prat as James was being (and he was truly awful and cowardly) he did not strike back with potentially deadly force. Snape did.


whitehound - Jan 16, 2007 4:51 pm (#1406 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 16, 2007 5:01 pm

Ginny says that the Twins were seriously planning to release Garrotting Gas, and would have done so if they hadn't left the school. And we don't actually *know* that Snape ever hurt anybody as a DE, really, because we've no idea how long he was one for.

All we know is that he was a genuine DE for a core period between just before the Prophecy was made and just after Harry was born - a period which could be as little as four months. We know he left them very soon after that, and we have no indication of how much earlier he joined. It could have been four years before he overheard the prophecy, or four days - we just don't know.

The Entrail-Expelling Curse is proclaimed as an achievement in the writing on the portrait of a very grim character who hangs at St Mungo's - somebody RackHarrow.

We are told that Barty Crouch Snr authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses on prisoners (presumably including torturing them with Crucio) during the first Voldemort war.

If it's true what JK says, that spells referred to as curses are the worst kind of Dark magic, that sheds an interesting light on the fact that Albus used a Body-Bind Curse on Harry.

In fact, a lot of quite mild-seeming spells are named as curses, which again raises the question, if these are the worst sort of Dark magic, *why* are they? We see the Leg-Locker, Body-Bind and Conjunctivitis Curses, the thing that made Ron vomit slugs, the Curse of the Bogies, the Babbling Curse, the Furnunculus Curse, even the Reductor Curse which they are taught in class and which is used like miners' gelignite to blast a clear route - as well as the Entrail-Expelling Curse, which is the only one which sounds truly nasty and which is proudly proclaimed on Rackharrow's portrait.

So why is a Babbling Curse or a thing for blasting rocks out of the way the worst sort of Dark magic?

Sirius says in GoF that Snape "knew more curses when he arrived at school than half the kids in seventh year," but there's nothing there to say whether they were horrible, evil spells or just things like the Body-Bind Curse which Albus uses and the slug-vomiting one which Ron *tries* to use. Indeed, the reference to curses which you would expect to be known in seventh year suggests that many of the curses Snape knew were things which would later actually be taught in class.

Later, in OotP, Sirius says that Snape "was up to his eyes in the Dark Arts" but you have to wonder how much he's exagerating, because at that point he's trying to make himself and James look better in Harry's eyes. If James actually had had any sort of half-decent excuse for hating Snape, wouldn't he have produced it when doing so would have improved his standing in Lily's eyes, instead of just telling her that he persecuted Snape just because he *existed*?

PS we're *supposed* to view the Twins' behaviour in a bad light I think. That's why we suddenly find out at the end of HBP that their "harmless tricks" enabled the DE invasion of Hogwarts.


Thom Matheson - Jan 16, 2007 5:02 pm (#1407 of 2959)
Garotting gas to me says that the rotten smell will choke it's victim.

Dark magic, is I believe in the intent of it's user. I don't not believe that there is a list anywhere.

Whitehound, You say that Snape was a death eater before the prophacy and just after Harry's birth. Do we know for certain that he is not a death eater still? Under orders from Voldemort?


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 5:07 pm (#1408 of 2959)
No, Malfoy inviting them in enabled it. He also used a vanishing cabinet, his wand etc. It is the use one puts things to. And in the case of Dark Magic, we still do not have a good use for the things we know for sure are Dark Magic.

Thom- If DD dosen't teach it, but Durmstang does, then there has to be a list or how do they know if they are teaching it or not? It's not defense against Bad Intenions, it is DADA.


journeymom - Jan 16, 2007 5:17 pm (#1409 of 2959)
About garrotting gas from the Lexicon:

Invisible gas which apparently knocks people unconscious.

Fred and George were planning to release Garrotting Gas in a corridor, but left school before they had a chance to carry out the plan. Ginny seized upon the idea as a diversion to keep Umbridge away from her office. NOTE: It seems highly unlikely that Fred and George would have released something which was actually deadly, so we assume that Garrotting Gas is non-lethal (OP32).


Thom Matheson - Jan 16, 2007 5:19 pm (#1410 of 2959)
T, my point was that inoxuious spells, or charms could be darker if the intent was to perform a dark function, or was meant for pain, evil etc.

Hermione starting Snape's robes on fire, a charm. Hermione starting Snape's hair on fire, much darker. The intent of the user makes it dark. Unforgivables not with standing, are not in that same catagory but the in the case of Barty Crouch I see his Aurors using unforgivables as a fight fire with fire. It's like going to a gun fight with a knife. I don't have a problem with that at all. Kind of like Bobbies carrying sticks and a whistle against bad guys with guns. That makes me sleep at night.


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 5:28 pm (#1411 of 2959)
whitehound- We are told that Barty Crouch Snr authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses on prisoners (presumably including torturing them with Crucio)

I recall being told AKs were approved, but he was a nutter. Were we told all Unforgivables?

Thom- Nothing like guns vs. knives! In magic both sides have to cast spells. If you can hit someone with an AK, you can hit them with a non-lethal spell and detain them.

I agree you can do bad with "good" magic. My argument is that Dark Magic does not have a GOOD purpose, that's why it is Dark.


Thom Matheson - Jan 16, 2007 5:30 pm (#1412 of 2959)
I'm saying the same thing, nutter. Must be my Detroit accent throwing you off


whitehound - Jan 16, 2007 5:58 pm (#1413 of 2959)
Edited by Jan 16, 2007 6:13 pm

It can't be the case that Garrotting Gas has a bad smell. Remember, there *was* no Garrotting Gas there, Ginny was just making it up. If it was a gas that was supposed to smell, and here there was no smell, no-one would have believed her.

The Lexicon is only guessing that the gas wasn't lethal: it has no evidence for it. Ginny refers to getting a "body" as evidence, a phrase which usually means a corpse. And if it was non-lethal, why would it be called after a particularly nasty, stealthy and fatal type of strangulation?

As to whether you can do good with Dark magic, according to JK the spells which she has designated as curses are "the worst kind of dark magic" and they include spells which are used by Dumbledore and taught at Hogwarts. At minimum, this shows that her method of labelling spells as curses is arbitrary, and her method of labelling spells as Dark is probably equally arbitrary.


T Vrana - we were told Crouch authorized the use of the Unforgiveables, plural, so it was at least two of them - and Sirius says the Aurors became as bad as the DEs they were fighting, which from the strong way he said it implies the use of torture.

Of course we don't know for 100% sure Snape isn't loyal to Voldie, just as we don't know for sure that Lupin isn't really Voldie's agent. There are even some people who think that Minerva is a DE. All things are possible.

But assuming Albus told Harry the truth, Snape ceased to be a DE when he realized Voldie was targetting the Potters, which was probably not long after Harry's birth (because we're told information was being leaked - presumably by Peter - for over a year).

The point is, there's a general assumption that Snape *must* have joined the DEs soon after leaving school and he *must* have been this monstrous killer etc.. But in fact, that's just fanon: there's nothing in canon to support it. He *might* have taken the Mark the day he turned seventeen and become a monster of torture and blood; he also might have joined four days before he heard the prophecy, and never have done anything worse for Voldie than brew Wolfsbane. We just don't know.

There are also many people who think that it will turn out that he never *was* a loyal Death Eater, that he was Dumbledore's man from the outset and that he joined the DEs in the first place on Albus's orders - and that Albus lied to Harry about it because he didn't want Harry to find out that he, Albus, had told Snape to give Voldie the prophecy. I don't actually believe this myself - but many people do.


T Vrana - Jan 16, 2007 6:45 pm (#1414 of 2959)
whitehound- The Dark Arts are taught at Durmstrang, yet although Durmstrang is regarded with some suspicion, the other schools don't react as if it was a training ground for torturers and murderers, and Viktor Krum seems a thoroughly sweet boy.

Yes, they teach it, but that does not mean every student has a deep interest or affinity for it. Harry takes Divination, but he's not running around with Tarot cards.

As for Snape, I don't think he's ever killed anyone. I do think he needed a place to fit in and quickly became disenchanted and returned to DD.

I still do not think the twins would ever have let off a gas that could kill anyone. Body can also mean unconscious body, or, in the WW, petrified body etc. But we have no reason to believe the twins would ever do such a thing.


whitehound - Jan 16, 2007 7:13 pm (#1415 of 2959)
I do think he needed a place to fit in and quickly became disenchanted and returned to DD.

Yes quite. I imagine they "love bombed" him, as cults do with lonely teenagers, convinced him they'd value him etc., and he needed a father figure and felt DD had let him down by not punishing Sirius's murder attempt, and of course like most political extremists they would tell him the atricities were the work of an unrepresentative fringe element and not part of Voldie's official policy etc. etc..

I would expect it would only take him a few months to realize he'd got into something bad: but it would take the revelation that he'd endangered the Potters to move him on from "I wish I could get out of this, but I'm too scared to act" to "I'm going to get out of this even if it kills me, which it probably will."

I still do not think the twins would ever have let off a gas that could kill anyone. Body can also mean unconscious body, or, in the WW, petrified body etc. But we have no reason to believe the twins would ever do such a thing.

Iffy. We know they burned a hole in baby Ron's tongue and tried to get him to swear an Unbreakable Vow, which easily could have killed him - although of course they were quite young children themselves at the time. We know they did something appallingly dangerous to Montagu and didn't seem to care that it nearly killed him, even if that wasn't their actual intention.

"Body" does nearly always mean corpse, here (asuming you're not here) - if Ginny had meant that people would see the chap lying their unconscious she'd probably have said "we'll have you lying there as proof" not "we'll have your body as proof ".

I suspect they probably *would* have let the gas off but would have warned people they'd done so, without telling them where - so probably nobody would get badly hurt, but nobody would dare leave their dorm. But I wouldn't like to swear they'd bother to warn the Slytherins.


mona amon - Jan 16, 2007 9:26 pm (#1416 of 2959)
"...which would include dark creatures (of which Lupin is one)"--Wynnleaf(#1382)

I completely missed that! The kids learning how to defend themselves against dark creatures, and their professor is a dark creature himself! Did DD realise the irony of that?

Regarding Snape's facination with the dark arts, I would like to quote his DADA class speech - "The Dark Arts are many, varied, ever-changing and eternal. Fighting them is like fighting a many-headed monster, which, each time a neck is severed, sprouts a head even fiercer and cleverer than before.You are fighting that which is unfixed, mutating, indestructable."

Harry is appalled by what he feels is a loving caress in Snape's voice. But to me, his words seem to suggest a fascination not with the practices themselves, but with something that is dangerous, complex and challenging.

Moreover, he not only invented Sectumsempra, but also a countercurse, and HBP has other instances of him knowing countercurses for dark curses. I don't think he'd have bothered with these if he was only interested in hurting people.

Whitehound, I completely agree with your views regarding Snape joining the DEs.

As for the Entrail-Expelling curse, I took that to mean a curse that expells the contents of the entrails :-) A bit of 'U-No-Poo'type humour on JKR's part.


Solitaire - Jan 16, 2007 9:31 pm (#1417 of 2959)
It's odd, IMO, that something relatively harmless would be called "garrotting gas," when a garotte (garrotte?) is used to strangle someone.

Solitaire


whitehound - Jan 17, 2007 4:33 am (#1418 of 2959)
It's odd, IMO, that something relatively harmless would be called "garrotting gas," when a garotte (garrotte?) is used to strangle someone.

Yes quite - and in a famously stealthy and lethal way.

As for the Entrail-Expelling curse,I took that to mean a curse that expells the contents of the entrails:-)A bit of 'U-No-Poo'type humour on JKR's part.

I'd not thought of that - it's possible. In which case it could have medical uses. But Rackharrow is described as very sinister-looking....

I've been thinking about this whole "he knew more curses than most seventh years" thing. The assumption - even by me - is that Snape knew so many curses because he was hostile and defensive (generally, with good reason to be). But it occurred to me last night that since we know Snape was using a sixth-year Potions text for his own amusement in fifth year, if not earlier, and we know that many curses are actually taught at Hogwarts, it may simply have been the case that, like Hermione, he was passionately academic and had read and practised well in advance of his year. Knowing seventh-year-level curses may well have just been part of being generally very academically advanced; but Sirius noticed the curses most because he was always tormenting and provoking Snape, and therefore got practised on.

Good point about him knowing the counter-curses, mon amon. I can't remember if the counter-curse for Sectumsempra was in the book or not but then Sectumsempra appeared to be one he'd copied from another source (his own or someone else's) rather than worked out in the margins, so he might just not have written the counter-curse down. Certainly we see he had made counter-curses for some of the other spells in that book, so it's reasonable to expect he had a counter-curse ready for Sectumsempra as well, and intended to use it to give somebody a very nasty fright and to get the upper hand over them, rather than actually to kill them.

His fascination with Dark Arts may well also have been primarily academic - if he had an uncle who taught at Durmstrang or similar he may well have seen it as just another textbook to soak up. At the same time, I suspect he probably did partly feel drawn to them because of that fascination - the fact that he called himself the Half-Blood Prince does suggest he was a posy little proto-Goth with that sort of streak of dark romanticism that Goths have. But I see no reason to assume that he had any serious desire to do evil, as opposed to just being fourteen and a bit posy.

Really, James is young Snape's best character witness. Whatever Sirius says later to excuse himself to Harry, James was trying to impress Lily and it would have been in his interests to provide some good reason for his hatred of Snape. The fact that all he could come up with was "because he exists" shows that Snape was neither known to be seriously dark nor in the habit of calling people Mudblood (when not in a panic rage).

That incident - calling Lily Mudblood etc. - may well have been basic self-defence, btw. As a poor, working-class half-blood at a time when Slytherin was full of future Death Eaters, Snape's position in his own common room and dorm must have been precarious at best. To be openly rescued by a Muggle-born girl could only damage his standing in Slytherin still further and probably lead to persecution in his own house - and at least the Marauders couldn't get at him when he was sleeping. Distancing himself from Lily in the most brutal way was probably a neccessary survival tactic, as well as an expression of anger and panic.


wynnleaf - Jan 17, 2007 8:24 am (#1419 of 2959)
A lot of what's behind my thinking in the recent discussion is to look at why most readers take Snape's invention of Sectumsempra, his apparent brief and controlled use of it when being bullied, and his interest at Hogwarts in the Dark Arts, and move from there to the supposition that Snape-the-student was making far worse choices than some of the other students for which we've seen behavior that intentionally and without concern risks the lives and health of others.

Fred and George make the perfect examples, and also Sirius since we know he tricked Snape almost to his death.

But the point isn't that "hey, look, Dark Arts isn't so bad." Or even, "look, Snape wasn't doing anything wrong."

The point, for me, is that the characters and most of us readers find it much easier to tolerate the extreme behavior of people Harry likes and who like Harry, and who also happen to come across as fun and cool -- being quite willing to continue to see those characters as overall good guys, regardless what harm they do. Yet a character who dislikes Harry and who Harry dislikes, who comes across as unpleasant, insulting, ugly, etc., we look at this one use of a cutting spell to cut James' cheek and the reports of those that bullied him that he was into Dark Magic, and assume that his choices were far more awful than those of the twins or Sirius.

My hope is that JKR will do some sort of reversal of viewpoint in Deathly Hallows (not character viewpoint, but what she wants readers and characters to see and understand). I am hopeful that she has set up these likeable characters doing terrible things in a plan to eventually show us that we often judge the actions and characters of others, not based solely on what they actually do, but also based on whether or not they are likeable.

I am hopeful that she eventually makes it clear that sometimes the very unlikeable person does far more good than expected, while the likeable person's "evils" are passed over as though they are of little import.


Die Zimtzicke - Jan 17, 2007 9:22 am (#1420 of 2959)
Exactly..Weasleys are always just joking, no matter how serious their actions COULD have been because Harry likes Weasleys, for example. But if Harry doesn't like Snape, and thinks he saw Snape do something evil, no matter what Snape's intentions or motivations COULD have been, then Snape is unreedemably evil.

Like Harry have never been wrong in judging anyone or anything...
Mona
Mona
Hufflepuff Prefect
Hufflepuff Prefect

Posts : 3114
Join date : 2011-02-21
Age : 61
Location : India

Back to top Go down

Severus Snape  - Page 10 Empty Re: Severus Snape

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 10 of 19 Previous  1 ... 6 ... 9, 10, 11 ... 14 ... 19  Next

Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum