Severus Snape: Character Analysis v.9

:rolleyes: If Snape always saw Harry as simply James' son, then Harry would probably be dead and Snape unredeemed.

I don't follow what you mean. You believe Snape would have killed James if he had survived? I don't. I don't believe he would kill Harry either in his normal state of being. However, I do believe that Snape never came to accept Harry as anything but James' son in a philosophical sense, which is why he continued to loathe them both till his death, imo. However, Snape also saw Harry in terms of Lily, imo, as proof that Lily loved another man. But even then, I feel his focus was jealousy and loathing aimed at the father and son, rather than at Lily for having chose another. Otherwise his consistent mistreatment of Harry would not make sense to me - that is, it wasn't like he went back and forth between being horrible and decent toward the child, imo, I felt he mistreated him at every turn. In my judgment, he would be unable to behave in a cruel and bullying manner toward Harry if he had allowed his emotions for Lily to guide him in his estimation and treatment of Harry.

A young Snape, fresh from the DE ranks and still a little morally confused, would not, IMO, have protected Harry unless he had a compelling reason to do so-- like the fact that Harry is Lily's child.

I respect your view; however, in canon, it was not put in this manner, imo. Dumbledore framed it in terms of Snape honoring Lily's sacrifice, not 'for her child'. That is what Snape promised to do - honor Lily's sacrifice and near the end of the series he reiterated that in canon as well (DH TPT). Snape declared quite clearly that he was not doing it for Harry at all, but only for Lily, by my reading of the text. Harry did not declare to Voldemort that Snape was doing anything for him - he said he was Dumbledore's man and that he'd loved his mum (DH The Flaw in the Plan). So in my view, he was not under the impression that Snape had made any effort whatsoever on behalf of either he or his father (both also harmed/killed by his act of relaying the prophecy).

As for pre-DH theories..
You know, I used to like the idea of Snape being on his own side ages ago. But I was always open to new ideas and gradually the idea of good!Snape seemed both far more likely and more interesting. I still think Obscure!Snape could have been pulled off, but JKR did a fantastic job showing us this flawed yet highly sympathetic character. It's OK to have been a little off from the truth. I know I was. :lol: I didn't suspect, for instance, that Lily would have as much of a role in bringing Snape from the Dark Side. But she did, and I had to reevaluate my opinion of Snape in some ways because of it.

I guess mine was kind of obscure too, but more by virtue of his flying from side to side (evil - good). I didn't believe in the Lily theory either - but the only one I had heard was that they had been married previously :lol:. I discredited it because she died too young to have married twice, imo (based on the way JKR writes.) However, I was very disappointed with the way it turned out. I did not want Snape to have changed sides for unrequited love because it totally weakened his character to me. I wanted a strong evil side Snape - but I would have happily settled for a strong good side Snape who changed sides of his own accord and merely behaved in a horrible manner. The way it came out still seems unrealistic to me because there was no mutual romantic interest so it rendered Snape blowing up this whole romantic fantasy in his head as I saw it, and then based on that, blew up his feelings of jealousy and dislike for the father and son accordingly. But it is the whole "blow up" portion of it that I find difficult to swallow because now I have to accept that Snape was unbalanced in that regard and that was the furthest thing from my mind pre-publication.

Do you mean that you don't feel Snape realized that Lily rejected him because he was on a dark path? She told him in DH. If he refused to admit it, and refused to admit his wrongs, then he wouldn't even be on the good side. He would actually be on the bad side, and only posing to be on the good side, merely for Lily, imo.

Have answered in the Snape and Lily thread! :)

If Snape always saw Harry as simply James' son, then Harry would probably be dead and Snape unredeemed. A young Snape, fresh from the DE ranks and still a little morally confused, would not, IMO, have protected Harry unless he had a compelling reason to do so-- like the fact that Harry is Lily's child.:agree: Exactly!!
Canon is that Snape protected Harry because he was Lily Potter son. She had died to protect Harry and Snape's purpose in protecting Harry was to ensure that Lily's sacrifice was not in vain. As such Severus had to acknowledge that Harry was Lily's son. If Snape had been in denial that Harry was Lily's son then he would not have protected him "for Lily". Harry being Lily's son is at the very core of Severus Snape's reason for protecting him. As such I do no think it is acurate to say that Snape only ever saw Harry as "Potter's son"

:agree: Exactly!!
Canon is that Snape protected Harry because he was Lily Potter son. She had died to protect Harry and Snape's purpose in protecting Harry was to ensure that Lily's sacrifice was not in vain. As such Severus had to acknowledge that Harry was Lily's son. If Snape had been in denial that Harry was Lily's son then he would not have protected him "for Lily". Harry being Lily's son is at the very core of Severus Snape's reason for protecting him. As such I do no think it is acurate to say that Snape only ever saw Harry as "Potter's son"

I feel that JKR meant "for all practical purposes" by her statement. She also said that Snape saw Harry as a representation of Lily's love for another man. That man didn't have to be James, the point was, it was not Snape. So Snape's view of Harry was only tenuously associated with either James or Lily in that regard, it was jealousy at his mere existence in the world.

But in a real sense, he of course had to internalize the notion that Harry was Lily's son or his entire promise would have been meaningless. Nonetheless, that had no practical application because he mistreated Harry and refused to acknowledge the connection in any appreciable way, on a personal level imo. As it was, at the last second of his life (literally), he had to reconcile himself to look in James Potter's face to see Lily's eyes - so in that way, there was some sort of momentary truce with the waring that had been a part of his life, imo. But even then, Harry was out of the equation, imo, and was naught more than a tool or strawman who represented the love of his parents rather than himself.

I feel that JKR meant "for all practical purposes" by her statement. She also said that Snape saw Harry as a representation of Lily's love for another man. That man didn't have to be James, the point was, it was not Snape. So Snape's view of Harry was only tenuously associated with either James or Lily in that regard, it was jealousy at his mere existence in the world.

I think it's fair of me to feel that she meant "another man" in the sense of not bothering to name James since it would be evident. I might be wrong here, but I always think that if she had chosen another person- any other person, but Snape- then he might not have been so bad. It would have thus meant that even though Snape didn't win her over, neither did his mortal enemy- so it would sting less.

Nonetheless, that had no practical application because he mistreated Harry and refused to acknowledge the connection in any appreciable way, on a personal level imo. As it was, at the last second of his life (literally), he had to reconcile himself to look in James Potter's face to see Lily's eyes - so in that way, there was some sort of momentary truce with the waring that had been a part of his life, imo. But even then, Harry was out of the equation, imo, and was naught more than a tool or strawman who represented the love of his parents rather than himself.

I do think that it had practical application. Sure, he was mean to Harry- but he must have appreciated the connection. Otherwise he wouldn't have helped at all. If the idea was so disgusting to him, rendering him ashamed, bitter and twisted in all ways, shapes and forms, then he would have felt nothing but detest for Harry and would not have helped- especially when he knew that he would be helping a clone of James. But he felt it necessary to help because Lily was the person he was most connected with. It seems unlikely to me that his reactions are a result of just disliking Harry, and more to do with Snape's prior relationship with his parents.

Sure, he was mean to Harry- but he must have appreciated the connection. Otherwise he wouldn't have helped at all.
:agree: That was what I was trying to say!

To me the whole thing that makes Snape interesting is that he is a flawed character. He is full of remorse for his part in Lily's death but his remorse is imperfect. To me this makes him much more interesting because he is much more human and much more realistic. Harry is a great hero - but how many of us know someone who is as heroic, forgiving and selfless as Harry? The thing about Snape is that people can identify with him - people who have been bullied can understand the resentment he feels; people who have fallen foul of "the in crowd" know what it's like to be humiliated and laughed at. People who have lost the person they love to another can identify with his pain; people who have made bad choices can identify with Snape's struggle with his own self loathing and feelings of worthlessness, and they can identify with his very conflicted feelings towards Harry. There is nothing simple or straight forward about Snape - that is the reason why I like him so much.

I think it's fair of me to feel that she meant "another man" in the sense of not bothering to name James since it would be evident. I might be wrong here, but I always think that if she had chosen another person- any other person, but Snape- then he might not have been so bad. It would have thus meant that even though Snape didn't win her over, neither did his mortal enemy- so it would sting less.

Like Sirius for instance? :rotfl:. Of course it stung more being one of his enemies, but as it also could be Sirius, who would then take over as the focus of Snape's hate if he'd won Lily, "another man" works just fine. But the way JKR put it was in terms of Snape - he did not want Lily with another man other than himself, so while it would have stung less if it were not his enemy's child, any other man's child, born with Lily as the mother, would have only been treated minimally better, imo.

I do think that it had practical application. Sure, he was mean to Harry- but he must have appreciated the connection.

His appreciation of the connection is not "practical" in the sense I was talking about. I meant in practice, i.e., being kind to Harry on Lily's behalf.

Otherwise he wouldn't have helped at all.

Note that his "help" was dramatically blighted by his "hurt", imo, so his not helping at all would also mean not hurting at all. This is the problem as I see it.

If the idea was so disgusting to him, rendering him ashamed, bitter and twisted in all ways, shapes and forms, then he would have felt nothing but detest for Harry and would not have helped- especially when he knew that he would be helping a clone of James.

But he did loathe Harry according to JKR and I assume he also loathed James. Yet he still helped (from JKR's point of view) - thus, as written by her, Snape was willing to hate and help. So I would have to disagree with your assertion that Snape would not have helped if he didn't detest Harry (if by detest you mean loathe).

But understand, a comment by Ignisia long ago still has me intrigued. It has never been definitively stated that Snape felt only loathing for James. If it is true that buried somewhere in his soul was respect and admiration - together with the hate - then I could see him getting that far in his regard for Harry as well. I am speaking in terms of the things James and Harry did that were respectable and admirable of course (like saving Snape's life, working for the Order, sacrificing his life for his family (James) and overcoming Voldemort and his Snares (Harry)). There are other things too - it is possible Snape may have appreciated a good athlete, found pranking by others funny - since he too partook as shown by his creation of levicorpus (pertaining to both Harry and James), and even admitted James had some good qualities that Lily was attracted to - but these admissions were buried deep, deep down if they existed at all, imo. :lol:. And also, Snape said just the opposite aloud. Still I have continued to think about that since Ignisia brought up the respect angle long ago. I haven't made up my mind about all of that.

But he felt it necessary to help because Lily was the person he was most connected with. It seems unlikely to me that his reactions are a result of just disliking Harry, and more to do with Snape's prior relationship with his parents.

To be honest, I don't think Snape had any reason whatsoever to loathe Harry. Perhaps he had reasons to hold him in dislike for this and that, but nothing that should have stuck over time, imo. I think it had everything to do with his parents - jealousy due to his emotions for Lily and loathing due to his grudge against James (possibly qualified by what I was speaking of above)

If Ignisia is correct, then my ideas about Snape would likely undergo a change.

:agree: That was what I was trying to say!

To me the whole thing that makes Snape interesting is that he is a flawed character. He is full of remorse for his part in Lily's death but his remorse is imperfect. To me this makes him much more interesting because he is much more human and much more realistic. Harry is a great hero - but how many of us know someone who is as heroic, forgiving and selfless as Harry? The thing about Snape is that people can identify with him - people who have been bullied can understand the resentment he feels; people who have fallen foul of "the in crowd" know what it's like to be humiliated and laughed at. People who have lost the person they love to another can identify with his pain; people who have made bad choices can identify with Snape's struggle with his own self loathing and feelings of worthlessness, and they can identify with his very conflicted feelings towards Harry. There is nothing simple or straight forward about Snape - that is the reason why I like him so much.

I think you have hit the nail on the head. The biggest reason I cannot identify with Snape is because he purports to look at a person like James or Harry and see no good and only bad. Even in my gravest dislike of a person, I can see the good - as I always have in Snape's bravery. But Snape makes no "but" statements. He says Harry is arrogant, impertinent, mediocre, rule breaking and he loathes him therefore - but where is the "but" statement? Where is the recognition that he saved the life of a friend by tussling with a Troll? And that he is a great Quidditch player (not only having 'a little talent') - and that he managed to be an honorable kid despite the loss of his parents and remain true to the good side? And that he tussled directly with Voldemort several times and was still alive to see the next day? Same goes for James. Like it or not, the man saved his life, fought for the Order, sacrificed his life for his wife and child and had a lot of compassion clearly layed out in fact in canon (animagus for Remus, taking Sirius in, saving his enemy, playing with kid, Lily's finding him the love of her life when she had such exacting specs, popular and well liked by others, etc). So Snape had a blindness that was beyond anything I could call reasonable - I would say it was a mental deficiency, but I am not sure that is what JKR would call it.

That is what I cannot relate to at all and why I would actually like Ignisia's suggestion to be correct because Snape would become a less fictional persona to me. If I ignored JKR and the novels (as I interpreted them) and decided that Snape had actual conflict when it came to James and Harry, I would agree with your conclusion. But I saw no conflict at all, not in any one single instance. It was all loathing from Snape for everything Potter and that was his problem as a character for me. That Snape did his duty (kept his promise) despite his loathing at times is a good thing, but it doesn't help me with his personal character in making it more realistic, in a way, it makes it all the more fictional in nature.

I also do not think that Snape ever had conflicting feelings for Harry. From the moment he lays eyes on Harry it's contempt, loathing, and dislike simply because of who his father was. Snape doesn't even see the part of Lily that is so strong inside Harry, even when Dumbledore points it out to him at the beginning of Harry;s first year. My theory of course is that Snape is still acting childishly, and just doesn't want to see Harry in a good light as opposed to not being able to. Had Snape ever made an honest effort to treat Harry fairly and not as a copy of his father, maybe then he would have gained a little respect in my eyes. The only times Snape even treats Harry like another human being is during Occlumency lessons and that's because they both need to focus on teaching Harry Occlumency because of its importance.

I've never cared for Snape and I find it very hard to when he can't stop being mean to Harry because of who his father was.

But understand, a comment by Ignisia long ago still has me intrigued. It has never been definitively stated that Snape felt only loathing for James. If it is true that buried somewhere in his soul was respect and admiration - together with the hate - then I could see him getting that far in his regard for Harry as well. I am speaking in terms of the things James and Harry did that were respectable and admirable of course (like saving Snape's life, working for the Order, sacrificing his life for his family (James) and overcoming Voldemort and his Snares (Harry)). There are other things too - it is possible Snape may have appreciated a good athlete, found pranking by others funny - since he too partook as shown by his creation of levicorpus (pertaining to both Harry and James), and even admitted James had some good qualities that Lily was attracted to - but these admissions were buried deep, deep down if they existed at all, imo. :lol:. And also, Snape said just the opposite aloud. Still I have continued to think about that since Ignisia brought up the respect angle long ago. I haven't made up my mind about all of that.

This has often intrigued me, too. Dumbledore's admission that Occlumncy lessons probably failed because "some wounds run too deep...Professor Snape's feelings about your father" has always struck me as being fascinatingly ambiguous.

Well, at one point he does refer to Lily as "Lily Potter", which does seem to be an acknowledgment of her marriage to James, but I don't recall anything from Severus that would indicate admiration for James. :huh:

But I do think "some wounds run too deep" and Snape's "feelings" about James are worth a closer look. Notice that Dumbledore uses "feelings" plural. That's a great indication that he sees multiple emotions from Severus about James.

Well, at one point he does refer to Lily as "Lily Potter", which does seem to be an acknowledgment of her marriage to James, but I don't recall anything from Severus that would indicate admiration for James. :huh:

If nothing else, Snape knew that James had exhibited bravery, both on Snape's behalf as well as on behalf of others as an Order member. If he could not admire that, he does not deserve to be admired for his. I agree there is nothing that would indicate Snape even budged to that extent - general bravery - but since you suggested the idea that Snape might have been able to look past his hatred and see to some truths, albeit not admit them, I felt that might be a most likely one. After all, he wouldn't admire him for winning Lily's love. :lol:.

But I do think "some wounds run too deep" and Snape's "feelings" about James are worth a closer look. Notice that Dumbledore uses "feelings" plural. That's a great indication that he sees multiple emotions from Severus about James.

Well we know that, Snape has shown as much in canon. Unfortunately, they were all negative: hate, jealousy, insecurity and spite. Snape has called him a coward, arrogant (to the point of deserving death for it), impertinent, rule breaking, of little talent, filthy and attention seeking. All of those attributes were meant in a negative sense and I cannot see them arising from any positive emotion or respect.

What made the least sense to me was his unending need for revenge. Snape relayed the prophecy and that act pegged his enemy and wife - ending in their deaths and left his child an Orphan to be raised by abusive relatives and then grossly mistreated by Snape (in terms of detriment to James.) To go on feeling vindictive when his conspiratorial actions caused James' death and devastated all that his life was; makes you wonder exactly what Snape would need to finally feel vindication. His retaliation in hex wars didn't help, nor did his 7th year hexing at every opportunity prior to that; and his constant belittling of James didin't seem to provide relief either. So perhaps all the feelings Dumbledore referred to were negative.

I have a hard time imagining Snape having the ability to to feel either admiration or respect for James - even on points that demand it of him. He belittled two of James' brave acts that we know of and called him a coward, even knowing he'd fought for the Order. So it leaves me with grave doubt that he'd ever admit the truth, even deep down inside. Nonetheless, you made a good point with your post long ago, which has me still thinking about the matter. :)

Well we know that, Snape has shown as much in canon. Unfortunately, they were all negative: hate, jealousy, insecurity and spite. Snape has called him a coward, arrogant (to the point of deserving death for it), impertinent, rule breaking, of little talent, filthy and attention seeking. All of those attributes were meant in a negative sense and I cannot see them arising from any positive emotion or respect.


I respect your opinion, but I do not think that Snape thought that James was arrogant to the point of deserving death for it. I do agree that Snape thought that James was all of those things, but I think that he had every reason to. James was, in my opinion, very mean to him and I do not think that Snape hated James for the fact that he was so mean to him. I think that the reason that Snape hated James so much is because, when Snape already disliked James very much, Snape lost Lily to him.

I respect your opinion, but I do not think that Snape thought that James was arrogant to the point of deserving death for it. I do agree that Snape thought that James was all of those things, but I think that he had every reason to. James was, in my opinion, very mean to him and I do not think that Snape hated James for the fact that he was so mean to him. I think that the reason that Snape hated James so much is because, when Snape already disliked James very much, Snape lost Lily to him.

I was just indicating what Snape actually said in canon - whether he meant it or not is up to every reader to decide.

"You would have been well served if he killed you! You'd have died just like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black."

Snape was also mean to James while they were at Hogwarts together. I don't think it is possible to call his interaction with him nice on Snape's part - nor his statements about him to Lily. I agree with you that Snape hated James because he lost Lily to him, but our discussion concerned whether beneath all that hatred, he had underlying emotions with respect to James that were positive.

I was just indicating what Snape actually said in canon - whether he meant it or not is up to every reader to decide.

"You would have been well served if he killed you! You'd have died just like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black."

Snape was also mean to James while they were at Hogwarts together. I don't think it is possible to call his interaction with him nice on Snape's part - nor his statements about him to Lily. I agree with you that Snape hated James because he lost Lily to him, but our discussion concerned whether beneath all that hatred, he had underlying emotions with respect to James that were positive.

That qoute dose not actually say that he thinks that James deserved to die, rather he mant it or not, in my opinion. I do agree that Snape was just as mean to James, but remember on the train in "The Prince's Tale", When James and Sirius went in with Snape and Lily? In my opinion, James started being mean to Snape, first. Maybe that was just because Snape said that he wanted to be in Slythern and James said that he wanted to be in Griffindor. Since Slytherin and Griffindor were not to friendly with each other, that might be why they disliked each other right from the start, in my opinion.

I agree with you that Snape hated James because he lost Lily to him, but our discussion concerned whether beneath all that hatred, he had underlying emotions with respect to James that were positive.

No, he absolutely did not. He loathed James- and the feeling was vice versa. To be honest, since we're discussing the two at once, it might be fitting of me to say that IMO, each was as bad as the other. Each made huge mistakes- fatal mistakes- and neither was an overtly good or wonderful person. There were egotistical, narcissistic issues, cruelty and bullying done by both- and I know in my heart that if the situation were reversed, James would feel just as bitter and act just as malignantly to the child in question. I don't think wither was any better than the other- it's just that Snape, IMO, and in the circumstances granted, is easier to associate with and to like, purely for the anti hero status and the fact that his ability to love outweighed his hatred. James never won this right from me. :shrug: I guess I'll never change my mind on that! :lol:!

No, he absolutely did not. He loathed James- and the feeling was vice versa. To be honest, since we're discussing the two at once, it might be fitting of me to say that IMO, each was as bad as the other. Each made huge mistakes- fatal mistakes- and neither was an overtly good or wonderful person. There were egotistical, narcissistic issues, cruelty and bullying done by both- and I know in my heart that if the situation were reversed, James would feel just as bitter and act just as malignantly to the child in question. I don't think wither was any better than the other- it's just that Snape, IMO, and in the circumstances granted, is easier to associate with and to like, purely for the anti hero status and the fact that his ability to love outweighed his hatred. James never won this right from me. :shrug: I guess I'll never change my mind on that! :lol:!

I respect your view; but I am one that takes facts given in interview by JKR as canon, so I would have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation as she has indicated that James was just the opposite of the way your opinion renders his character to have been. But even without the interviews, the description in the books back up JKR's view, imo, and befits the father of the hero. The thing is, Snape wasn't only mistreating Harry; he bullied all of the children, so this was not only a fault associated with his hatred and jealousy for James, this was a part of his inherent behavior, imo. James was portrayed as a young man who grew out of his delinquent behavior and matured into an honorable and reasonable individual, imo. As such, I find it highly unlikely that he would have held onto a grudge against a schoolyard enemy and futher, I feel he would not have bullied a child of Snape's - even if it had been Lily's. The distinction I make is that James was popular and actually had alternatives; the self determination and arrogance he showed in canon indicates to me that he would have moved on if Lily had decided against dating him. He apparently wished for a wife and family and I feel he would have pursued that goal, together with his desire to fight against Voldemort independent of what Lily decided to do. Snape, on the other hand, didn't appear to have that ability due what I feel was underdeveloped social behavior. When asked if Snape had ever had a girlfriend, JKR replied, "who would want to date Snape?". And I feel that fundamentally that response was due to Snape's lack of social development.

However, I also believe that if a wife and family had been a priority in Snape's life, he would have eventually rectified those things that kept him socially isolated. On the whole, I would have to disagree that the book canon or JKR's interviews support the idea that James would behave in the manner Snape did as an adult as his character was vastly distinct, imo.

I think Snape was a singular character in canon. He was the only character we really saw a bit of who'd both been a Death Eater and on the good side. He was the only one on the good side who mimicked some of the behavior and words of the Death Eaters in his daily interaction while on the good side. And he appeared to mean those things when he said them (i.e., imo, that included taunting others on points that were most hurtful; belittling and disrespecting the dead, expressing a keen interest in the dark side of the dark arts, etc.) He was the only professor to bully the children other than Death Eaters like the Carrows and the only Order member to treat most of the other members with either bullying distain, tightlipped disapproval or complete disregard, imo. In my view, Dumbledore and Lucius seemed to be the only two people that he had a relationship with that went beyond the superficial - although perhaps Filch as well, but there is little canon to support that. He was unattractive (personality wise) to women and so dalliance was not a part of his life. He was also unattractive in the same way to those of his own gender, rendering him unable to cultivate a buddy-buddy relationship with anyone (Dumbledore didn't seem to do buddy-buddy :lol:). This kept him isolated and a bit of an outcast, even within the spectrum of working for the good side. In my judgment, Snape was not under any pressure to behave like a 'dark sider' because he was supposed to be spying on Dumbledore and as such, would be expected to behave in a way that showed him to be a 'good sider' - like any good spy.

I have read a lot of comparisons over the years, made between Snape and other characters. Generally James, Lupin, McGonagall Sirius, Harry, Lily (currently being discussed in this regard in the Snape/Lily thread), Draco and Dumbledore are said to be 'just like Snape' - either entirely or in part. I personally feel it is a way to try to normalize Snape's behavior (i.e., if others on the good side would bully children, then Snape has a partner in crime and he appears a little better.) But that argument does not hold water for me. Harry's Sectumsempra episode and Hermione's confunding episode and Sirius' werewolf prank were all not good sider acts, but I look at the overall characters of these individuals as I do Snape, and there is simply no comparison, imo.

According to JKR, she set out to write about a cruel, vindictive, bullying, sarcastc man, who was on the good side when she wrote Snape. He was to be a small man, according to her and unable to let go of emotions, either hate or love or jealousy or what have you. Whether or not she was sucessful is up to each reader to decide, but Snape was the only person who was to have that particular character overall. Sirius held grudges, Molly could be a bit bullying with her peers, James and Harry had a fault of arrogance, Lupin was insecure about his condition and it affected other things negatively, Hermione could be a bit of a know it all, Ron could be a bit neglectful, Harry could lose his temper, Neville had trouble letting go of his fears, Luna could be a bit 'out there' and speak in a frank manner that could hit people the wrong way. Slughorn had slightly wrongful ideas when it came to birthright, Hagrid could be neglectful - and as we found out, Dumbledore could be manipulative and morally questionable at best. But the thing all of these people had in common was that they had kind hearts and readily showed compassion to others. Snape did not show compassion and he did not have a kind heart, imo. There were reasons for that, but neither can they be blamed on everyone else nor did any other good sider share his deficiency in that regard, imo.

It is true that Snape could love - and he did in his way, but unfortunately only one person and that person was dead (that we know of anyway, and naturally I don't include his family - it is possible he had relatives he felt love for). He showed some compassion for a few others in canon (Narcissa, Draco, Dumbledore, Lucius), and could even be civil when he so chose to be. But his compassion was limited and for the most part he showed the characteristics that JKR indicated were a part of his character, imo. He absolutely changed sides and rejected Voldemort, working against him; and that is another part of his overall character. I feel JKR did a great job with his character in making him unique in many of the ways I have highlighted. But I respect the view of those who disagree with her and like to arrive at their own opinion in that regard. :tu:.

Nonetheless, I take it your answer to the question posed is 'no' :lol:. I do find it an intriguing question though, I suppose because I have tried to look at it objectively and see beneath Snape's exterior in this instance. I listed my objections, but they don't really discount what Ignisia suggested, so I am still thinking about it all. I thought perhaps others had ideas about it.

No, he absolutely did not. He loathed James- and the feeling was vice versa. To be honest, since we're discussing the two at once, it might be fitting of me to say that IMO, each was as bad as the other. Each made huge mistakes- fatal mistakes- and neither was an overtly good or wonderful person. There were egotistical, narcissistic issues, cruelty and bullying done by both- and I know in my heart that if the situation were reversed, James would feel just as bitter and act just as malignantly to the child in question.

I disagree with this. I don't think James would have done that at all, take out his issues on a child in a bullying way. :no: No way. What normal adult does that? Only a very damaged, or insecure, or bitter person takes out his issues on innocent children like that.

I am not half as interested in James as a character as I am in Severus, by the way. :) But Snape's behaviour to Harry in the classroom is, as wickedwickedboy says, deeply singular. And inexcusable, IMO. Just because I like Snape doesn't mean I always like the way he behaves. :no:

I also hold equally strongly to the belief that he worked for Harry's protection for Lily's sake ... this view is sometimes challenged by readers who dislike Snape, but I believe that was Rowling's intention all the way through the saga. And that conflict in Severus -- wrestling with old hatreds and hurts and knowing all the time what he has to do for Lily's sake, and knowing that Harry must be the one to defeat Voldemort -- is all part of his complexity and what makes him so interesting as a character.

Severus is not my favourite character because I think he's a nice guy. :) For the most part, I don't think he is ... although Rowling, frustratingly, really only ever hints at the depths in his character, in the end.

It's a pretty complicated question, whether or not James would behave the same way in the same situation. We see that he does have a jealous and malicious streak, but then there is the question of motive. Much of Severus' behavior stems from his own insecurities, whereas James behaved the way he did because his upbringing had pretty much taught him that he was the best and could do whatever he wanted (sort of like Dudley).

So would that sense of entitlement be applicable in the same situation? Perhaps, but I think it would make the interactions between James and Harry somewhat different from those between Severus and Harry. Instead of refusing to see Lily in Harry to protect himself and acting mainly on his feelings for the other man, James would, from what we've seen, likely think "I am angry that Lily rejected me and I have a right to do anything I want about it".

I disagree with this. I don't think James would have done that at all, take out his issues on a child in a bullying way. :no: No way. What normal adult does that? Only a very damaged, or insecure, or bitter person takes out his issues on innocent children like that.

I am not half as interested in James as a character as I am in Severus, by the way. :) But Snape's behaviour to Harry in the classroom is, as wickedwickedboy says, deeply singular. And inexcusable, IMO. Just because I like Snape doesn't mean I always like the way he behaves. :no:

I also hold equally strongly to the belief that he worked for Harry's protection for Lily's sake ... this view is sometimes challenged by readers who dislike Snape, but I believe that was Rowling's intention all the way through the saga. And that conflict in Severus -- wrestling with old hatreds and hurts and knowing all the time what he has to do for Lily's sake, and knowing that Harry must be the one to defeat Voldemort -- is all part of his complexity and what makes him so interesting as a character.

Severus is not my favourite character because I think he's a nice guy. :) For the most part, I don't think he is ... although Rowling, frustratingly, really only ever hints at the depths in his character, in the end.

Will answer in the James Potter thread. :)

Wick!! You wrote an essay for me to read! :lol:!

Snape wasn't only mistreating Harry; he bullied all of the children, so this was not only a fault associated with his hatred and jealousy for James, this was a part of his inherent behavior, imo.

Oh, I agree with this absolutely, yes. It's just the plain truth, nobody can deny it, and his overall bitterness and hatred had very little do with James, except in the most general way that their interactions added to Snape's unhappiness with the cards he had been dealt in life.

James was portrayed as a young man who grew out of his delinquent behavior and matured into an honorable and reasonable individual, imo. As such, I find it highly unlikely that he would have held onto a grudge against a schoolyard enemy and futher, I feel he would not have bullied a child of Snape's - even if it had been Lily's.

I agree that James moved on, and that he became a very wonderful and heroic person, absolutely. But I think that, had he loved Lily as much as Severus had in his early days, then that bitterness would be difficult to get over. Now, there are clearly other intertwining events also, which led to the conclusion we read- so the situation would have been completely different and as a result I don't think we can overrule that James might have had some issues with a similar situation if he was caught in the net as Severus was. The thing is that, even to the last, Sirius held a deep hatred of Snape that clearly never went away, even when they were working together under Dumbledore's promise that Snape was on the right side. Since I never saw how James would have been in this situation, it seems to me that Sirius too grew up to be a truly heroic man- but he did keep the schoolyard prejudice. I can't rule out, personally, that James would not have been the same- but that is an entirely personal thing. :tu:

I think the main difference between Snape and James is the cards they were dealt. Snape was inherent in his bitterness because in his youth, it was pretty much all he saw (IMO, but it seems indicative from canon). I know there are alignments with Sirius, but at the end of the day, Sirius had true friends, ones who loved him and respected him. And he had a way out- which I argue Snape did not have. Snape's path was fairly set already, as we have long ago discussed in this same thread- because of the lack of love (familial or romantic) in his life. I just think the difference between them was that vast that it's insurmountable to put Sirius and Snape on the same pedestal.

The distinction I make is that James was popular and actually had alternatives; the self determination and arrogance he showed in canon indicates to me that he would have moved on if Lily had decided against dating him. He apparently wished for a wife and family and I feel he would have pursued that goal, together with his desire to fight against Voldemort independent of what Lily decided to do. Snape, on the other hand, didn't appear to have that ability due what I feel was underdeveloped social behavior. When asked if Snape had ever had a girlfriend, JKR replied, "who would want to date Snape?". And I feel that fundamentally that response was due to Snape's lack of social development.

Yes, I agree with all of that. :)

However, I also believe that if a wife and family had been a priority in Snape's life, he would have eventually rectified those things that kept him socially isolated. On the whole, I would have to disagree that the book canon or JKR's interviews support the idea that James would behave in the manner Snape did as an adult as his character was vastly distinct, imo.

I also don't think the canon or JKR support the notion that James would behave in the same manner. I think he would never have bullied other children or hurt anyone deliberately- but I don't think, given what we saw of Sirius (and Sirius and James were quite alike), that we can rule out the idea of James having some sort of inherent bitterness, that is, if he were placed in something of the same situation. And as for a wife or family being involved, it's true that Snape never saw this as a priority- but I think we can agree that this was due to his exceptionally poor view of relationships and the damage done to his social perceptions in his youth.

I think Snape was a singular character in canon. He was the only character we really saw a bit of who'd both been a Death Eater and on the good side. He was the only one on the good side who mimicked some of the behavior and words of the Death Eaters in his daily interaction while on the good side. And he appeared to mean those things when he said them (i.e., imo, that included taunting others on points that were most hurtful; belittling and disrespecting the dead, expressing a keen interest in the dark side of the dark arts, etc.)

I think he did mean those things when he said them. He was quite deliberately hurtful, and though there's no true excuse for it, I will always argue that when a person has been damaged to the extent he was.. Well, I see why he was so bitter and twisted. Hate really did play a huge role in his life, so I feel sorry for him in that respect. It doesn't excuse his behaviour, but I do feel sorry for him that all he saw was the badness in life.

In my judgment, Snape was not under any pressure to behave like a 'dark sider' because he was supposed to be spying on Dumbledore and as such, would be expected to behave in a way that showed him to be a 'good sider' - like any good spy.

(on a side note, before I continue- everything you wrote prior to what I have quote in that same paragraph was wonderfully written. Just said I'd tell you.)

Sadly, this was not what Snape wanted. I agree that it could, and should, have happened, but I don't think it would have fitted the plot. He was "a gift of a character" because of these terrible relations with other people and with his life in general. Otherwise, he would not be my favourite character! :lol:! I don't think he had the ability to play nicely- from an early age, he was taught otherwise, and the one person he tried with, and truly tried with, didn't see him in any way other than "misled", and so left him on his own. I likely would have taken the same path away from him, though I'd like to say otherwise- but Snape, being depraved as a result of deprivation, I argue never saw this the way others did. He only saw the material side of power that he would be granted under Voldemort and with other strong people.

I have read a lot of comparisons over the years, made between Snape and other characters. Generally James, Lupin, McGonagall Sirius, Harry, Lily (currently being discussed in this regard in the Snape/Lily thread), Draco and Dumbledore are said to be 'just like Snape' - either entirely or in part. I personally feel it is a way to try to normalize Snape's behavior (i.e., if others on the good side would bully children, then Snape has a partner in crime and he appears a little better.) But that argument does not hold water for me. Harry's Sectumsempra episode and Hermione's confunding episode and Sirius' werewolf prank were all not good sider acts, but I look at the overall characters of these individuals as I do Snape, and there is simply no comparison, imo.

Yes, as stated above, I don't think there truly can be any comparisons. Only partial ones, and nothing that ever comes close to a character like him, absolutely. We agree on something Wick!!! Party!!! :D

According to JKR, she set out to write about a cruel, vindictive, bullying, sarcastc man, who was on the good side when she wrote Snape. He was to be a small man, according to her and unable to let go of emotions, either hate or love or jealousy or what have you. Whether or not she was sucessful is up to each reader to decide, but Snape was the only person who was to have that particular character overall.

For me, she was successful. But she wrote it in such a way that I feel drawn to him and what he was. I can't explain why. If anyone can provide me with an answer, I'd love to hear it. I know that in real life, I would hate a person like him, but right from the off I adored him and I can't quite put my finger on why.... :sigh:

Snape did not show compassion and he did not have a kind heart, imo. There were reasons for that, but neither can they be blamed on everyone else nor did any other good sider share his deficiency in that regard, imo.

That is entirely correct, IMO. And I think, perhaps, that's what makes him so very human. He has so many issues, so many flaws and faults, and so much to lose (not in the material sense) the entire time, that I feel so much for him. He cut the true figure of being caught between a rock and a hard place. I don't think they can entirely be blamed on others, but I reckon things did contribute to how he saw the world.

But his compassion was limited and for the most part he showed the characteristics that JKR indicated were a part of his character, imo. He absolutely changed sides and rejected Voldemort, working against him; and that is another part of his overall character. I feel JKR did a great job with his character in making him unique in many of the ways I have highlighted. But I respect the view of those who disagree with her and like to arrive at their own opinion in that regard. :tu:.

I do agree with all of this. JKR did a wonderful job with his character and made sure that we all saw the ambiguities associated with him. He was truly unique, she pretty much said so herself- I couldn't disagree with it even if I wanted to. What I do think is that other characters do betray some of the same characteristics he showed during the series.

Nonetheless, I take it your answer to the question posed is 'no' :lol:. I do find it an intriguing question though, I suppose because I have tried to look at it objectively and see beneath Snape's exterior in this instance. I listed my objections, but they don't really discount what Ignisia suggested, so I am still thinking about it all. I thought perhaps others had ideas about it.

It seems others did have other ideas about it! :lol:!

I also agree with what Iggy said above me here- she just wrote what I was thinking and made a better job of it too! :D

I also hold equally strongly to the belief that he worked for Harry's protection for Lily's sake ... this view is sometimes challenged by readers who dislike Snape, but I believe that was Rowling's intention all the way through the saga. And that conflict in Severus -- wrestling with old hatreds and hurts and knowing all the time what he has to do for Lily's sake, and knowing that Harry must be the one to defeat Voldemort -- is all part of his complexity and what makes him so interesting as a character.

Severus is not my favourite character because I think he's a nice guy. :) For the most part, I don't think he is ... although Rowling, frustratingly, really only ever hints at the depths in his character, in the end.

I agree with this, absolutely. The conflict is what makes Snape the most humanly believable character in the series (IMO), and it's also partly why he's my favourite one. I also agree that he fell way short of "nice guy" status. He was never going to be that way anyway. As stated by Wick, he can be civil when he so chooses, but being nice is just not a part of him. It would have destroyed his character to be written as such. Jealousy, anger and hate took over a great deal of his life. I find it quite miraculous that he could still retain feelings of love after spending so long caught up in this vindictive world. He's so complicated, the most of any other character in the series- as proven by the fact that we still talk about him, nine threads later. :)

I hope that the rest of my response to Wick clears up my other thoughts with which you disagreed, by the way. :tu:

I also hold equally strongly to the belief that he worked for Harry's protection for Lily's sake ... this view is sometimes challenged by readers who dislike Snape, but I believe that was Rowling's intention all the way through the saga. And that conflict in Severus -- wrestling with old hatreds and hurts and knowing all the time what he has to do for Lily's sake, and knowing that Harry must be the one to defeat Voldemort -- is all part of his complexity and what makes him so interesting as a character.

Well I don't suppose it is any secret that I am a reader who dislikes Snape. :lol:. However, what you have said is canon. Dumbledore specfically illicited a promise from Snape to protect Harry for Lily's sake and Snape agreed to do so (DH TPT). So I would not challenge that view in the least. I also agree that JKR intended for that to be a struggle for Snape throughout the saga and Snape indicated this right off the bat, imo, when he declared that he would agree to help protect Harry, but no one was to know the reason why, especially Potter's son.

There are a multitude of levels of emotion in that statement and I agree that renders Snape an interesting character to discuss. When I earlier indicated that I saw no conflict in Snape, it was only with respect to his "ultimate" feelings about Harry - meaning those he determined to show.

However, on a psychological level, I feel the conflict ran far deeper than merely attempting to mesh protecting Lily's son to honor her sacrifice and loathing Jame's son because he was jealous of and disliked the father.

Remember that although Harry was presumably destined to confront Voldemort, the prophecy did not declare his victory in that regard. According to Dumbledore, they were not protecting Harry so that he would win that battle, but rather so that Voldemort would not kill him as an underdeveloped wizard who had no chance. From Snape's point of view, I feel he believed it would be many years before Harry could successfully move against the dark lord and kill him. So his role, together with others, was to keep Harry safe until such a time (perhaps a decade or more) that he was fit to move against the dark lord. Hence, when Dumbledore advised him of the real plan, that Harry was to be sacrificed in order to make Voldemort vulnerable to death, I feel Snape felt everything had come together - it made sense - Harry could die at Voldemort's hand without a problem. :lol:.

So I do not believe that aspect was paramount on Snape's mind, either before or after he learned about the plan. Rather, I think his concerns and conflict centered around:

1) that in honoring Lily's sacrifice, for Lily alone, Snape knew he was also honoring James' sacrifice of his life for his son (and Lily) as well, despite the fact that he declared he was not. I mean there was no way that could be avoided.

2) while he loathed James due to their youthful interaction and was jealous of his winning Lily's love, he eventually realized that his act which had caused Lily's death was wrongful, imo, and thus, it was wrongful against James and Harry as well (for the death and Orphan state that resulted).

3) Harry was in many ways, truly like his father. They were both Quidditch players in Gryffindor, could both be impertinent and arrogant, and both were known for breaking rules. They both also stood firmly against the dark arts, blood prejudice and Voldemort - which entailed having specific enemies in Slytherin House (Snape/Draco, et al.) Harry also had a close knit group of friends constantly with him and was the recipient of attention (good and bad) - even to a greater extent than his father had been. Thus, both were popular, and while James was responsible for his own popularity per se, Harry had inherited it. He was in newspapers and on the lips of many in the wizard world, even outside of the Hogwarts environment. Later, Harry gained popularity in his own right with his Quidditch successes, his 'rule breaking' excursions into the Chamber, the MOM, and his encounters with Voldemort once believed.

While I feel James popularity was largely based on his Quidditch prowess and his ability to make a number of people laugh with pranks and such (like Fred and George), Harry's was in some regards quite distinct - yet in some ways the same as I have pointed out. Snape appeared to focus on the similarities when speaking, but the fact is, it is canon that he noted the differences. He made direct complaints to Harry about his activities that related to his overt popularity (reading the newspaper in class, witnessing the outcome of his excursions into forbidden areas, etc. But in both cases, Snape was not well informed. He did not know why Harry was doing half of the things he did - nor did he know this about James (i.e., the rule breaking associated with becoming an Animagi and venturing out to keep Remus company). And he made judgments based on the little knowledge he did know: Harry and James broke rules. Of course, Snape too broke rules as a youngster, but I believe he felt that the Potter's got away with a lot more rule breaking than he did.

Finally, Harry's nature was tempered by his mother's less wild one, imo, in ways. But there were many similarities between James and Lily that Harry also had which Snape did not appear to acknoledge on the surface: both detested the dark arts, could get a temper going, saw good in others that was not seen generally by the masses (Remus/Snape) and had a sense of humor which was important to them. Both were loyal and intelligent, and both felt moved to become directly involved in the fight for the good side. Yet Harry did engage in hexing for fun and hex wars, where Lily apparently did not - although Harry didn't do it to the extent his father did - which shows some of the tempering of Lily's nature. Harry was arrogant at times, but not to the extent of his father - again showing the tempering of Lily's nature, imo. I feel he was likely a quieter person (less wild) overall than his dad as well at times, but I am not sure Lily was quite as mild as Harry in that regard - she seemed quite fiery too :lol:. Nonetheless, if one looked carefully, I think they could see that Harry was a mixed bag with characteristics of both of his parents, but some in his own right as well.

Snape, I feel, looked at Harry superficially and his "James" characterstics were evident; his Lily characteristics a little less so, but still visible and were not acknowledged by Snape - nor were those things Lily and James had in common acknowledged, imo. I believe Snape was practicing willful blindness in that regard and saw only what he wished to see: James. Because he also missed those things about Harry that made him a unique individual, distinct from both of his parents, imo.

Willful blindness takes effort though, so that too would add to his conflict, imo.

4) Despite the above, Harry was doing a lot of magnificent things as a youngster. Despite being an underdeveloped wizard, he pulled off a lot of incredible feats - and a person simply cannot be that "lucky". But I feel the thought that Harry actually deserved some of the fame and attention he received (good and bad) made Snape jealous of Harry. Not in the same way he felt jealousy related to losing Lily, but just a nagging type of jealousy that the child he wanted to believe mediocre was anything but that. Nonetheless, his denial in this regard would also add to his conflict, imo.

------

Most readers find Harry a likeable character, but Snape did not find him a likeable child. First because Snape did not seem to like children in general; second because he was Potter's child; third because of the reasons above and the conflict engendered; fourth because he was a constant reminder that Lily had fallen in love with another; and fifth because Harry didn't behave in a 'likeable' way with Snape (which I feel is a direct result of how Snape treated him).

So while there was conflict, I feel that Snape settled on loathing with respect to his emotions toward Harry. To Snape's credit, there was one second in his life when he came to some sort of peace with all of the waring going on inside of him related to all three of the Potters. And that is when he determined to looke in James/Harry's face to see Lily's eyes. While some place a lot of meaning behind the gesture; I do not. I believe he was sincerely after the sole goal of seeing Lily's eyes as he died without regard to Harry or James in any emotional or cognitive sense. But on a psychological level, I do feel that he had to at least place all of his conflict and waring aside for that second in order to obtain his end. And that my friends is what makes Snape a pure and wonderful example of a Slytherin, to me. I give him total props for that because it takes gumption to be welcomed into that esteemed house (and the best house of the four I might add in my opinion) - and that is a prime example of it, imo.

It's a pretty complicated question, whether or not James would behave the same way in the same situation. We see that he does have a jealous and malicious streak, but then there is the question of motive. Much of Severus' behavior stems from his own insecurities, whereas James behaved the way he did because his upbringing had pretty much taught him that he was the best and could do whatever he wanted (sort of like Dudley).

So would that sense of entitlement be applicable in the same situation? Perhaps, but I think it would make the interactions between James and Harry somewhat different from those between Severus and Harry. Instead of refusing to see Lily in Harry to protect himself and acting mainly on his feelings for the other man, James would, from what we've seen, likely think "I am angry that Lily rejected me and I have a right to do anything I want about it".

Well James did not dislike children as a matter of principle - he was shown to be extremely loving and genuinely terrific with his own child. Some people simply do not like children. But I don't think James would take that vindictive stance, primarily because I feel he would have moved on, fallen in love to whatever extent with another (since I suppose in fiction you can't have two love of your lives; but he'd find another to love nonetheless because he wanted a wife and family). As such, I don't think he would feel bitter and disdainful toward Lily because he would have replaced her in his life and his own children and wife would take priority. Thus, there would be no reason for him to feel vindictive toward any child due to the mother having rejected his love. Further, he was popular and likely dated quite a bit - I would opine other girls rejected him in this or that way over time and I truly doubt he'd hang to grudges against all of them. Just as being married and having a child with Lily settled him even more, he'd find that same place with another and I feel be pretty much normal with other kids. (But frankly I don't think he would have become a professor :lol:).

The thing about Snape is that his behavior was not solely based on his past interaction with James. Certainly his treatment of Harry played into that, but what of his treatment of the other children? His peers? As Pearl and Vampireduck pointed out, he had an altogether different background than James - and many of the other characterss well. He'd gone through a tough time at home and a lot of the damage was done there. Also, I think people forget that he was a Death Eater and how absolutely traumatic that would be. Recall how Voldemort treated his Death Eaters? He makes Snape's father look like St. Peter. So Snape likely faced horrors unknown while he was a part of that regime. In addition, we know he was suffering for what he'd done that had resulted in Lily's death and there may have been other things in his past he struggled with. So, Snape is quite unique in that regard, imo. That is why I don't think those who were not in his "shoes" would behave in the way he did, or even anything close. They would have to have faced the same struggles and circumstances - and made the same decisions that he did, imo.

Wick!! You wrote an essay for me to read! :lol:!

Sorry, it is near final exams and I just tend to fall into exam mode. :lol:. I am actually on a break from writing an actual essay, so that might have something to do with it as well.

I agree that James moved on, and that he became a very wonderful and heroic person, absolutely. But I think that, had he loved Lily as much as Severus had in his early days, then that bitterness would be difficult to get over. Now, there are clearly other intertwining events also, which led to the conclusion we read- so the situation would have been completely different and as a result I don't think we can overrule that James might have had some issues with a similar situation if he was caught in the net as Severus was. The thing is that, even to the last, Sirius held a deep hatred of Snape that clearly never went away, even when they were working together under Dumbledore's promise that Snape was on the right side. Since I never saw how James would have been in this situation, it seems to me that Sirius too grew up to be a truly heroic man- but he did keep the schoolyard prejudice. I can't rule out, personally, that James would not have been the same- but that is an entirely personal thing. :tu:

I do understand the points you made now and I have cut the document to save space. I agree with a lot of what you said, but in the above portion there is one thing you left out: Sirius was wonderful with kids. Even when Fred and George cut him to the quick and rudely told him he was useless in their devastation over their father; Sirius took it in stride and was patient and loving with them. He most certainly could have become vindictive - as he did with Snape when Snape said the exact same thing to him. It was hurtful, but Sirius clearly differentiated between children and Snape in his responses and interaction with them. So even if James had held dislike for Snape, which I doubt (unless he'd spent 12 years in Azkaban like Sirius had), and even if he acted just like Sirius, we have proof that it would have been with kindness toward children, even when they were being spiteful due to their own painful circumstances.

I also hold equally strongly to the belief that he worked for Harry's protection for Lily's sake ... this view is sometimes challenged by readers who dislike Snape, but I believe that was Rowling's intention all the way through the saga. And that conflict in Severus -- wrestling with old hatreds and hurts and knowing all the time what he has to do for Lily's sake, and knowing that Harry must be the one to defeat Voldemort -- is all part of his complexity and what makes him so interesting as a character.
This is so good I want to huggle it - and you Pearl!

This is really it in a nutshell - Snape loathes Harry and behaves badly towards him because he is James's son - but he protects him because he is Lily's son. In order for Snape to do both he must acknowledge who both Harry's parents were. As such he cannot possibly only ever see Harry as James's son.

And I think, perhaps, that's what makes him so very human. He has so many issues, so many flaws and faults, and so much to lose (not in the material sense) the entire time, that I feel so much for him. He cut the true figure of being caught between a rock and a hard place.

Snape's suffering is very real. It leaps out of the pages at you; he is like a wounded tiger snapping at anyone who comes near. I feel a tremendous amount of compassion for anyone who has to deal with such suffering, and that is why I feel for Snape - because although he does many, many bad things, he suffers a great deal - more so than any other character apart from perhaps Harry - but I even wonder if perhaps he suffered more than Harry.

Snape's suffering is very real. It leaps out of the pages at you; he is like a wounded tiger snapping at anyone who comes near. I feel a tremendous amount of compassion for anyone who has to deal with such suffering, and that is why I feel for Snape - because although he does many, many bad things, he suffers a great deal - more so than any other character apart from perhaps Harry - but I even wonder if perhaps he suffered more than Harry.

I respect your view and I agree Snape did have to undergo suffering. But I think my problem in feeling sympathy for Snape is that he made so many other people suffer - tremendously and to a much greater degree. For example, Harry, who had to suffer the loss of his parents and all that entailed, due to Snape's act as a Death Eater in conspiring to kill his family. I realize Snape felt bad about it afterward and suffered because it resulted in Lily's death. But I always have a difficult time sympathising with the murdererers in a situation like this because in the aftermath, I do not forget the murders that took place or the losses and anguish that results for the surviving victims (which includes many more characters than just Harry). This too goes for the many others that Snape may have killed or colluded to kill as a Death Eater. JKR played it down, but I feel like that was a mistake if she was attempting to get me to play my sympathy card for Snape because shrouding the crime shrouds any remorse or regret that might have been felt. As it was, he never expressed any for James or Harry - only for Lily. It is hard for me to see Snape as a sympathetic character based on implied remorse - especially when I actually see none at all. It strains my disbelief to imagine one could actually have any remorse and treat Harry in the way Snape did. Nonetheless, Snape deserved to suffer for the bad things he did, I find it hard to believe anyone would disagree that those who collude to murder and perhaps murder directly should live a life free of suffering.

The odd part is that Snape didn't show an understanding of what it meant for Harry to lose his mother Lily. He felt her loss more keenly than Snape ever could - his father as well - and that is something I don't think Snape actually understood. To me Snape behaved as if his own feelings and memories were of a sort to cause the most anguish and suffering; as if Harry's endless nightmares related to their deaths, his earnest longing for their presence and his parentless existence was of little regard, and would have little impact on him as an innocent victim. And on top of it Snape was the cause of this together with those he colluded with. It is rather bewildering.

Snape's suffering is very real. It leaps out of the pages at you; he is like a wounded tiger snapping at anyone who comes near. I feel a tremendous amount of compassion for anyone who has to deal with such suffering, and that is why I feel for Snape - because although he does many, many bad things, he suffers a great deal - more so than any other character apart from perhaps Harry - but I even wonder if perhaps he suffered more than Harry.

:agree: I really admire how JKR got that across. There is something so incredibly human about Snape that no matter how different we as readers are from each other, there's something we can identify with in him.

To add to what you said, I think a lot of the appeal is not only his suffering, but the fact that his response to it is not only very real (he lashes out sometimes, the way we all do) but also very hopeful. Despite the bad choices he makes, he does ultimately do the right thing, which I think makes the reader feel that no matter what happens, they're not a hopeless case.

:agree: I really admire how JKR got that across. There is something so incredibly human about Snape that no matter how different we as readers are from each other, there's something we can identify with in him.

To add to what you said, I think a lot of the appeal is not only his suffering, but the fact that his response to it is not only very real (he lashes out sometimes, the way we all do) but also very hopeful. Despite the bad choices he makes, he does ultimately do the right thing, which I think makes the reader feel that no matter what happens, they're not a hopeless case.

Exactly. I agree with you, and by extension, with CathyWeasley. The fact is that Snape, though coming across as snarky, sarcastic and cruel, lost a great deal more than anybody else- or never had it to begin with. I can't say that his parents were overtly wonderful, they gave him bad first impressions and they appear to be dead by the end of the series anyway. His friends were a bad lot, and so they showed him nothing good either. His enemies were cruel and intolerant, showing him nothing good about the "honourable" people. Everyone detested him or underestimated him or made him feel useless and idiotic. He was bullied. I'm not saying that he was the only one that these things happened to, but I think that for him it was particularly bad. He never truly saw love.

And yet still, he fell into it headfirst. I understand that many people lost many things in the run of the series. Everyone suffered- but Snape suffered most. forced, forever, to live with the idea that he caused his one true love's death. Forced to mind her son with his own life, even though that son was representative of everything he had hated previously. Forced, manipulated and stuck into a position he had no want of and desired no part in, t the extent that he gave his life for it.

I have an odd feeling that nobody truly missed him, much though Harry likely made attempts to have him re instated as legitimate and honour bound.

The thing is, for me, that Snape lost everything he loved. Others, though yes, they lost people, always had someone else to prop them up.

Snape did not.

The thing is, for me, that Snape lost everything he loved. Others, though yes, they lost people, always had someone else to prop them up.

Snape did not.

But I don't think we ever saw Snape extend himself to anyone to get love (except Lily). And this why I have absolutely no sympathy for him. He was just so consumed with his own pain that he perpetuated this cycle of loving Lily and hating James and not liking people. I know that Snape went through a lot in his life, but he still had a choice. He could have just numbed himself so he couldn't feel any emotion. And I know that isn't the most "healthiest" choice to do, but it would have at least broken that cycle.

I understand that many people lost many things in the run of the series. Everyone suffered- but Snape suffered most. forced, forever, to live with the idea that he caused his one true love's death. Forced to mind her son with his own life, even though that son was representative of everything he had hated previously. Forced, manipulated and stuck into a position he had no want of and desired no part in, t the extent that he gave his life for it.

Forced? I respect your view, but Snape was forced to suffer by his own hand. He had been a Death Eater - this was a group that went about killing, torturing and maiming people (i.e., cummulatively causing a lot more suffering of victims and their loved ones than Snape ever felt as an individual.) Subsequently, he relayed a prophecy of his own free will and desire that he knew would wind up killing at least a baby child and likely its parents as well. The family did die as a matter of fact. For these acts, Snape deserved Azkaban, the same 20 years or so that Bella was in for. That is the suffering he should have sustained as a matter of HP law. However, he tried to undo what he'd done due to Lily being involved. So that would grant him time off for good behavior, but he would still get his 15-20 in Azkaban because he was unable to stop the crime from occuring. His efforts afterward were not good enough. In addition, he did not try to stop any of the other crimes the Death Eaters were committing with his knowledge and aid. Thus, he was lucky that Dumbledore offered him an escape route from Azkaban - he was able to work a job and live as a free man, imo.

Snape would have been forced to go to Azkaban (or go on the run his whole life) I agree; but he did not end up suffering that fate. However, he was not forced to live with the idea that he'd killed Lily - he did kill Lily by and through his efforts of collusion (accomplices to murder are charged with murder), and James as well - leaving Harry an Orphan - this was not an idea, but a fact that he brought upon himself and had to deal with. He was not forced to protect Harry, it was an election given to him - asked of him by Dumbledore. It is possible the alternative would have been Azkaban, but there is no canon on that. Snape agreed to help protect Harry (DH TPT), so there was no force about it, imo.

Snape may have agreed to do things he did not genuinely wish to do, but no one forced him to do anything, imo. He forced himself to have to do those things by his own previous, imo, atrocious acts as a Death Eater. I do not feel that Snape is in anyway special as to not have to pay for his crimes. In my judgment, he did not suffer over having aided in killing James or in leaving Harry an orphan, only over what he felt was his personal loss associated with Lily. Considering the opprotunity was given to him to live the good life of a free man rather than be tormented to nuttiness or killed by Dementors in Azkaban, like his friends, I feel that any suffering he did was likely very good for him. At least it showed he had some remorse which is one of the reasons for punishment - to give prisoners time to consider their wrongs and realize they were wrong, regret them and feel remorse. We have no canon to know whether Snape ever did that with respect to anyone he had a hand in killing (including those had through aiding and abetting the death eaters) with the exception of Lily, imo. If he didn't like his job, well imo, that is just too bad because he was also a free man for having accepted it - and the fact that he carried it out bullying the children does not speak well for his gratefulness to Dumbledore for the opportunity, imo.

If Snape had liked his job, felt no remorse and suffered not at all in the wake of the criminal acts he partook in, I would say he'd gotten off scot free. As it was, he did not get off completely scot free - but imo, he really did not deserve to, no criminal does, imo. (I am not referring to his death; I feel Dumbledore was morally wrong in his actions related to Snape and the Elder Wand, and so I do think that was a wrongful fate suffered by Snape.) I am not saying that one cannot legitimately feel sorry for criminals, but the point is, they drove themsevles into their negative situations and suffering should be a part of that, imo, none of that is forced upon them, they force it upon themselves.

- but I even wonder if perhaps he suffered more than Harry.

I agree. It does look that at times he suffers more than Harry; I think that is because he brought all that suffering upon himself by himself (though there were other factors that influenced his choices).

But I don't think we ever saw Snape extend himself to anyone to get love (except Lily). And this why I have absolutely no sympathy for him.

I think that was because he may have been rejected many times as a kid; he knew he was different from other kids; I see the preperation he makes to approach Lily; the amount of thought that must have gone into it IMO.

In School too he was Snivellus and a Slytherin to others and in Slytherin he did not have the background, money or status to be accepted. That does make it difficult for a person to approach people IMO.

He was just so consumed with his own pain that he perpetuated this cycle of loving Lily and hating James and not liking people. I know that Snape went through a lot in his life, but he still had a choice. He could have just numbed himself so he couldn't feel any emotion. And I know that isn't the most "healthiest" choice to do, but it would have at least broken that cycle.

I think he was consumed by pain first when he was rejected by Lily. And then when he realised what his reporting of the prophecy had done.

After Lily died, though, I think he was consumed, because of his part in it; he would have been consumed by grief, even if he had no role to play; but that he did have a role to lay in her death, I think ate him up.

I feel for him, not because of the mistakes he made or the wrong choices he took, but for the effort he extended to undo them. That in my eyes is admirable and praiseworthy.

I agree. It does look that at times he suffers more than Harry; I think that is because he brought all that suffering upon himself by himself (though there were other factors that influenced his choices).



I think that was because he may have been rejected many times as a kid; he knew he was different from other kids; I see the preperation he makes to approach Lily; the amount of thought that must have gone into it IMO.

In School too he was Snivellus and a Slytherin to others and in Slytherin he did not have the background, money or status to be accepted. That does make it difficult for a person to approach people IMO.



I think he was consumed by pain first when he was rejected by Lily. And then when he realised what his reporting of the prophecy had done.

After Lily died, though, I think he was consumed, because of his part in it; he would have been consumed by grief, even if he had no role to play; but that he did have a role to lay in her death, I think ate him up.

I feel for him, not because of the mistakes he made or the wrong choices he took, but for the effort he extended to undo them. That in my eyes is admirable and praiseworthy.

No, I don't think so. I am more or less with Wicked on this. Snape had choices and those choices stretched over years. If we take for instance Lily and Snape being put into seperate house as the first memory we talk about and the next memory where they end up talking about the James and the Werewolf incident. In the first instance we see Snape being welcomed by Lucsius and Bella into the Slytherin ranks. Lucius puts his arm across the child Snape's shoulders and Bella is smiling at him. This is not toleration, it is welcome. Why? Could it have been that they knew he was already well prepared in the Dark Arts by his mother and was someone they wanted to court? It's more than possible, surely? In the next memory it is obvious that several years have passed, they are demostratedly older and they are speaking as older children do. I have always thought of them as being about 13 or 14 here. Lily is old enough to be made uncomfortable by Snape's intense look at her. For all that Snape is developing feelings for her in a physical sense and as he points out James has feelings for her, Lily in this scene is just not ready to move into boy/girl scenario, and she wants to talk to Snape about the path that he is taking and he is determined to ignore her wishes in that regard. He constantly tries to change the subject and to pass off her very real fears as that she is getting worked up about a piece of fun, and what about her housemates and what they get up to? This scene is curious in that Lily does not ask how Snape is. Is that because some days have passed? Lily does say 'the other night'. That could mean as many as 3 or 4 days have passed and it would be foolish to ask someone who was patently standing in front of her, hale and hearty, if they were ok. Also we do come into the conversation in the middle. We leave them with Snape feeling happy that Lily has said she is not interested in James, (and I believe her at that point,) and Lily? As far as I can see she must have felt frustration with Snape at his dodging of the issues she brought up. If this is meant to represent a lot of their private interactions and I suppose it must, then I can see how that frustration must have built up in her. The next 2 memories are SWM and the incident with the Maurauders. Which would truly be painful in the extreme for Snape. Suffice it to say that no one in my opinion comes out well in these memories. I do think Lily comes out the best but she did retaliate when Snape hurt her so badly with the Mudblood insult. But I suppose that to expect her to turn the other cheek was a little too much to expect of such a young girl. They are all young at this point, they are all of them only 15 year old children and they have all engaged in a situation whose ramifications will echo down the years. I suppose this is my point, they are children on the cusp of adolesance and all those raging hormones contributed to the situation, and it was bad. (I keep thinking, where on earth were the adults.)
The next memory we have is Snape and Dumbledore on the hill, 6 years at least have passed, they are all adults now. The excuse that Snape is a misunderstood and bullied child no longer holds water. He is a fully grown adult and he has just taken the decision to be an accomplice to murder. His regret is not that he took that decision, but that Lily is one of the people who will die. He knows in his heart that Voldermort cannot be trusted to spare her, so he runs to Dumbledore and asks him to save Lily, not her husband and child. This cannot be read any other way. Dumbledor in the text says it to him and he recoils in shame. All efforts to save the family fail and Snape is left in the ashes of the catastrophe he helped create and he is howling in anguish. He wishes that he was dead, to me this is his most pathetic moment. What did he think all the other survivors of Voldemort's vendetta against the WW felt. Voldermort killed many, many people and only now does Snape feel regret for a death. Dumbledore is quite rightly angry with him and I got a definite flavour of exasperation from him. On to the next memory and it is when Harry has come to Hogwarts for his first term. Ten years have passed, ten years where Snape had nothing to do but wait and and think about where he went wrong and IMO to learn remorse and regret. But it takes him longer than that. There is a world of difference from from the selfish Death Eater on the hill and the man who says to Dumbledore he will not willingly watch and stand by when a person dies, and to me that is Snape's finest hour. The hour when he admits that any human life is to be treasured and to participate in the murder of one is wrong and that is what he is working against it. But he still will not let go of his loathing for James and Harry. I sometimes wonder what was the greater, his loathing for James and Harry or his love for Lily. He sure held them both close to heart

This scene is curious in that Lily does not ask how Snape is. Is that because some days have passed? Lily does say 'the other night'. That could mean as many as 3 or 4 days have passed and it would be foolish to ask someone who was patently standing in front of her, hale and hearty, if they were ok.This is a good catch. They could have had several conversations in the interim.

But I don't think we ever saw Snape extend himself to anyone to get love (except Lily). And this why I have absolutely no sympathy for him. He was just so consumed with his own pain that he perpetuated this cycle of loving Lily and hating James and not liking people. I know that Snape went through a lot in his life, but he still had a choice. He could have just numbed himself so he couldn't feel any emotion. And I know that isn't the most "healthiest" choice to do, but it would have at least broken that cycle.
IMO the reason Snape does not reach out to people is that he learnt at an early age not to expect to be loved. His approaches to Lily were clumsy even for a shy 9/10 year old. Snape certainly had a choice and to me that is his tragedy and is what makes his story all the more poignant. But I also believe that he was not equipped to make good choices. He was emotionally stunted and to me the blame for that lies squarley with his parents. Just as you cannot blame a malnourished child for being thin so you cannot blame an unloved child for not knowing how to love. Snape had a lot of love to give - he just didn't know how to give it, and I find that extremely sad. He was consummed with guilt after Lily died; indeed his life was barely a life at all because it was "all for Lily".

It seems to me that Snape was able to care about others, although it naturally took him more time because of his unfortunate upbringing. We see him eventually open up to Dumbledore and he appears to be friendly with McGonagall. And that's not counting the oft-quoted "only those I could not save" and his evident concern when Ginny goes missing in CoS. If he had completely shut himself off emotionally from everyone, I don't think he'd be able to change his mind about them and their worth the way he did over the years.

I don't think the trouble is in him feeling emotion, but in expressing it and accepting it. He generally appears to fight, diminish, of hide any emotion that he feels he could be victimized for. But he isn't like Voldemort, who feels nothing for his fellow man. Snape definitely feels. He just doesn't know how to handle it sometimes.

IMO the reason Snape does not reach out to people is that he learnt at an early age not to expect to be loved. His approaches to Lily were clumsy even for a shy 9/10 year old. Snape certainly had a choice and to me that is his tragedy and is what makes his story all the more poignant. But I also believe that he was not equipped to make good choices. He was emotionally stunted and to me the blame for that lies squarley with his parents. Just as you cannot blame a malnourished child for being thin so you cannot blame an unloved child for not knowing how to love. Snape had a lot of love to give - he just didn't know how to give it, and I find that extremely sad. He was consummed with guilt after Lily died; indeed his life was barely a life at all because it was "all for Lily".

I respect your opinion. I just have a very "you get what you give" mentality. When he was 9 he gave effort into approaching Lily, and that eventually lead to a friendship. I think that proves that Snape isn't horribly inept in the ways of forming a friendship. If he can reach out to Lily, why not someone else? We don't have much canon about Snape's relations with Mulciber and Avery, and which one of them initiated the "friendship", but he must have put some effort into the relationship if he went as far to defend them from Lily.

I would have all the respect for Snape if he simply choose not to have an relations with anyone, but that it is not the case. I think it is apparent that Snape wanted/needed some regard/appreciation/esteem from somebody. While I don't believe that Snape didn't know how to love or express love, even if I did, I wonder why he never helped himself. He may not know how to express love/concern, but what is stopping him from trying?

It seems to me that Snape was able to care about others, although it naturally took him more time because of his unfortunate upbringing. We see him eventually open up to Dumbledore and he appears to be friendly with McGonagall. And that's not counting the oft-quoted "only those I could not save" and his evident concern when Ginny goes missing in CoS. If he had completely shut himself off emotionally from everyone, I don't think he'd be able to change his mind about them and their worth the way he did over the years.

I don't think the trouble is in him feeling emotion, but in expressing it and accepting it. He generally appears to fight, diminish, of hide any emotion that he feels he could be victimized for. But he isn't like Voldemort, who feels nothing for his fellow man. Snape definitely feels. He just doesn't know how to handle it sometimes.

Voldemort felt anger, hatred and respect for others - he could feel. He also figured out how to reach out to others and manipulate them into being friends with him - and even minions of undying loyalty (to greater and lesser degrees). On a purely social level, he was way more developed and skilled than Snape at relationships. Snape was an isolationist as an adult for various reasons, but as a kid, he made friends with Lily, Mulciber, Avery and likely his relationship with Lucius began then as well. I have to imagine that then or later he was also quite civil with Narcissa or she would not have had the idea that he would be helpful to her with Draco.

With the exception of Lily and later Dumbledore, Snape simply had a lot of disdain for goodsiders. While he was a budding Death Eater and later a Death Eater in reality, that made sense. But when he switched sides, he retained that attitude and that was pure vindictiveness in my judgment. I feel he was loathe to admit he had been wrong and made tremendous mistakes (something we never saw him do in canon in a straightforward manner - nor admit to being wrong or sorry. The closest he got was remaining silent when it was suggested to him that he might feel that way.) Hence, he remained isolated and arrogantly disdainful of them all, keeping them at a distance so as never having to confront those issues. After all, he had over 17 years to befriend those on the good side (in a real social way) before he found out he was to kill Dumbledore. Prior to that, he was supposed to garner trust - but he could not do so due to his behavior and attitude which was evidence of his lack of desire, imo, because he obviously knew what it took to make friends (as Narcissa pointed out) - even if his social development was lacking to some degree.

It was as if Snape considered all good siders his enemies, despite being on the same side with him, imo. I mean, it isn't hard to be kind and civil to your enemies. Even Darth Vader accepted Needa's apology in a generous and socially acceptable manner before choking him to death. :rotfl:

While he was a budding Death Eater and later a Death Eater in reality, that made sense. But when he switched sides, he retained that attitude and that was pure vindictiveness in my judgment. I feel he was loathe to admit he had been wrong and made tremendous mistakes (something we never saw him do in canon in a straightforward manner - nor admit to being wrong or sorry. The closest he got was remaining silent when it was suggested to him that he might feel that way.) Hence, he remained isolated and arrogantly disdainful of them all, keeping them at a distance so as never having to confront those issues. After all, he had over 17 years to befriend those on the good side (in a real social way) before he found out he was to kill Dumbledore. Prior to that, he was supposed to garner trust - but he could not do so due to his behavior and attitude which was evidence of his lack of desire, imo, because he obviously knew what it took to make friends (as Narcissa pointed out) - even if his social development was lacking to some degree.

I think, an this is purely a thought, that Snape had to punish himself for what he had done. I don't think he ever actually got over it, and I don't think he ever managed to move on. That's all I can really say, since I have no proof of it. It seems to me that he aligned himself with people for whom he did, you're correct, hold quite a lot of disdain. But think of this. He never sought to fight them. He seemed to respect McGonagall hugely, playing only the minimal role as "attacker" in the seventh book's final siege. He respected Dumbledore to the extent that he begged for his life and never lashed out at him on finding out how he had been used- particularly in light of how we know Snape could be quite vindictive and hated being in other peoples pockets. On top of that, he alleged that he hated Umbridge as much as the next person, his disdain for her was just as evident as many of the others- if not more so.

And on top of all of that, he never spoke a word against the Weasleys. We never heard of him having it out with any of them except Ron really- and I think that was simply an extension of Harry's involvement with Ron. I think that Snape, for all his meanness, saw the light in other ways. He didn't care about blood purity- in fact, he was proud to be otherwise acclaimed. I just don't think that we can brush him off as being disdainful of everybody good, when I figure that he was just as cruel about those of the opposite "camp".

Forced? I respect your view, but Snape was forced to suffer by his own hand. He had been a Death Eater - this was a group that went about killing, torturing and maiming people (i.e., cummulatively causing a lot more suffering of victims and their loved ones than Snape ever felt as an individual.)

And just to clear something up.. I understand everything you wrote in that above post, and I agree with it for the most part, but when saying "forced" originally, I was actually talking about Dumbledore's sleight of hand in manipulating Snape. Just to vindicate myself, a bit. ;)

No, I don't think so. I am more or less with Wicked on this. Snape had choices and those choices stretched over years. If we take for instance Lily and Snape being put into seperate house as the first memory we talk about and the next memory where they end up talking about the James and the Werewolf incident. In the first instance we see Snape being welcomed by Lucsius and Bella into the Slytherin ranks. Lucius puts his arm across the child Snape's shoulders and Bella is smiling at him.

The following quote is the entire memory of Severus's sorting. Where's Bella?

And Severus Snape moved off to the other side of the Hall, away from Lily, to where the Slytherins were cheering him, to where Lucius Malfoy, a prefect badge gleaming upon his chest, patted Snape on the back as he sat down beside him. . . .pg. 675, DH, US ed.

This is not toleration, it is welcome. Why? Could it have been that they knew he was already well prepared in the Dark Arts by his mother and was someone they wanted to court? It's more than possible, surely?

Since we've been given absolutely no information about the Prince family we can imagine anything we wish; speculate away about Snape's dark arts pre-Hogwarts background.:tu:

I think, an this is purely a thought, that Snape had to punish himself for what he had done. I don't think he ever actually got over it, and I don't think he ever managed to move on. That's all I can really say, since I have no proof of it. It seems to me that he aligned himself with people for whom he did, you're correct, hold quite a lot of disdain. But think of this. He never sought to fight them. He seemed to respect McGonagall hugely, playing only the minimal role as "attacker" in the seventh book's final siege. He respected Dumbledore to the extent that he begged for his life and never lashed out at him on finding out how he had been used- particularly in light of how we know Snape could be quite vindictive and hated being in other peoples pockets. On top of that, he alleged that he hated Umbridge as much as the next person, his disdain for her was just as evident as many of the others- if not more so.

Oh I agree he did not wish to fight them - far from it. He was truly on the same side as them and against Voldemort. My point was that he appeared to hold them in arrogant disdain - preserving his isolationist behavior because he did not wish to be close to them and have a confiding relationship where he felt pressure to face up to his past wrongs verbally. That was just not Snape's way, imo.

And on top of all of that, he never spoke a word against the Weasleys. We never heard of him having it out with any of them except Ron really- and I think that was simply an extension of Harry's involvement with Ron. I think that Snape, for all his meanness, saw the light in other ways. He didn't care about blood purity- in fact, he was proud to be otherwise acclaimed. I just don't think that we can brush him off as being disdainful of everybody good, when I figure that he was just as cruel about those of the opposite "camp".

Part of what I meant by arrogant disdain was his treatment of the Weasleys we were shown. When Arthur came back from his near death experience at the hospital, Snape walked right by both Weasleys without a word or gesture. It was rude and arrogant, a display of disdain for them - for no other reason than they were not his "friends" and he was not required to show any type of normative social behavior with them. Some might suggest that he was upset due to his fight with Sirius, but Sirius was upset too, and he immediately suppresed it best he could and showed expected social behavior. In another example of Snape's disdainful treatment, his rude remark to Tonks in HBP over her situation with Remus (her patronus), whereas normal social behavior is to either ignore her problem and carry on usual business or say something in a kind way as Molly did to Tonks. That is the distinction I am speaking about with respect to Snape's treatment of goodsiders - not just the children.

And just to clear something up.. I understand everything you wrote in that above post, and I agree with it for the most part, but when saying "forced" originally, I was actually talking about Dumbledore's sleight of hand in manipulating Snape. Just to vindicate myself, a bit. ;)

As I mentioned, I agree with you on the Dumbledore bit - his behavior was deplorable when it came to Snape and the elder wand, imo. But yeah, the other suffering Snape faced was of his own hand, imo.

The following quote is the entire memory of Severus's sorting. Where's Bella?

I apologise, I misremembered.

I apologise, I misremembered.

I don't think the idea is altogether mistaken. In GoF, Sirius said that Snape was a part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly all turned out to be Death Eaters. He named the Lestranges as a part of that group which is Bella and her husband. It is altogether possible that Bella condescended to allow Snape to hang out with her personally, since she seemed to have fairly stringent views when it came to purebloodist values. However, while for Bella, that would say quite a lot (:lol:), halfbloods were not targeted and accepted in the Death Eater fold if they upheld blood purist values and held only disdain for their Muggle relatives - after all, Voldemort was a half blood - which is likely why he made the concession in the first place. Of course there would be no problem for Snape in holding his father in disdain, as he seemed to have only a little more regard for him than Voldemort did his father (that is, Snape didn't kill the man that we know of).

I don't think the trouble is in him feeling emotion, but in expressing it and accepting it. He generally appears to fight, diminish, of hide any emotion that he feels he could be victimized for. But he isn't like Voldemort, who feels nothing for his fellow man. Snape definitely feels. He just doesn't know how to handle it sometimes.
Precisely!! This is what I'm trying to say - Snape has all the emotions - I'd even go so far to say that he is a particularly sensitive person - but he doesn't know how to deal with these emotions so all too often they come out all wrong. A classic example of this is his obvious concern for Dumbledore while treating him for the ring curse - his concern comes out as anger. And I agree he does seem to fight his emotions rather than accept them and deal with them, but this lack of emotional wellbeing I think can be blamed directly on his upbringing.

While I don't believe that Snape didn't know how to love or express love, even if I did, I wonder why he never helped himself. He may not know how to express love/concern, but what is stopping him from trying?Rejection. Quite simply if Snape gets it wrong - the trying to express love/concern - he will be rejected and this is devastating to anyone and to teenagers in particular. As I have said before Snape didn't know how to help himself because for one thing he didn't know he had a problem - as far as he was concerned it was everyone else who had the problem.

It is like older children (and adults) who don't know how to read or write - they become very adept at hiding their deficiency because they are aware that they will be ridiculed for it. They may even tell themselves that it is unnecessary or pointless. But who is to blame for their inability - they themselves or the people who were responsible for teaching them in the first place?

I think, an this is purely a thought, that Snape had to punish himself for what he had done. I don't think he ever actually got over it, and I don't think he ever managed to move on. That's all I can really say, since I have no proof of it.Personally I think there is plenty of proof of this on the pages of the Harry Potter series. The true art of writing is to show, not tell and we don't actually need JKR to tell us that Snape was eaten up with guilt because to me anyway it is there on the page in every scene. I think it is also important to make the distinction between remorse and guilt; remorse is a feeling, whereas guilt is a judgement. And Severus having judged himself guilty never forgives himself and will not allow himself to become well adjusted and happy (and following on from that have friends) because he doesn't believe he deserves to be. This is the problem with people unable to forgive - they are also unable to forgive themselves and end up punishing themselves. To me this illustrates one of the many Christian themes of the books - that of the importance of forgiveness. Whatever our own personal views on forgiveness may be I think JKR has made her views on the subject clear through the character of Severus Snape - not only in his behaviour, but also in the fact that Harry, who is the Hero, is able to forgive Severus for all his mistreatment and admire the man sufficiently to name a son after him.

Precisely!! This is what I'm trying to say - Snape has all the emotions - I'd even go so far to say that he is a particularly sensitive person - but he doesn't know how to deal with these emotions so all too often they come out all wrong. A classic example of this is his obvious concern for Dumbledore while treating him for the ring curse - his concern comes out as anger. And I agree he does seem to fight his emotions rather than accept them and deal with them, but this lack of emotional wellbeing I think can be blamed directly on his upbringing.

I agree. However, what do we blame his inability to correct this deficiency upon? I think that was a basic character flaw that Snape never attempted to correct.

Rejection. Quite simply if Snape gets it wrong - the trying to express love/concern - he will be rejected and this is devastating to anyone and to teenagers in particular. As I have said before Snape didn't know how to help himself because for one thing he didn't know he had a problem - as far as he was concerned it was everyone else who had the problem.

It is like older children (and adults) who don't know how to read or write - they become very adept at hiding their deficiency because they are aware that they will be ridiculed for it. They may even tell themselves that it is unnecessary or pointless. But who is to blame for their inability - they themselves or the people who were responsible for teaching them in the first place?

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying that Snape didn't know he had a problem, or that he knew he had one and was trying to hide it?

Personally I think there is plenty of proof of this on the pages of the Harry Potter series. The true art of writing is to show, not tell and we don't actually need JKR to tell us that Snape was eaten up with guilt because to me anyway it is there on the page in every scene. I think it is also important to make the distinction between remorse and guilt; remorse is a feeling, whereas guilt is a judgement. And Severus having judged himself guilty never forgives himself and will not allow himself to become well adjusted and happy (and following on from that have friends) because he doesn't believe he deserves to be. This is the problem with people unable to forgive - they are also unable to forgive themselves and end up punishing themselves. To me this illustrates one of the many Christian themes of the books - that of the importance of forgiveness. Whatever our own personal views on forgiveness may be I think JKR has made her views on the subject clear through the character of Severus Snape - not only in his behaviour, but also in the fact that Harry, who is the Hero, is able to forgive Severus for all his mistreatment and admire the man sufficiently to name a son after him.

Well I believe people can 'feel' both guilt and remorse - however I agree that both are based in self-judgment. I agree that Harry did forgive Snape for his mistreatment of himself and others, his disloyalty, for his helping to kill his parents, and for his continued loathing of him and his dad. However, I feel that Harry personally admired his bravery and the fact that he tried to honor his mum's sacrifice and was able to do so in part - at least initially - and that is it, because there was nothing else to admire, imo. I feel everything else about Snape had to be overlooked. Because Harry knew a lot of brave men, I would opine that it was Snape's intent to honor Lily's sacrifice that motivated Harry to give his son the middle name of Severus. Even though I feel Snape did a very poor job of it, it was his intention and one has to take into account that he was a deeply flawed individual.

I also feel the key point in the forgiveness is the fact that Harry learned the value of not holding on to grudges - a lesson Lupin tried to teach him in HBP - because it eats you alive if you do so, much like it did Snape, in my judgment. Snape's holding onto a grudge against a dead man that he'd helped to kill, imo, was both irrational and pointless. Likewise, Harry holding a grudge against Snape, who was dead (and who he watched die without intervening, believing him to be evil) would be equally irrational and pointless, imo. But I feel the more important point, which was not stressed, was that holding grudges against the living is just as irrational and pointless. This was a point I believe was nearly undone by the scene with Harry and Draco at the train station. Nonetheless, I would like to think that the point was made through Lupin in HBP in his comments about Snape.

No, I don't think so. I am more or less with Wicked on this. Snape had choices and those choices stretched over years. If we take for instance Lily and Snape being put into seperate house as the first memory we talk about and the next memory where they end up talking about the James and the Werewolf incident.

I thought it was to show that their friendship was fine until then. We saw the begining and the end of that friendship in canon IMO.

This scene is curious in that Lily does not ask how Snape is. Is that because some days have passed? Lily does say 'the other night'. That could mean as many as 3 or 4 days have passed and it would be foolish to ask someone who was patently standing in front of her, hale and hearty, if they were ok.

I agree the werewolf incident must have happened a few days before. Lily says “I heard what happened the other night,” I think, making me feel that she heard about it a bit earlier too. She knew what had happened and never bothered to seek out Snape and ask him if he was fine, I think she had ended the friendship even then and the SWM was a formality, where Lily took advantage of Snape's swear word and broke off with him IMO. And when Snape came that night, she spoke to him about things which would have been a concern had they happened 2 years later or had Snape practised the Defence against the Dark Arts before that in School, and broke off her friendship IMO.

I thought it was to show that their friendship was fine until then. We saw the begining and the end of that friendship in canon IMO.

I agree the werewolf incident must have happened a few days before. Lily says “I heard what happened the other night,” I think, making me feel that she heard about it a bit earlier too. She knew what had happened and never bothered to seek out Snape and ask him if he was fine, I think she had ended the friendship even then and the SWM was a formality, where Lily took advantage of Snape's swear word and broke off with him IMO. And when Snape came that night, she spoke to him about things which would have been a concern had they happened 2 years later or had Snape practised the Defence against the Dark Arts before that in School, and broke off her friendship IMO.

I've made a response to this in the Snape and Lily thread.

However, while for Bella, that would say quite a lot (:lol:), halfbloods were not targeted and accepted in the Death Eater fold if they upheld blood purist values and held only disdain for their Muggle relatives - after all, Voldemort was a half blood - which is likely why he made the concession in the first place. Of course there would be no problem for Snape in holding his father in disdain, as he seemed to have only a little more regard for him than Voldemort did his father (that is, Snape didn't kill the man that we know of).

Bella was deeply offended, even furious, by the mere suggestion Voldewmort was a half-blood. He may have tolerated half-bloods because he was one himself, but Bella, we know, had issues. If she and Snape hung out, it was only for a year - she is older than even Lucius.

LOL. I think we see a glimpse of Snape's true opinion of Bella in the Spinner's End chapter. ;) :rotfl:

(According to various sources, Bella was born in 1951. Severus was born in 1959 or 1960. That would make her nine years older than him! :huh: Would she even have been at Hogwarts at the same time?? Lucius was born in 1954.)

She should not have been. Either Sirius or Jo are confused. Knowing Jo's maths issues, what I personally decided is that she clearly meant Bella to be older than Lucius, but this could be made to work with one year's overlap, if we just ignore the actual numbers.

She should not have been. Either Sirius or Jo are confused.

:D

Knowing Jo's maths issues, what I personally decided is that she clearly meant Bella to be older than Lucius, but this could be made to work with one year's overlap, if we just ignore the actual numbers.

Yes, I thought so. :)

(I have a lot of sympathy with JKR's maths problems, as I virtually suffer from dyscalculia. :whistle: )

I thought it was to show that their friendship was fine until then. We saw the begining and the end of that friendship in canon IMO.
I agree the werewolf incident must have happened a few days before. Lily says “I heard what happened the other night,” I think, making me feel that she heard about it a bit earlier too. She knew what had happened and never bothered to seek out Snape and ask him if he was fine, I think she had ended the friendship even then and the SWM was a formality, where Lily took advantage of Snape's swear word and broke off with him IMO. And when Snape came that night, she spoke to him about things which would have been a concern had they happened 2 years later or had Snape practised the Defence against the Dark Arts before that in School, and broke off her friendship IMO.

I would say that we see very clearly that Lily brought up her concerns for several years before SWM. The werewolf incident memory is several years before this, so to say that Lily ignored/tolerated Snapes attraction for the Dark Arts is doing her a grave diservice. We see her voicing her concerns and we see Snape avoiding and changing the subject. We also come in at the middle of the conversation and as I already stated it seems quite plain that several days have passed since the werewolf escapade and who knows how many times Snape and Lily saw each other in that time. I think it more likely that Snape did not mention anything to her and therefore she didn't have any reason to ask him if he was all right. We don't know when she heard about the incident, it could have been 10 minutes before they met up for all we know.

Snape did not swear at Lily, he swore at James and Sirius and got his mouth washed out for his trouble. I did the same thing to my daughter and she never swore again, (in my presence.) Snape used a RACIAL insult/slur.

Snape certainly, IMO repented and regretted what he did, but it took him the best part of twenty years to reach that point. He was nasty at the very least to Harry and I don't buy the excuse he had to be because he had to keep up the fiction he was a loyal DE. All the DE's were well under cover or in Azkaban and as far as they knew, LV was never coming back. Snape could have easily just ignored Harry, he was the one who chose to dislike him. We see that in the memory of Dumbledore's office in Harry's first year.

The werewolf memory was in 5th year - the same year as SWM. In POA, Snape claimed Sirius was 16 at the time, so since he was sixteen and the werewolf memory had to be before SWM, it all happened in the same year. :) Nonetheless, I agree with your point. JKR has said that Lily was aware of Snape's dark arts friends and acts - and then Lily told us she'd been pretending about it - which I interpret to mean that she had been trying to convince herself that his friends were influencing him to behave and act as he did, rather than it being something he chose to do because he was planning to join up with the dark arts regime. But JKR said that was also his plan - that he thought it would impress Lily if he did so.

The werewolf memory was in 5th year - the same year as SWM. In POA, Snape claimed Sirius was 16 at the time, so since he was sixteen and the werewolf memory had to be before SWM, it all happened in the same year. :) Nonetheless, I agree with your point. JKR has said that Lily was aware of Snape's dark arts friends and acts - and then Lily told us she'd been pretending about it - which I interpret to mean that she had been trying to convince herself that his friends were influencing him to behave and act as he did, rather than it being something he chose to do because he was planning to join up with the dark arts regime. But JKR said that was also his plan - that he thought it would impress Lily if he did so.

Well I would also seem to have some memory and math problems, but I hope that does not impinge too much on my main arguement/point. My point is that Snape messed things up for himself and others. He was a DE, in spirit and fact, but and this is my point he repented. His repentance was sincere and he genuinely regretted his actions and did what he could to repair the damage. His feelings for Harry were contaminated with his feelings for James and in my opinion he could not really reconcile himself to the fact that Harry was also Lily's son. Maybe it hurt to much to have that living breathing proof of his betrayal of the woman he loved sitting in his classroom. I don't know.
There is much to admire about Snape, his tenacity, courage, intelligence and loyalty to Dumbledore, I simply do not see the need to deny his faults. His sins defined his repentance and his journey to the light. IMO denying that Snape did practice and embraced the Dark Arts is also to deny that he changed and that act of changing was very hard indeed.

The werewolf memory was in 5th year - the same year as SWM. In POA, Snape claimed Sirius was 16 at the time, so since he was sixteen and the werewolf memory had to be before SWM, it all happened in the same year. :) Nonetheless, I agree with your point. JKR has said that Lily was aware of Snape's dark arts friends and acts - and then Lily told us she'd been pretending about it - which I interpret to mean that she had been trying to convince herself that his friends were influencing him to behave and act as he did, rather than it being something he chose to do because he was planning to join up with the dark arts regime. But JKR said that was also his plan - that he thought it would impress Lily if he did so.

This statement of JKR's has never made much sense to me. How could the teenage Severus possibly think that Lily would be impressed with his joining the Death Eaters, a group that was dedicated to eliminating the Wizarding World of people like her? :hmm:

This is like a guy thinking that his Jewish friend would be impressed with his derring-do if he joined a skinhead group committed to anti-Semitism. :wow: I don't think so. :no:

I mean, Severus isn't stupid. I can only surmise that what JKR is getting at that the nature of his delusion went so deep (when he was still a young man) that he kind of ignored the fact that Lily was Muggleborn. :hmm:

Usually the author's statements shed light on canon; in this case I am confused. ;)

Well I would also seem to have some memory and math problems, but I hope that does not impinge too much on my main arguement/point. My point is that Snape messed things up for himself and others. He was a DE, in spirit and fact, but and this is my point he repented. His repentance was sincere and he genuinely regretted his actions and did what he could to repair the damage. His feelings for Harry were contaminated with his feelings for James and in my opinion he could not really reconcile himself to the fact that Harry was also Lily's son. Maybe it hurt to much to have that living breathing proof of his betrayal of the woman he loved sitting in his classroom. I don't know.
There is much to admire about Snape, his tenacity, courage, intelligence and loyalty to Dumbledore, I simply do not see the need to deny his faults. His sins defined his repentance and his journey to the light. IMO denying that Snape did practice and embraced the Dark Arts is also to deny that he changed and that act of changing was very hard indeed.

This is the way I see it too. :tu: JKR drops enough clues in canon to indicate that he was very much into the Dark Arts and to play this down only serves, IMO, to sanitise Snape's story and his eventual turning from the Dark to the Light.

This statement of JKR's has never made much sense to me. How could the teenage Severus possibly think that Lily would be impressed with his joining the Death Eaters, a group that was dedicated to eliminating the Wizarding World of people like her? :hmm:

This is like a guy thinking that his Jewish friend would be impressed with his derring-do if he joined a skinhead group committed to anti-Semitism. :wow: I don't think so. :no:

I mean, Severus isn't stupid. I can only surmise that what JKR is getting at that the nature of his delusion went so deep (when he was still a young man) that he kind of ignored the fact that Lily was Muggleborn. :hmm:

Usually the author's statements shed light on canon; in this case I am confused. ;)

I think it is a function of reader perception. Kids have all kinds of crazy rationales and you have to think back and you'll likely recall a couple of crazy ones you or your friends had as well. (I recall thinking that putting water in my Principal's gas tank was a splendid idea - but today that just seems like a completely assinine notion)

Snape I doubt saw his joining Voldemort as a means of ganging up with his friends and killing Lily. :lol:. He likely saw it as becoming top dog in the Death Eater regime and being able to do whatever he wanted - including protecting Lily because she was a Mudblood, but he was willing to overlook her inferiority in that regard - and as top dog, he could make everyone else overlook it too. So She would be impressed with his power, with his ability to protect her while everyone else of her birth was being destroyed. In the interim he would destroy those he considered his enemies (the Marauders) and show her that he had more power than them as well. He'd be on top of the world and she could travel right along with him.

That is how I think he saw it. We know he held her own sister in total disdain, and I think he felt Lily would come to see Muggles, Muggleborns other than herself and blood traitors - as worthless as he did. In that way their views would become compatible - even though Lily was seeing everything in the exact opposite way at the time of their friendship.

I believe Snape saw "power" as some all encompassing guarantee of happiness. He looked around and saw popular kids getting admiration and seemingly getting away with all kinds of things and that is what he wanted for himself. But that is a fool's vision many kids have because popular kids don't get away with everything at all. The professors may be charmed and laughing, call them 'incorrigible' instead of delinquent, but they still give out detentions. But from Snape's point of view, if he saw that happening and compared it to his situation, where say he or his friends were chastised by a professor for using dark magic - there would be no laughing and calling them incorrigible and the penalty would likely be greater. But from Snape's point of view, the creation of Sectumsempra was genius and that was not being recognized (and it was genius, but he wasn't considering the harm factor.) So he watches Sirius turn a girl's hair green and the professor can hardly stop herself from laughing and gives Sirius an hour's detention and changes the hair back - but Snape just sees that as "Sirius did harm too and he is not getting busted the way I did". So the idea of "power" becomes a very murky one - the power Sirius has, Snape decides is due to his popularity, rather than to the fact that turning someone's hair green is funny - and not so harmful that people remain hateful toward you for the deed. But if you cut someone, they can regard you altogether differently - more as an outcast.

Now the other aspect is that with Snape, Sirius doesn't bother with turning his hair green, he uses freezing spells and taunts him, the laughter is not so much with him (like when you turn the hair green) but AT him. So that adds to Snape's seeing Sirius' other actions in a negative light. Meanwhile there is yet another aspect and that is Lily. She too is laughing when Sirius turns the persons hair green and Snape wants Lily's admiration shined on him, not on Sirius for his stupid hair turning spell. But Lily is not looking at him in admiration for Sectumsempra either. She's cheering like wild with all Gryffindors when James scores yet another goal, and Snape wants that shined on himself. But he is not athletic, he does not pull 'funny pranks' and he has nothing that gets that reaction from Lily. So for example, he creates Levicorpus - and that is funny - but the problem is, his friends learn it first and they are not nice to people when they do magic against them, it is not in the spirit of fun because like Draco, they will use it on "Mudbloods" and taunt them. So there is this bad aspect about it. By the time it gets going around the whole school, Lily and everyone else has become used to it, they chuckle and keep going and Snape has never gotten the admiration he desired.

That is how I see Snape ultimately deciding that he needed "real" power and it fit right and tight with his interest to get it through Voldemort's regime. They did appreciate Sectumsempra, they saw value in the curse and would praise Snape for it. They appreciated his thoughts on Muggles and Muggleborns as well as Blood Traitors; in other words, in everyway, when the clock strikes midnight, Snape vaguely hears the chime, but it is counting him in.

Snape I doubt saw his joining Voldemort as a means of ganging up with his friends and killing Lily. :lol:. He likely saw it as becoming top dog in the Death Eater regime and being able to do whatever he wanted - including protecting Lily because she was a Mudblood, but he was willing to overlook her inferiority in that regard - and as top dog, he could make everyone else overlook it too. So She would be impressed with his power, with his ability to protect her while everyone else of her birth was being destroyed. In the interim he would destroy those he considered his enemies (the Marauders) and show her that he had more power than them as well. He'd be on top of the world and she could travel right along with him.

OK, that makes sense to me now. Not that it really makes sense, if you see what I mean, but I can see how that sort of twisted logic could make sense to the teenage Snape who was caught up in the whole DE thing. :cool:

This statement of JKR's has never made much sense to me. How could the teenage Severus possibly think that Lily would be impressed with his joining the Death Eaters, a group that was dedicated to eliminating the Wizarding World of people like her? :hmm:

This is like a guy thinking that his Jewish friend would be impressed with his derring-do if he joined a skinhead group committed to anti-Semitism. :wow: I don't think so. :no:

I mean, Severus isn't stupid. I can only surmise that what JKR is getting at that the nature of his delusion went so deep (when he was still a young man) that he kind of ignored the fact that Lily was Muggleborn. :hmm:

Usually the author's statements shed light on canon; in this case I am confused. ;)


I am not convinced that Snape really was prejudiced against muggleborns. I think that he saw the Death Eaters as a group that would accept him (as his Slytherin friends did) and he aspired to be a Death Eater because that is what the most powerful Slytherins aspired to. IMO Snape knew that Muggleborns were regarded as inferior by many wizards (as is shown by his response to Lily)and he went along with these ideas once he was sorted into Slytherin. His ambition was to be powerful - not to kill Muggleborns. He was prepared to overlook the killing of Muggleborns in order to achieve what he wanted (which is obviously not a good thing) but I do not beleive he ever had the same level of rascist fanatacism as, say, Bella (or even Draco for that matter)
To use the anti-semitism example - he didn't want to become a skinhead so he could beat up Jews - rather he wanted to become a skinhead because they were feared and powerful - and being feared and powerful would enable him to protect his Jewish best friend. I hope that makes sense.

I am not convinced that Snape really was prejudiced against muggleborns. I think that he saw the Death Eaters as a group that would accept him (as his Slytherin friends did) and he aspired to be a Death Eater because that is what the most powerful Slytherins aspired to. IMO Snape knew that Muggleborns were regarded as inferior by many wizards (as is shown by his response to Lily)and he went along with these ideas once he was sorted into Slytherin. His ambition was to be powerful - not to kill Muggleborns. He was prepared to overlook the killing of Muggleborns in order to achieve what he wanted (which is obviously not a good thing) but I do not beleive he ever had the same level of rascist fanatacism as, say, Bella (or even Draco for that matter)

Cathy, you make a lot of good points here. :) I agree that Snape was never at Bella's level in terms of pathological hatred for Muggleborns.

And of course we see in canon that he had a deeply unsympathetic Muggle father who was at least verbally abusive to his witch wife and with whom young Severus seems to have had an unhappy relationship. This unhappy upbringing would only have served to deepen whatever anti-Muggle beliefs/attitudes he had clearly inherited from ... well, whoever, but his mother seems a very likely source.

Ah, Snape psychology ... :cool:

To use the anti-semitism example - he didn't want to become a skinhead so he could beat up Jews - rather he wanted to become a skinhead because they were feared and powerful - and being feared and powerful would enable him to protect his Jewish best friend. I hope that makes sense.

Now you put it like that, actually it does. I mean, it's all twisted, but ... yes, I can see how young Snape could have seen it that way.

I never think that things are entirely straightforward with him. The Malfoys are a much more clear-cut case: purebloods who look down on everybody! Severus is more complicated, IMO. And more ambiguous.

I feel he quite apparently incorporated the ideology into is outlook. I don't know why or how, but he did, imo. Otherwise he would not have called Lily a filthy little Mudblood in his anger because he would have never associated the word with her. Like Harry - it never crossed his inner POV mind that Hermione was a Mudblood, but he should never call her that - he didn't consider the matter at all. That is the distinction. So whether he went on to believe they should all be killed while at Hogwarts or only later as a Death Eater is academic imo, because he was believing their "difference" in terms of being of lesser value at Hogwarts, imo. His view of Muggles went back to before Hogwarts where he disdained Petunia for being just a Muggle - twice - and he didn't think much of his father either. So imo, he was definitely prejudice against Muggles - and that is what Muggleborns are - Muggles with magic. Snape called them all Mudbloods because that is how he thought of them, imo.

His view of Muggles went back to before Hogwarts where he disdained Petunia for being just a Muggle - twice - and he didn't think much of his father either.

Yes, but when it comes to the issue of his father, which came first, the chicken or the egg? In other words, did Snape despise his father for being a Muggle or did he despise his Muggle father because he wasn't a very nice father? The former seems very unlikely to me because what child grows up despising its parent, unless it is brainwashed to do so? If the parent turns out to be an abusive one, then the child's dislike is understandable.

I know this issue is not raised or addressed in canon but for those readers who find Snape to be quite a complex and nuanced character, it's an interesting field of speculation.

Yes, but when it comes to the issue of his father, which came first, the chicken or the egg? In other words, did Snape despise his father for being a Muggle or did he despise his Muggle father because he wasn't a very nice father? The former seems very unlikely to me because what child grows up despising its parent, unless it is brainwashed to do so? If the parent turns out to be an abusive one, then the child's dislike is understandable.

I know this issue is not raised or addressed in canon but for those readers who find Snape to be quite a complex and nuanced character, it's an interesting field of speculation.

Oh I definitely agree with that. Kids don't generally just dislike their parents as a general matter for their birthright. I am pretty sure that Snape's anti-muggle sentiments were helped along (at least) by the fact that he disliked his dad and his dad happened to be a Muggle, rather than the other way around. But what made him extend the ideology to other muggles I do not know - perhaps his mum had a hand in that, or the kids he met in his neighborhood - it is hard to say.

Oh I definitely agree with that. Kids don't generally just dislike their parents as a general matter. I am pretty sure that Snape's ant-muggle sentiments were helped along (at least) by the fact that he disliked his dad and his dad happened to be a Muggle. But what made him extend the ideology to other muggles I do not know - perhaps his mum had a hand in that, or the kids he met in his neighborhood - it is hard to say.

Quite. :tu:

Both his parents seem pretty dour. Understandable that Eileen looked dour, with a husband who yelled at her. :sigh: And Snape's father doesn't, according to little Severus, "like anything much". Young Sev seems unhappy and reluctant to talk about things at home. There's no direct canon to suggest familial abuse (unless one counts yelling at Eileen as verbal abuse, which I definitely would) but it certainly seems like a dysfunctional family. And one from a poor part of town, which earns Petunia's disdain.

To quote the ever-quotable Ron Weasley, Eileen "isn't much of a looker." :whistle: She is a person I would like to know more about -- Snape's father too.

Well I think we don't have it because JKR was trying to stress the idea that while background plays a role in one's life, it is their subsequent choices as they move out and face the world that matter most with respect to the person you will become. The thing is, for some people, their backgrounds overwhelm them, so it is a harder struggle, but not an impossible one. The rich/poor was made a non-issue with Draco/Harry/James/Sirius/Snape/Ron & family/Lucius, etc. They were a mixed bag in terms of wealth (and Harry went from poor to rich in the blink of an eye). The bad upbringing was also made a non-issue with Snape/Harry/Sirius/Draco as was hardship with Luna/Remus. The failure in that regard was Voldemort - JKR really never gave the dude an opportunity in my view (she rather admitted this when she said Snape was more culpable because he'd been loved in his life). But everyone else, including Snape, had a chance as I saw it.

I never think that things are entirely straightforward with him. The Malfoys are a much more clear-cut case: purebloods who look down on everybody! Severus is more complicated, IMO. And more ambiguous.
It is the Malfoys that have me convinced that Severus was not as rascist, because if you try to imagine Draco forming a friendship with a pretty local muggle girl - well it's not going to happen simply because he regards them as "dirty" ("mudbloods") With Draco the prejudice is absolute - he wouldn't befriend a muggle born if they were the last witch/wizard in England, but Snape is a different matter. He befriends Lily and tells her that "it doesn't matter" that her parents are muggles. Which is of course both true and untrue. It is true because it makes no difference to magical ability, but it is untrue because to some people it does make a difference and as such it is harder to get on in a world when there is such prejudice.
Once at Hogwarts though and sorted into Slytherin Snape moulds himself into a wannabe Death Eater, and this means taking on their prejudices. There are plenty of people out there who were skinheads at age 15 and are mortally ashamed of it as adults. The way I see it is that Snape wanted to be part of "Voldemort's" gang - I can even imagine him planning to get even on Potter and Black - and if that meant adopting the muggleborn prejudice then he was prepared to do it. As I have said before this is not a good thing - (in fact in some ways it is worse because it means you are prepared to let these people be killed even though you know there is nothing wrong with them; at least people like the Malfoys beleived in what they wer doing even if it was wrong) and it cost Severus his friendship with Lily. I think he honestly believed that when he saw how important and powerful he was (and he had kicked Potter's butt) then she would be friends with him again.

Yeah but how does his early disdain for Petunia fit into that viewpoint? He twice behaved in a prejudice manner with respect to her before ever arriving at Hogwarts.

I think he disliked her beause she was a muggle at first and then because she disliked him too, for being a wizard.

I think the fact Snape disliked her because she was a muggle may have been because of his muggle father IMO.

I think Snape harbours a profound and tortured disdain for his own half-blood heritage and that his feelings for Lily were not representative of his views of half-bloods/Muggles as a whole - they were personal to her, not to half-bloods/MUggles in general. For her, he made an exception but that didn't extend to others.

The clue is in his hesitation when she asks him if it matters : that hesitation I read as him effectively biting his tongue against his natural reaction (ie "Yes it does matter, half-bloods/Mudbloods, pah!") because he doesn't want to offend her. If it had been anyone else, I'm not so sure about his reaction eg see wicked's comment about his attitude to Petunia above. Also, I note how that his instinctive lashing out at her in his Worst Memory scene is about her blood status - he has lost control at that point and I find it very telling that that is the insult he chooses to hurl. It begins in self-hate and extends to hatred for others - a classic case of transposition of one's own inner demons onto others. Or am I getting too Freudian? To heck with it, if anyone deserves Freudian analysis it's Snape! Or shouldn't we go there?:p

That fits in with my general view of him as a character who has little if any over-arching morality (ie that one should do good impersonally and because it is the right thing to do) - and instead, that he is a person who feels intensely about particular people and does "good" because of those personal feelings. I know that others don't agree, and would point to his contribution to Voldy's defeat as evidence of a general moral sense, but I see that as a further extension of his intensely personal feelings of passion and guilt about Lily. Motive is everything in character analysis, is it not?

To that extent, what I find so fascinating about him is that despite his intellect and constant crowing about being rational/controlling emotion, he is the most emotion-driven character in the book (besides Harry perhaps?).

I think Snape harbours a profound and tortured disdain for his own half-blood heritage and that his feelings for Lily were not representative of his views of half-bloods/Muggles as a whole - they were personal to her, not to half-bloods/MUggles in general. For her, he made an exception but that didn't extend to others.

The clue is in his hesitation when she asks him if it matters : that hesitation I read as him effectively biting his tongue against his natural reaction (ie "Yes it does matter, half-bloods/Mudbloods, pah!") because he doesn't want to offend her.

I agree completely with this. :tu: It's exactly the way I first read the scene and I think this is exactly what Rowling is intending to convey. In my opinion she presents this conflict in Severus very well.

Welcome back, by the way. :wave:

If it had been anyone else, I'm not so sure about his reaction eg see wicked's comment about his attitude to Petunia above. Also, I note how that his instinctive lashing out at her in his Worst Memory scene is about her blood status - he has lost control at that point and I find it very telling that that is the insult he chooses to hurl. It begins in self-hate and extends to hatred for others - a classic case of transposition of one's own inner demons onto others. Or am I getting too Freudian? To heck with it, if anyone deserves Freudian analysis it's Snape! Or shouldn't we go there?:p

Freudian analysis on Snape? :D Works for me. :relax:

That fits in with my general view of him as a character who has little if any over-arching morality (ie that one should do good impersonally and because it is the right thing to do) - and instead, that he is a person who feels intensely about particular people and does "good" because of those personal feelings. I know that others don't agree, and would point to his contribution to Voldy's defeat as evidence of a general moral sense, but I see that as a further extension of his intensely personal feelings of passion and guilt about Lily. Motive is everything in character analysis, is it not?

When I first read DH, I badly wanted Rowling to present Severus with a developing sense of over-arching morality. We certainly don't see any such morality in him as a young man, when he's attracted to the Dark Arts and the Death Eaters. I do think we see some moral development in him as we watch his career as a double agent in The Prince's Tale: his shock and disgust over Dumbledore raising Harry like a pig to the slaughter, his curtly telling Dumbledore that lately he has watched people die who he could not save, his rebuke to Phineas over calling Hermione a 'Mudblood' (the phrasing of his rebuke is admittedly ambiguous).

To that extent, what I find so fascinating about him is that despite his intellect and constant crowing about being rational/controlling emotion, he is the most emotion-driven character in the book (besides Harry perhaps?).

I agree. :agree: Including the comparison with Harry, who is also a very emotional character.

The clue is in his hesitation when she asks him if it matters : that hesitation I read as him effectively biting his tongue against his natural reaction (ie "Yes it does matter, half-bloods/Mudbloods, pah!") because he doesn't want to offend her. If it had been anyone else, I'm not so sure about his reaction eg see wicked's comment about his attitude to Petunia above. Also, I note how that his instinctive lashing out at her in his Worst Memory scene is about her blood status - he has lost control at that point and I find it very telling that that is the insult he chooses to hurl. It begins in self-hate and extends to hatred for others - a classic case of transposition of one's own inner demons onto others. Or am I getting too Freudian? To heck with it, if anyone deserves Freudian analysis it's Snape! Or shouldn't we go there?
oooh I like this!!!
Snape certainly had good reason to dislike his parents - or at least feel resentful towards them. And it wouold make sense for him to despise his mixed heritage given that he lived in the muggle world where he was known as "that Snape boy" but in the wizard world he was "only a half-blood." He is certainly eaten up with self-loathing and certainly seems to not fit in anywhere. I think you've convinced me that Snape had "issues" with blood status - but they weren't straight forward ones like the Malfoys. SNape just keeps getting more complex!

That fits in with my general view of him as a character who has little if any over-arching morality (ie that one should do good impersonally and because it is the right thing to do) - and instead, that he is a person who feels intensely about particular people and does "good" because of those personal feelings. I know that others don't agree, and would point to his contribution to Voldy's defeat as evidence of a general moral sense, but I see that as a further extension of his intensely personal feelings of passion and guilt about Lily. Motive is everything in character analysis, is it not?

Well I think while he first did it all out of his own feelings for Lily and his need to atone, I think in time and as his relationship with Dumbledore progressed he did develope a sense of morality independent of his own personal feelings, but I think it was something gradual. He certainly wasn't the same man on the tower to with Dumbledore as he was on the windy hilltop with Dumbledore.

In my opinion she presents this conflict in Severus very well.You've convinced me. Snape is such a seething cauldron of inner conflict - no wonder Jo made him the potions master! :lol:

There is an interesting phenomenon called Transference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference)

According to "The Source" published in June 2001, "During transference, people turn into a "biological time machine". A nerve is struck when someone says or does something that reminds you of your past. This creates an "emotional time warp" that transfers your emotional past and your psychological needs into the present. In less poetic terms, a transference reaction means that you are reacting to someone in terms of what you need to see, you are afraid of or what you see when you know very little about the person. This all happens without you knowing why you feel and react the way you do." - from Wikipedia

I always saw Snape's hatred of James to be something that was out of proportion to what James had done to Snape. Like wickedwickedboy said, they both [I edited out the word "bullied"] disliked each other. And Snape was responsible for losing Lily, in my opinion, because he chose to go down a dark path that she wasn't willing to follow. He also played a pivotal role in her death. So he has plenty of guilt to deal with.

I think that if Snape able to deal with his guilt in a healthy way, then he would have been compassionate rather than antagonistic toward Harry. Snape and Harry have a lot in common. They both had terrible childhoods and they both lost Lily. But I think that the feelings of guilt were too big for him. I think he rolled his hatred of his own father, shame of what happened with Lily when he called her a mudblood, guilt that he played a key role in her death into one big transference of hatred of James.

And the proof that Snape could not heal from his childhood pain and all his other losses was the fact that he transferred his hatred of James to Harry. All in my opinion, of course.

There is an interesting phenomenon called Transference (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transference)

According to "The Source" published in June 2001, "During transference, people turn into a "biological time machine". A nerve is struck when someone says or does something that reminds you of your past. This creates an "emotional time warp" that transfers your emotional past and your psychological needs into the present. In less poetic terms, a transference reaction means that you are reacting to someone in terms of what you need to see, you are afraid of or what you see when you know very little about the person. This all happens without you knowing why you feel and react the way you do." - from Wikipedia

I always saw Snape's hatred of James to be something that was out of proportion to what James had done to Snape. Like wickedwickedboy said, they both bullied each other. And Snape was responsible for losing Lily, in my opinion, because he chose to go down a dark path that she wasn't willing to follow. He also played a pivotal role in her death. So he has plenty of guilt to deal with.

I think that if Snape able to deal with his guilt in a healthy way, then he would have been compassionate rather than antagonistic toward Harry. Snape and Harry have a lot in common. They both had terrible childhoods and they both lost Lily. But I think that the feelings of guilt were too big for him. I think he rolled his hatred of his own father, shame of what happened with Lily when he called her a mudblood, guilt that he played a key role in her death into one big transference of hatred of James.

And the proof that Snape could not heal from his childhood pain and all his other losses was the fact that he transferred his hatred of James to Harry. All in my opinion, of course.

I think this is a great analysis. I like this idea a lot. Certainly I can somethings all along as to how Snape might transfer a lot of his own guilt onto James and others. His comments in the Shrieking Shack of POA suggested that he blamed James for trusting Black might serve as one example ( but he wasn't completely off base either- IMO.) It seems in retrospect- throughout the series Snape is grappling with Dumbledore and Harry to correct things while he sees "echoes" of James in Harry that seem to cause Harry danger. This is for sure a kind of transference of James to Harry- however - it is from a perspective that is far more educated and knowing than Snape's time as a dumb kid in school.

However, I think it's interesting that you said, "I always saw Snape's hatred of James to be something that was out of proportion to what James had done to Snape. Like wickedwickedboy said, they both bullied each other" considering - we never got to see Snape "bully" James at all. We never get to see Snape's dark actions from school at all- it's all left to the imagination. So anything from that time is assumption on the reader's part, an interpretation JKR specifically left open for the reader to make. Granted- the only collection of incidents we have of that time was from Snape's POV. The only other mention of Snape's school years other than his own memories were from Sirius Black- in passing and at a moment when Black was trying to excuse James for SWM. (IMO)

As far as transference goes- I can see this in Young Snape for sure, and some what in the older Snape and his relationship to Harry, of course, but we have to note that it was Snape who took the responsibility for Lily's fate and thus Harry's life unto himself in the end. I think we see that in his choice of memories to give Harry. With no sight of James ( other than the "mud-blood" incident ) and many of those memories showing Snape himself in a poor light- those memories amount (IMO) to a confession and total atonement. To me, atonement is the opposite of transference.

There is an arc of progression in Snape's story. I just think there is a fascinating dynamic in this issue.

As one last thing-as an example of Transference where "a nerve is struck when someone says or does something that reminds you of your past," consider the "emotional time warp" of the other "mud-blood" incident in Snape's arc. The one in Headmaster's office near the end of Snape's memories. In fact IRC it was his last memory offered to Harry. Snape lashed out at the Slytherin Patriarch (Nigellus Black) on the wall for the word that triggered his separation from Lily.

I always saw Snape's hatred of James to be something that was out of proportion to what James had done to Snape. Like wickedwickedboy said, they both bullied each other.
But there is no canon that even implies that Snape bullied James (or anyone else for that matter) while he was a pupil. It is said that Snape took "potshots" at James but that is not bullying - and I think it is important that we all know what we're talking about wqhen we say the word bullying. Bullying is specifically when one person (or persons) who has an unfair advantage picks on another. This could be a big kid picking on a small kid - several kids picking on one kid (as we see with the marauders) or a teacher picking on a kid (as we see with Snape and Harry et al)James taking shots at Snape or Snape taking shots at James I would not regard as bullying because neither has an unfiar advantage - but when it is "the marauders" as a group picking on Snape then we have 2 passive participents (Pettigrew and Lupin) and two active participents (Black and Potter) against one (Snape) Snape was no angel - but while he was a school boy there is nothing to indicate that he was a bully.
Other than that I love your post Susan and I certainly think that Snape was transferring his emotions for James onto Harry.

However, I think it's interesting that you said, "I always saw Snape's hatred of James to be something that was out of proportion to what James had done to Snape. Like wickedwickedboy said, they both bullied each other" considering - we never got to see Snape "bully" James at all. We never get to see Snape's dark actions from school at all- it's all left to the imagination. So anything from that time is assumption on the reader's part, an interpretation JKR specifically left open for the reader to make. Granted- the only collection of incidents we have of that time was from Snape's POV. The only other mention of Snape's school years other than his own memories were from Sirius Black- in passing and at a moment when Black was trying to excuse James for SWM. (IMO)


I respect your view, but I don't feel you can speak to the interpretation of others. In my view, Snape's behind the back sneak attack in SWM told me all I had to know about his ways and means in the enemy relationship. I determined in that moment he was also a bully. His further bullying of Lily at the end of the scene sealed the deal for me. Further, his attacking James at every opportunity in 7th, calling indiscriminant people Mudblood, Sectumsempra becoming his specialty at this time and feeling it funny that his friends used dark magic on others, indicated to me that Snape was a bully at Hogwarts.

That is all based on canon given in the books by JKR. In my view, she did not leave it up to the reader, but informed us of the facts so that her hero's parents would not look like complete despicable people (for being sole attackers and ending a friendship with an innocent victim.) So I would respectfully disagree that it is "all left to the imagination" - although I respect any reader's right to ignore the canon if they like, or interpret it distinctly.

-------

If advantage is the issue; Snape had complete advantage with his dark arts curses because they were more powerful and harmful and he knew his enemies would not use them, imo. Snape had complete advantage when he set about calling people Mudblood, because those he demeaned were not prejudice and did not return the behavior, imo (ala Draco). And Snape with his friends was a gang, and their practicing dark magic on a sole girl is an advantage as well, imo. Finally, attacking James at every opportunity - to me means when it was advantageous for Snape to do so, otherwise he would not be behaving in a minimally intelligent manner. Finally, when he was practicing his spying tactics on the Marauders, following them around, he would have the advantage naturally, as his efforts would be hidden. Thus, I would disagree with the idea that Snape did not have the advantage, because in my view, he most certainly did at times.

Well, I know that a discussion of who was meaner, Snape or James, will bring the mods down on us. (Looks around to see if there are any mods lurking :whistle:)

I retract the word "bully" from my former post. But I believe that Snape would never take any kind of attack on him lying down. I don't for one moment think that Snape allowed someone to hex him without trying his best to hex him back. Maybe we can just call it a mutual hexing relationship. But I truly believe that if James or Sirius or Mulciber hexed Snape that he would hex back.

I retract the word "bully" from my former post if that seems to be too strong of a word. But I believe that Snape would never take any kind of attack on him lying down. I don't for one moment think that Snape allowed someone to hex him without trying his best to hex him back. Maybe we can just call it a mutual hexing relationship. But I truly believe that if James or Sirius or Mulciber hexed Snape that he would hex back.

Yes, in SWM, for example, Snape did manage to hex one of this two opponents, one time. But I would have to disagree bullying is an appropriate word to apply to that.

Yes, in SWM, for example, Snape did manage to hex one of this two opponents, one time. But I would have to disagree bullying is an appropriate word to apply to that.
The word is now "dislike".

My point is the same, in my opinion.

Yes, in SWM, for example, Snape did manage to hex one of this two opponents, one time. But I would have to disagree bullying is an appropriate word to apply to that.

Independent of the name one puts on it, in my judgment, calling it anything other than what he was receiving is incorrect. It was an attack from behind and it was not a hex, but a curse, a dark one that drew blood, imo. This is way beyond equal force because at that point Snape was being ignored and could have escaped and stopped the entire showdown.

In my view, Snape's mentality from the time he was a young boy never changed right through to adulthood on the day he died in that regard. He treated Petunia, the Marauders, Lily, other students, numerous unknowns (as a death eater) and finally the children and his peers with the same attitude. JKR referred to it as bullying, but one can rename it whatever they like. In my view, it was characteristic of Snape and it was not nice.

Often context is drawn to help provide justification for Snape's behavior in this regard, but I feel the same can be done for any person in canon. Por ejemplo, Voldemort, whose torturous behavior can be attributed to the pitible circumstances of his youth, his lack of mentoring and care while at Hogwarts, leaving him feeling as if he were alone in the world, with no one to look out for him except himself. He, like Snape, was embittered by his circumstances and then went on to make a series of poor choices that worsened the situation.

I feel the same can be said of Snape. He had a pitible childhood and then went on to make a series of terrible choices, except that there was more guidance and care for him in his life than Voldemort had, imo. Like Voldemort, negative events befell him, but where Voldemort grew bold and fierce, Snape moved with vulnerability and insecurity, choosing vindictiveness over violent retribution in the end. In that sense, I feel Snape allowed compassion to gain supremacy in the battle, but his vindictiveness supressed it to the point where it could never win. That, in my judgment, is why Snape never grew to be a kind hearted person. He had the potential, imo.

This is way beyond equal force because at that point Snape was being ignored and could have escaped and stopped the entire showdown.

I disagree. From what had already transpired, he could expect to be taken back down if he stood up to leave. Sirius was not THAT distracted by Lily, even if James was. Sirius even saw the attack coming and started to react.

I disagree. From what had already transpired, he could expect to be taken back down if he stood up to leave. Sirius was not THAT distracted by Lily, even if James was. Sirius even saw the attack coming and started to react.

I respect your interpretation. But then why do you figure Sirius stopped at all?

In my view, Snape's mentality from the time he was a young boy never changed right through to adulthood on the day he died in that regard. He treated Petunia, the Marauders, Lily, other students, numerous unknowns (as a death eater) and finally the children and his peers with the same attitude. JKR referred to it as bullying, but one can rename it whatever they like. In my view, it was characteristic of Snape and it was not nice.

I would never argue that Snape's attitude towards all of these people was right or appropriate ... very often it wasn't. However, I still think of him as a more complicated case than always seems to be the case.

I am not convinced, for example, that the reason he appeared to be so stand-offish with Molly and Arthur at the OotP meetings was because he genuinely looked down on the Weasleys. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Canon never tells us what he felt about the Weasleys. But it is not unreasonable to suppose that Snape's apparent snootiness at Order meetings was the ideal facade for him to maintain as a double agent. Voldemort was watching his every move.

I find it interesting that Snape's standishoffness doesn't seem to overly bother Molly. Of course his reputation went before him ;) and maybe Molly and Arthur couldn't care less what Snape thought of them. :D But they obviously accept him as an Order member and she only ever refers to Snape respectfully; indeed she gives Harry a mild reproof when he forgets to call Snape 'Professor'. :D

Don't get me wrong: to me Canon Snape is Mr Grumpy, not a ray of sunshine. :D But I do not infer automatically that his real feelings for the Weasleys were ones of contempt. From what I saw of the man in The Prince's Tale (the man who worked for Albus Dumbledore, I mean), I am not convinced that would have been the case.

I realise it is often argued that he was horrible to Harry and Neville for just the same reason (i.e. as all part of his cover as double agent) ... that, however, I do disagree with, as the whole saga makes it clear that Snape struggled with deep feelings of bitterness towards James and Lily's son. (I have yet to work out why he was so hard on Neville, a nervous child lacking in confidence, but I can only conclude it was, unfortunately, his own deep insecurity and no, there's no excuse for it.)

I certainly find Snape a more nuanced and complex character than Voldemort (although Voldemort's bleak childhood does inspire pity in me. Of course I have no sympathy for his terrible actions as an adult.)

I disagree. From what had already transpired, he could expect to be taken back down if he stood up to leave. Sirius was not THAT distracted by Lily, even if James was. Sirius even saw the attack coming and started to react.

I'm with Zara on this one. :whistle:

I would never argue that Snape's attitude towards all of these people was right or appropriate ... very often it wasn't. However, I still think of him as a more complicated case than always seems to be the case.

Well why he was the way he was may be complicated, but it doesn't change anything about the way he actually behaved. Imo, he behaved in a horrible manner consistently and there is no justifiable reason for that - although there may be plenty of explanation.

I am not convinced, for example, that the reason he appeared to be so stand-offish with Molly and Arthur at the OotP meetings was because he genuinely looked down on the Weasleys. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. Canon never tells us what he felt about the Weasleys. But it is not unreasonable to suppose that Snape's apparent snootiness at Order meetings was the ideal facade for him to maintain as a double agent. Voldemort was watching his every move.

I find it interesting that Snape's standishoffness doesn't seem to overly bother Molly. Of course his reputation went before him ;) and maybe Molly and Arthur couldn't care less what Snape thought of them. :D But they obviously accept him as an Order member and she only ever refers to Snape respectfully; indeed she gives Harry a mild reproof when he forgets to call Snape 'Professor'. :D

Lupin flat out said he was civil to Snape - I am sure lots of Order members were, including the Weasleys. Snape didn't have to be nice them, but Snape was mean when he wished to be (Tonks in HBP) and entirely rude and arrogantly disregarding when he wished to be (Arthur's return from the hospital in OOTP), wholly vindictive when he wished to be (Lupin POA) and disrespectful if it suited him (OOTP Sirius @ #12). Those he was dealing with had a range of responses to Snape's behavior. Sirius gave it back to him; Tonks ran away crying; Arthur and Molly kept a civil face and said nothing; Lupin likewise was civil and and out-matured him in front of others/kids as if attempting to show him proper behavior through example. Dumbledore treated Snape like a 5 year old; McGonagall was coldly acknowledging and otherwise civil; etc. But again, their responses have no bearing on Snape's behavior, imo.

Don't get me wrong: to me Canon Snape is Mr Grumpy, not a ray of sunshine. :D But I do not infer automatically that his real feelings for the Weasleys were ones of contempt. From what I saw of the man in The Prince's Tale (the man who worked for Albus Dumbledore, I mean), I am not convinced that would have been the case.

I think his reason may have been interesting, but I agree we don't know what it was. JKR apparently didn't feel his subplot merited a deeper explanation as it was not pertinent to the story. What was pertinent was to show that for "whatever reason", he behaved in a negative fashion with everyone. The fun for JKR was to write about a cruel, bullying, vindictive person - that is what she said, a 'gift of a character' because he is so horrible and fun to write. Draco was likely fun to write to when he was behaving in a similar manner.

I realise it is often argued that he was horrible to Harry and Neville for just the same reason (i.e. as all part of his cover as double agent) ... that, however, I do disagree with, as the whole saga makes it clear that Snape struggled with deep feelings of bitterness towards James and Lily's son. (I have yet to work out why he was so hard on Neville, a nervous child lacking in confidence, but I can only conclude it was, unfortunately, his own deep insecurity and no, there's no excuse for it.)

But it wasn't just Harry and Neville. Snape bullied all of the children except the Slytherins and even the Slytherins now and again as we saw in canon. I don't believe he liked children and could not relate to them. But his behavior was an extension of his overall behavior which leads me to conclude that he really didn't like people at all with few exceptions. When it is said that Snape could love and that is so terribly important - I agree - but it is highly qualified by the fact that he could only love four or five people during his entire life. It is one of those statements that makes you ring your finger in the air in the end.

I certainly find Snape a more nuanced and complex character than Voldemort (although Voldemort's bleak childhood does inspire pity in me. Of course I have no sympathy for his terrible actions as an adult.)

Well to be fair, we saw very little of Voldemort and it wasn't generally in his best moments. Recall though that according to canon, he was much more socially adept than Snape.

I'm with Zara on this one. :whistle:

I would strongly disagree that Snape had to attack; he most certainly could have run. If he could get his wand, stand and shoot off a curse, then he could have grab his wand and run. They stopped hexing in the first place (and in the end) merely because Lily asked them to. They would have laughed and called him a coward for running away, but so what? Well, the answer is, imo, that Snape took hex wars seriously and if you recall at the beginning he said "just wait" - meaning he was planning his revenge early on. He was not being the poor victim, he was being the disadvantaged bully, imo.

posted by WWB
I would strongly disagree that Snape had to attack; he most certainly could have run. If he could get his wand, stand and shoot off a curse, then he could have grab his wand and run. They stopped hexing in the first place (and in the end) merely because Lily asked them to. They would have laughed and called him a coward for running away, but so what?

I don't think Snape should have run. Should he have done everytime he was attacked and if Snape attacked the Marauders, would you agree they should have run as well and it would not really matter if they were called cowards?

I don't think it's wrong to run away; for sometimes to take a step backwards is more difficult to take a step forwards IMO. But the hex wars IMO are not those kind of circumstances.

Snape did not act in a few cases; like Charity Burbage's death, where he could not step forward and do the right thing; for he was keeping in mind the bigger picture IMO. And Confunding Dung on Dumbledore's orders, knowing that it could result in the death of one or more people. Those were times where he took no action because it was important to the war, but I think hex wars were different IMO.

I would strongly disagree that Snape had to attack; he most certainly could have run. If he could get his wand, stand and shoot off a curse, then he could have grab his wand and run. They stopped hexing in the first place (and in the end) merely because Lily asked them to. They would have laughed and called him a coward for running away, but so what? Well, the answer is, imo, that Snape took hex wars seriously and if you recall at the beginning he said "just wait" - meaning he was planning his revenge early on. He was not being the poor victim, he was being the disadvantaged bully, imo.

Well, as far as I see it it wasn't in Snape's character to run away when hassled. Snape's Worst Memory features an incident where Sirius and James bully Snape because....why? Out of boredom. As HBP reveals, the worst insult you could fling at Snape was the word coward. He would not back down, even when outnumbered. Have you ever been surrounded by bullies? I have. It's one of the most demeaning, hurtful feelings there is, especially when you're alone against a number of foes. You don't want to give them the satisfaction of seeing you weak and afraid and you most certainly don't want to give them any opportunity to accuse you of cowardice. As for saying "Just wait!", isn't that a natural reaction for a teen surrounded by bullies? It doesn't IMO betray a long planned revenge, it's an outcry of a cornered being, trying to retain his dignity. Disadvantaged bully? It was one against many, as Snape said to Harry in HBP, James would never attack him unless it was four on one and there I agree with Snape, that is cowardice indeed. Not that Snape did not give as well as he received but in that incident the blame lies with the Marauders, not Snape IMO.

I don't think Snape should have run. Should he have done everytime he was attacked and if Snape attacked the Marauders, would you agree they should have run as well and it would not really matter if they were called cowards?

Yes I do as a matter of fact; I feel the Marauders and/or Snape should have definitely walked/run away rather than fight. But that is because I never walked away when I was young - never even considered it - and I always fought :rotfl:. So I can look back and see that the better thing to have done would have been to walk away. However, that doesn't mean I would expect Snape or the others to do so; they were 16. I was merely pointing out that the option was there to do so.

Snape did not act in a few cases; like Charity Burbage's death, where he could not step forward and do the right thing; for he was keeping in mind the bigger picture IMO. And Confunding Dung on Dumbledore's orders, knowing that it could result in the death of one or more people. Those were times where he took no action because it was important to the war, but I think hex wars were different IMO.

You know, in as far as morality goes, I can make an argument that Snape should have done something (like Harry would have). But if I am speaking strictly canon, I feel JKR wanted us to understand that there was nothing Snape could do in his situation. So I accept that he was under a great amount of strain having to watch and do nothing and he didn't fundamentally have a choice in the matter for all practical purposes. So I agree with your interpretation of the canon. :tu:

Well, as far as I see it it wasn't in Snape's character to run away when hassled.

I agree. To run away when you need not have been attacked in the first place is also another thing which Snape or the Marauders IMO will not do.

Yes I do as a matter of fact; I feel the Marauders and/or Snape should have definitely walked/run away rather than fight. But that is because I never walked away when I was young - never even considered it - and I always fought :rotfl:. So I can look back and see that the better thing to have done would have been to walk away. However, that doesn't mean I would expect Snape or the others to do so; they were 16. I was merely pointing out that the option was there to do so.

It depends on why people were attacking a person. If it is so that they could get some fun out of it, it makes people want on stay and fight IMO. :D

posted by eliza101; from the Snape and Lily thread
To deny Severus his sins and very real evil acts is to deny that he redeemed himself. I don't think he was fair to Harry, I don't think he had to act like a bully to the children in his class, there were alternatives to his course of actions. But I also think that he was sorry, genuinely sorry. I use the words redemtion and redeemed a lot in my posts because to me that is what Snape is, The Redeemed Sinner.

It depends on what you call evil IMO. If you say he was wrong to call everyone and in that everyone I include Lily as well, as mudblood, I agree. If he was wrong to think Voldemort would give all that he lacked in his life, he was wrong. That he joined the DEs is evil IMO. That he was a DE for a few years is also evil IMO. That he cared nothing for a family that would die because he took the Prophecy to Voldemort made him a murderer IMO.

But if you mean his acts once he came to Dumbledore and said "Anything" as evil, I disagree. In that "Anything", I see every act of his for a purpose. Snape had no life of his own once he uttered those words. His life was Dumbledore's to manipulate, to direct and to be.

The work Dumbledore gave him was that of a spy. A spy who would be a DE; which means he is a muggle/muggleborn hater, a Gryffindor hater and a Harry hater; these are prerquisites for being a DE; muggle/muggleborn because Voldemort and the other purebloods were against them; Gryffindor hater because Gryffindors in general accepted muggleborns and Harry hater because Harry had done Voldemort in.

Snape played his part to perfection IMO. That it was only a part I feel is because of the memories he gave Harry at the end on his life; the silence he maintained on Harry's memories he witnessed in their Occlumency lessons and the lack of punishments for some of the more serious offences Harry makes (Sectumsempra on Draco malfoy; shouting at Snape in POA; handing over the Map back to Lupin; using HBP's Book to excel in Potions, to peep into a teacher's memory).

Snape is different to Harry when they are in public and when they are in private. He is still careful to insult Harry to keep the hate alive, but he never acts like the bully, the meanie he is supposed to be IMO.

So I guess I disagree that Snape was nasty because he liked to be, but I agree he was a nasty because he had to be and I don't agree when is called a bully or evil, because he was not one; I think he had to be one IMO.

Well, I know that a discussion of who was meaner, Snape or James, will bring the mods down on us. (Looks around to see if there are any mods lurking :whistle:)
I certainly don't want to go there! - and not just because of the wrath of the Mods!


I retract the word "bully" from my former post. But I believe that Snape would never take any kind of attack on him lying down. I don't for one moment think that Snape allowed someone to hex him without trying his best to hex him back. Maybe we can just call it a mutual hexing relationship. But I truly believe that if James or Sirius or Mulciber hexed Snape that he would hex back.

I am sorry if I sounded a bit harsh in my previous post :scared: I just wanted to be clear about what I meant by bullying because it seems to mean different things to different people. I certainly beleive that Snape was a fighter and that he would not have taken any of the hexing meekly and we know that he looked for ways to get back at the marauders

Don't get me wrong: to me Canon Snape is Mr Grumpy, not a ray of sunshine. How about Prince of Grumpy? :whistle:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f377/CathyWeasly/wk71emo.jpg

It depends on why people were attacking a person. If it is so that they could get some fun out of it, it makes people want on stay and fight IMO. :D

Fighting your enemies is never fun. It can be funny, but never fun. That is because 'dislike', 'revenge' and 'jealousy' are not fun feelings. I think that is a distinction that often gets lost in conversation on this topic.

if you are having fun, then you are pranking or kidding around or something. You know, like if you discover a spell that makes some one start hiccuping in class or causes their hair to change colors. That is funny; many people laugh at themselves and the pranker laughs with them. If the person is like Hermione and is not amused, the pranker generally has no problem apologizing or saying some concilliatory words in the middle of his laughter because the situation is lighthearted in nature.

But when you don't like someone and you feel mean spirited, then turing their hair green might be funny, but it does not have the same spirit of "fun" associated with it. The idea is to humiliate and laugh at them, not with them. That is why kids don't want to walk away; it is essentially the distinction between pranking and a hex war and the latter makes one feel vindictive (as opposed to lightheartedly returning the favor).

JKR may not perceive the distinction if she never fought when young; looking on, many might feel that those who are in a fight are having "fun" - especially if they laugh, but they are not because they feel they are vindicating a perceived wrong.

JKR may not perceive the distinction if she never fought when young; looking on, many might feel that those who are in a fight are having "fun" - especially if they laugh, but they are not because they feel they are vindicating a perceived wrong.

I really, really shouldn't do this ... :whistle: ... but how were Sirius and James 'vindicating a perceived wrong' when they both decided to pick on Severus, who wasn't antagonising them at that particular time, not acting in a hostile or threatening manner, simply sitting on his own, reading his O.W.L. paper and minding his own business? :huh:

I will never understand the rationale that in SWM Snape deserved that particular treatment at that particular time on that particular day. :huh:

I really, really shouldn't do this ... :whistle: ... but how were Sirius and James 'vindicating a perceived wrong' when they both decided to pick on Severus, who wasn't antagonising them at that particular time, not acting in a hostile or threatening manner, simply sitting on his own, reading his O.W.L. paper and minding his own business? :huh:

I will never understand the rationale that in SWM Snape deserved that particular treatment at that particular time on that particular day. :huh:

Well of course he did not deserve it. I will give you an example. When I was young, I was on the soccer team and we were rivals with the basketball team for supremacy at the school. There were constant jabs going back and forth and occassionally fights broke out. Well, one day I was walking along, minding my business when one of the basketball players decides my jaw would make a good punching bag. Now it would seem that he hit me for no reason at all, I hadn't done or said a single word to him to cause him to do that. But the day before, did I refer loudly to the basketball players as 'longnecks' in the lunchroom? Sure. Before that, had someone from their team called us a couple of us pansies as we exited the lockerroom? Sure. Prior to that, had someone from my team decided one of the basketball players would make a nice punching bag? Sure. Did any of the players deserve to randomly be engaged in a fight or deserve to hear the other team members belittle their team? No, not in the least. But did we all whole-heartedly believe that the 'other team' memebers were the villains who had wronged us by their behavior and we were simply defending ourselves for perceived wrongs. Of course, absolutely - both teams. Were we all (both teams) acting like idiots thinking way too highly of ourselves? Sure. Get it?

I really, really shouldn't do this ... :whistle: ... but how were Sirius and James 'vindicating a perceived wrong' when they both decided to pick on Severus, who wasn't antagonising them at that particular time, not acting in a hostile or threatening manner, simply sitting on his own, reading his O.W.L. paper and minding his own business? :huh:

I will never understand the rationale that in SWM Snape deserved that particular treatment at that particular time on that particular day. :huh:

He most certainly did not deserve it, I agree. And if my memory serves me right, Sirius' reason for attacking Snape wasn't something Snape previously said or did but it's the worst of all reasons...boredom. There is no way around blaming the marauders here. Also I wonder...was Severus right when he hurled "Your father would not attack me unless it was four on one" (Don't hurt me if I did not get the quote 100% right^^) at Harry in HBP? Rings true given SWM. Much as I am sickened by the idea of Severus becoming a death eater, how is torturing someone 4 on 1 because one's bored less repulsive? And what kind of prefect was Lupin to just look the other way? Had he summoned some Gryffindor courage and acted like a prefect should, things may never have gotten that much out of hand. :err:

...but we know that Lupin was grateful to James and co for being friends with him in the first place, which is why he decided to look the other way...anyway, that's for another thread

Snape didn't deserve to be treated like that when all he had done was walk past on his own...but like others have said, we don't know what he had said/did to them on other occasions. They didn't like each other. They were both the sort of people who wouldn't keep their dislike to themselves

Fighting your enemies is never fun. It can be funny, but never fun. That is because 'dislike', 'revenge' and 'jealousy' are not fun feelings. I think that is a distinction that often gets lost in conversation on this topic.

But when you don't like someone and you feel mean spirited, then turing their hair green might be funny, but it does not have the same spirit of "fun" associated with it. The idea is to humiliate and laugh at them, not with them. That is why kids don't want to walk away; it is essentially the distinction between pranking and a hex war and the latter makes one feel vindictive (as opposed to lightheartedly returning the favor).

In canon Snape was attacked because James was feeling bored and his reason was "because he exists."
-------------

Elisabetta611, just to tell you; this is a topic the Mods don't like much, hence my one line reply. :D This part of the SWM and "who was meaner James or Snape" is kind of taboo. :D
---------------------

I have wondered when Snape says he took credit for Sirius's death and Emmeline Vance's death, how did he carry it off with Voldemort? How would he convince Voldemort that Sirius or Vance died because of his information and his spywork for the DEs? This has always made me curious, for Snape would have to improvise and quickly stake his claim on a few things as his work but still it was a thin line IMO. Especially in Sirius's case for no one except Voldmeort and his DEs who were part of the plan to be in the MOM knew Harry would come. Snape did not know. So how did he claim credit?

In canon Snape was attacked because James was feeling bored and his reason was "because he exists."
-------------

Elisabetta611, just to tell you; this is a topic the Mods don't like much, hence my one line reply. :D This part of the SWM and "who was meaner James or Snape" is kind of taboo. :D
---------------------

Both of these reasons do little to endear James to me. :lol:

Thanks for the pointer, it really isn't my intention to cause trouble. I love both Snape and the Marauders but I'm also very unhappy about some of their actions (Neither was perfect). As abhorred as I am by Sirius in SWM, I still adore him. (Or is it Gary Oldman? :love:) Nah, I really love how his character has developed. Severus/Sirius is one of my fave pairings (Another can of worms, I like Slash!^^) because there's a thin line between...:rockon::lol: Ah, too off topic now! *Runs away*:rockon:

Both of these reasons do little to endear James to me. :lol:

I don't believe anyone is attempting to endear any character to anyone else; rather everyone is just stating their interpretations of the canon. :)

In canon Snape was attacked because James was feeling bored and his reason was "because he exists."

He most certainly did not deserve it, I agree. And if my memory serves me right, Sirius' reason for attacking Snape wasn't something Snape previously said or did but it's the worst of all reasons...boredom.

And part of the reason wasn't that they disliked Snape on principle and considered him their enemy long before SWM? You feel they actually loved Snape and counted him as a friend, but on this day they just happened to be bored so they decided to single out Snape - out of all of the people in the crowd that were around that day?

I am afraid I would have to respectfully disagree. Even if Sirius had been reading for his OWLS and had not been bored, I am pretty certain he would have put his book down and attacked anyway. And James never said he was bored - he was in fact entertaining himself trying to show off for Lily. Remember James specifically said: "look who it is" - the "who" was Snape.

I have wondered when Snape says he took credit for Sirius's death and Emmeline Vance's death, how did he carry it off with Voldemort? How would he convince Voldemort that Sirius or Vance died because of his information and his spywork for the DEs? This has always made me curious, for Snape would have to improvise and quickly stake his claim on a few things as his work but still it was a thin line IMO. Especially in Sirius's case for no one except Voldmeort and his DEs who were part of the plan to be in the MOM knew Harry would come. Snape did not know. So how did he claim credit?That's something I've been wondering about too, maybe Snape was just showing off for Bella and Voldemort didn't give him credit for that. But it's possible that Snape told Voldemort how Dumbledore wanted him to teach Harry occlumency and how he didn't (sucessfully), thereby enableing Voldemort to lure Harry to the MoM. Also Snape did refuse to help Umbridge, who might have ruined it all. And he probably told Voldy about Harry being close to Sirius, it would have been too risky to lie, since Wormtail had told Voldemort all he knew.
Since we don't know what happened to Emmeline Vance, it's hard to speculate. Maybe Snape she was supposed to have left the hiding place Snape 'betrayed', or maybe Snape knew that another DE was about to give Voldemort information on her and he beat him to it but couldn't warn Emmeline ....

I don't believe anyone is attempting to endear any character to anyone else; rather everyone is just stating their interpretations of the canon. :)

No, no, I was just joking, hence the :lol:

And part of the reason wasn't that they disliked Snape on principle and considered him their enemy long before SWM? You feel they actually loved Snape and counted him as a friend, but on this day they just happened to be bored so they decided to single out Snape - out of all of the people in the crowd that were around that day?

No, I never said that. I was merely saying I'd have understood this turn of events better if it had been provoked somehow.

I really, really shouldn't do this ... :whistle: ... but how were Sirius and James 'vindicating a perceived wrong' when they both decided to pick on Severus, who wasn't antagonising them at that particular time, not acting in a hostile or threatening manner, simply sitting on his own, reading his O.W.L. paper and minding his own business? :huh:

I will never understand the rationale that in SWM Snape deserved that particular treatment at that particular time on that particular day. :huh:
:clap:
Exactly! Just as I do not like to sanititsie any of Snape's behaviour nor do I like to sanitise the marauders behaviour. What the marauders did was wrong that is IMO made quite clear. I do not have a problem with that because all the characters (with the exception of Voldemort) are a mixture of good and bad. It is not merely a matter of dividing the characters in to "goodies" and "baddies" and then assuming that because a "good" character does something therefore it must be justified and inventing excuses to justify their behaviour. I really cannot understand the mentality that insists that "this character is better than that character" because it isn't a competition!

To me Snape's worst memory is an absolutely pivotal scene and I was astonished that they left it out of the film. In terms of Harry's growth it is a real "coming of age" scene because this is where he learns that his father was human, and at times could behave appallingly. I personally do not like the prescence of Tarot references in the books but never the less they are there and this scene makes a quite obvious reference to "the hanged man" which shows a man hanging upside down by his ankle. This card represents having your world turned upside down and/or seeing things from a new perpective, which is exactly what happens to Harry. Honestly my heart broke for Harry in this scene because his father whom he has idolised is no longer an idol but flesh and blood. But it is also pivotal in furthering our knowledge of Snape. I also think it is brilliantly written as it gave us a lot of information but maintained Snape's ambiguity.

Sorry back to Snape :whistle: So just because Snape is not a pleasant person does not mean that he cannot also be the victim of bullying when he was at school - in fact my experience tells me that being a grumpy person he was extremely likely to have had problems in his childhood.

No, no, I was just joking, hence the :lol:

:lol:

No, I never said that. I was merely saying I'd have understood this turn of events better if it had been provoked somehow.

Well that was my point. The provocation was not pure boredom merely because Sirius mentioned he was bored and James used it as a turn of phrase to enlighten Sirius to the fact that Snape was nearby. My point was that "anybody" sitting alone would not have caused them to react. The reason they reacted was because it was Snape, their enemy. So provocation came before the scene began, imo. We know Snape followed them around and tried to get them in trouble; we know that they had had encounters before (hence Snape drawing his wand immediately even though James only asked how his OWLS went; Snape didn't see that as an innocent question. :lol:)

So when people say "unprovoked" and "just because some lone boy was there" or "because they were bored" - well that makes no sense to me because if it had been someone else, they would not have done anything - just as they hadn't done anything until they spotted Snape.

This is not about making their behavior any better, because it does not. :lol:. But the characterization changes from attacking anyone and everyone when bored (which there is no canon basis for) to attacking Snape when the opportunity arises (and I am speaking in terms of mean-spirited hexing and not pranks for fun). And from the standpoint of canon, the latter makes more sense. For example, Harry never bristled when he saw the stray Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff passing in the hallway; but he always took negative note of Draco when he appeared on the scene.

I have wondered when Snape says he took credit for Sirius's death and Emmeline Vance's death, how did he carry it off with Voldemort?

This bothered me when I first read DH. However, I am not so sure now that he did claim credit for these deaths with Voldemort.

That's something I've been wondering about too, maybe Snape was just showing off for Bella and Voldemort didn't give him credit for that.

I think Snape was playing a very dangerous game here, something as a spy he was probably used to. Snape made sure that Wormtail was out of the way and couldn't report back to Voldemort any actual conversation between them. He knew Bellatix was out of favour with Voldemort at the time, and that she was very unlikely to approach Voldemort for confirmation of his story. However, with all of Snape's lies to Voldemort there is usually a grain of truth, so I wouldn't be surprised if he did the same with Bellattrix.

I have wondered when Snape says he took credit for Sirius's death and Emmeline Vance's death, how did he carry it off with Voldemort? How would he convince Voldemort that Sirius or Vance died because of his information and his spywork for the DEs? This has always made me curious, for Snape would have to improvise and quickly stake his claim on a few things as his work but still it was a thin line IMO. Especially in Sirius's case for no one except Voldmeort and his DEs who were part of the plan to be in the MOM knew Harry would come. Snape did not know. So how did he claim credit?

Snape merely told Voldemort where to locate Vance (presumably on Dumbledore's instructions). As for Sirius, perhaps Snape merely confirmed that he was at #12 after Lucius saw the dog at the train station, again, on Dumbledore's orders. Dumbledore likely gave various things for Snape to tell from time to time in order to keep his cover up - 7 Potters was another example. But of course, in my judgment, Dumbledore was morally wrong to risk all the lives he did so very callously. Vance here, Sirius there, Moody in the next breath and he even asked to use one of the Potter's means of hiding for purely selfish reasons (the cloak) - making it impossible for them to leave the house without being seen - and with a baby in the house, I am sure they needed a number of provisions. The entire Order was expendible to Dumbledore, imo, because he was completely wrapped up in his 'greater good' ideology.

As for Snape; well the morality of spies in general is of course always questionable, as on principle the job enails lying, deciet, coverup, misinformation, treachery, and allowing for atrocities to occur while you do nothing about it. So his profession was morally quesitonable from the start. Spies are always executable criminals to at least one at least party (in this case Voldemort).

:lol:



Well that was my point. The provocation was not pure boredom merely because Sirius mentioned he was bored and James used it as a turn of phrase to enlighten Sirius to the fact that Snape was nearby. My point was that "anybody" sitting alone would not have caused them to react. The reason they reacted was because it was Snape, their enemy. So provocation came before the scene began, imo. We know Snape followed them around and tried to get them in trouble; we know that they had had encounters before (hence Snape drawing his wand immediately even though James only asked how his OWLS went; Snape didn't see that as an innocent question. :lol:)

So when people say "unprovoked" and "just because some lone boy was there" or "because they were bored" - well that makes no sense to me because if it had been someone else, they would not have done anything - just as they hadn't done anything until they spotted Snape.

This is not about making their behavior any better, because it does not. :lol:. But the characterization changes from attacking anyone and everyone when bored (which there is no canon basis for) to attacking Snape when the opportunity arises (and I am speaking in terms of mean-spirited hexing and not pranks for fun). And from the standpoint of canon, the latter makes more sense. For example, Harry never bristled when he saw the stray Ravenclaw or Hufflepuff passing in the hallway; but he always took negative note of Draco when he appeared on the scene.

Except that the attitude that they exhibit is still the same, regardless of whether he was their enemy or not. They were still "bored" and decided to pick on someone who was on his own, and disarmed him before continuing. Would they have hexed anyone and everyone? No, probably not, but there may have been others (Slytherins or others that were unpopular). And even if it was restricted to Snape, the "because he exists" line is still bringing across the attitude of a bully, one who thinks they are superior. It doesn't make it ok because they have a history because this was in no way shape or form a fair fight for any valid reason. I know you said it wasn't OK, but I don't see that much of a distinction between going after Snape and someone else because they were still able to have that attitude behind their actions. It's one step away from them behaving like that to the next unpopular kid who looked at them the wrong way.

Whether they engaged in fights prior to this is irrelevant, because no one says that they were getting him back for something he did earlier, as far as I recall. They were going after him because he dared to exist and because they were bored. They were doing it for entertainment and to humiliate someone they did not like. This particular incident was unprovoked, as was the incident that you mentioned in your personal life earlier.

This incident, probably others like it and his general unpopularity would have had a profound impact on his life and his choices, especially when he was already insecure and came from a troubled background. Someone like him would have needed support, which Hogwarts apparently does not provide, in order to bring himself away from the eventual downward spiral. He found support in the worst of organizations and that happens to kids every day in real life. I don't blame the kids. I blame the system, because for every success story there are probably 5 or more kids that fall through the cracks.

Except that the attitude that they exhibit is still the same, regardless of whether he was their enemy or not. They were still "bored" and decided to pick on someone who was on his own, and disarmed him before continuing.

I respect your view, however, as I pointed out, James never said he was bored; he was entertaining himself trying to impress Lily. Sirius said he was bored. Do you believe if he wasn't bored he wouldn't have attacked? I don't, that is why that particular point makes no difference to me. I feel he would have attacked even if he was not bored, reading a new magazine or going over OWL notes. The attitude they exhibit - picking on Snape, is the attitude they exhibit. If you mean the reason is immaterial, I agree.

Would they have hexed anyone and everyone? No, probably not, but there may have been others (Slytherins or others that were unpopular).

The others were not their personal enemies. Recall James said: "look who it is". He was pinpointing Snape. I would opine that if Mulciber was practicing dark magic on someone (that is, actively doing something dark), they might step in, but there is no canon that they went around looking for fights with every Slytherin that passed their way. Again, I am speaking of mean spirited hex wars, not pranking. Naturally, like Fred and George, everyone is game for a prank. :lol:.

And even if it was restricted to Snape, the "because he exists" line is still bringing across the attitude of a bully, one who thinks they are superior.

If James had looked Lily seriously in the eye and said in a dead serious voice: "It is because he exists Lily. You see, he should not be on this earth with other people." Then I would agree with you. However it is written like this:

"What's he done to you?"

"Well," said James, appearing to deliberate the point, "it's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean."

[...]

"You think you're funny." she said coldly..."

In other words, he was making a dark humored remark at Snape's expense. That is my interpretation, not that he was making some big serious philosophical, deep internalized statement in all seriousness. That was Lily's interpretation too, or she would have said "how can you think like that about a person" - instead of "you think you're funny".

It doesn't make it ok because they have a history because this was in no way shape or form a fair fight for any valid reason. I know you said it wasn't OK, but I don't see that much of a distinction between going after Snape and someone else because they were still able to have that attitude behind their actions. It's one step away from them behaving like that to the next unpopular kid who looked at them the wrong way.

I am totally not relating to your point. I agree it is not okay - and I don't see a difference between going after Snape and someone else either. But we have no canon that they went after anyone else in a mean spirited way. They were enemies with Snape and to assume that they were personal enemies with all Slytherins - or anyone else for that matter, is a huge assumption, imo, because there is simply no canon for that. Sure, their attitudes were wrong and not okay - I don't know what more you want said - perhaps something that further villainizes them? Well JKR didn't want to, so we don't have it in canon.

Whether they engaged in fights prior to this is irrelevant, because no one says that they were getting him back for something he did earlier, as far as I recall.

This is canon, imo. You I think agree that they were all personal enemies. Snape admits it when he creates a curse and writes "for enemies" to designate it. Lupin said they all hated one another. We have tons of canon for that. So they disliked Snape - and Snape disliked them. Snape had no reason other than his general dislike (and the Lily issue) to obsess over following them around and trying to get them in trouble. They were just his enemies. So there was nothing "specific" that Snape had to have done earlier - instead it was everything Snape had ever done earlier - same for Snape and that is what an "enemy" is.

They were going after him because he dared to exist and because they were bored. They were doing it for entertainment and to humiliate someone they did not like. This particular incident was unprovoked, as was the incident that you mentioned in your personal life earlier.

Unprovoked in the moment, yes - just as my personal ordeal was. But as I mentioned, I cannot stand here and say I was Mr. Innocent in the past and the guy had absolutely no reason to perceive "wrongfulness" when it came to me. I don't know if you had enemies and got into fights with them, but that is just how it goes. It is never just because they exist, it is because you dislike them and any opportunity that avails itself for you to show them - well you do.

This incident, probably others like it and his general unpopularity would have had a profound impact on his life and his choices, especially when he was already insecure and came from a troubled background. Someone like him would have needed support, which Hogwarts apparently does not provide, in order to bring himself away from the eventual downward spiral. He found support in the worst of organizations and that happens to kids every day in real life. I don't blame the kids. I blame the system, because for every success story there are probably 5 or more kids that fall through the cracks.

Presumably every incident in Snape's life, young, young adult and older had a profound impact on his life, due to those factors you named. The guy likely was profundly impacted by the sheets on his bed for those reasons. :lol:

I respect your view and your right to hold it, but I cannot blame others or the system for Snape's poor choices anymore than I can for Voldemort - Bella - Lucius - Regulus - Draco - Rastaban - Greyback - Dawlish - Yaxley - Carrows - Mulciber - Avery - Crabbe - Goyle - etc. That is, I agree that the school system failed them in ways and they went through all sorts of experiences (like everyone else), but I feel they failed themselves even more, imo. In my judgment, Snape was not a feather that bounced upon the winds of everything he experienced; he had some self-determination which was clearly shown in the canon, imo. To me, no one forced him to study the dark arts, create dark curses, call people Mudblood or fight with his enemies; no one forced him to think in the terms he did about others or to elect to be friends with those in Slytherin who were into Voldemort (not all were according to JKR). I feel Snape made some very bad choices and while his young home life and lots of other things may have influenced his doing so, he had Lily (another influence) there trying to show him a different way for a very long time and paid her no heed - that was another poor choice he made, imo. He had all the professors and many students who were not headed down a dark path as still more influences around him (he had to interact with them in class and at events, etc.). Influences are one thing, but one's response to the total sum of them is the important thing, imo.

The thing is, there were a bad side and a good side in HP series (simplifying); Snape, Draco and Regulus all went from the bad side to the good side. Others remained on the bad side like Voldemort, Bella, etc. To try and say everyone on the bad side had horrible influences that caused them all to be on the bad side (and that it was those who defied them that were a cause), to me is not what the series was trying to say because: lots of the good guys had trauma as well, but they did not move to the dark path. Many of them were traumatized by those on the bad side, and still they did not hop over to the bad side to beat them at their own game. JKR has said repeatedly that she felt "choices" were very important and that she tried to stress that in the books. Snape made some bad ones, then he made some good ones. That is his story - and it could be worse; he could have made all bad ones like Voldemort and look where that guy ended up.

I'm not touching this SWM thing with a 60-foot pole. :whistle:

And he probably told Voldy about Harry being close to Sirius, it would have been too risky to lie, since Wormtail had told Voldemort all he knew.

IIRC, it was Kreacher who told Narcissa (who told Voldemort) that Harry and Sirius were close, and not Snape.

But no matter how he explained it, IMO, it wasn't the biggest gamble of his spying career to claim credit for those deaths. The DEs seem to spend a lot of their time trying to gain ground in the DE hierarchy. If Snape lied about his involvement in these deaths and then was caught, he could just explain that away by claiming that he was bragging to his fellow DEs.

I respect your view, however, as I pointed out, James never said he was bored; he was entertaining himself trying to impress Lily.

He was entertaining himself. He was using Snape as entertainment by your estimation and mine. He wasn't saying, "Well he hexed me yesterday so I'm going to get him back one on one... man to man." He was doing it to entertain Sirius and likely to make himself and Sirius look powerful by picking on him, judging by their attitude. There was still nothing that provoked them, as far as I can see. Even if they didn't like each other or were "enemies" at 15 years old, it still doesn't justify ganging up on someone in a sneak attack without the other person having so much as looked at you. It doesn't make it any better because it was Snape and not someone else. The whole action is bad.

Now I'm going to snip a lot of the stuff having to do with James and Sirius because it's getting off topic a bit and from what I can see the mods don't like it, even though I have rarely, if ever, discussed it before. I just want to say that I'm not suggesting that they were villains, or making assumptions about some things. My previous post had words to show that I wasn't stating some things about them in an absolute fashion.

Back to Snape for the most part...

To me, Snape is the victim just about all the way through in this scene. He was the one that was provoked, then retaliated and lashed out in anger after all all of the humiliation. And that one incident pushed him over the edge and completely into the arms of the Death Eater wannabes, because he didn't have the support system or the right experience or environment to pull away from that. He lost his one friend because he lashed out at her (and people do lash out at those whom we love the most when they are in moments of extreme stress) and was too insecure and crushed by the experience to understand that if he took a different road then she might forgive him. Instead he moved more firmly onto the wrong path, and Voldemort and his Death Eaters used the negative attitudes he had towards muggles from his childhood to envelop him into ther group. And mixed into his feelings about muggles was his insecurity and his wish to make something of himself that was impressive and not something that people looked down on and made fun of or perceived as weak.


Unprovoked in the moment, yes - just as my personal ordeal was. But as I mentioned, I cannot stand here and say I was Mr. Innocent in the past and the guy had absolutely no reason to perceive "wrongfulness" when it came to me. I don't know if you had enemies and got into fights with them, but that is just how it goes. It is never just because they exist, it is because you dislike them and any opportunity that avails itself for you to show them - well you do.

Unprovoked is unprovoked, IMHO. We are talking about this particular moment, not anything that came before. I don't think because you weren't Mr. Innocent that you "had it coming" to use a common expression. I don't believe in that. I don't think Snape had it coming and I don't think he deserved to be ganged up on in that moment, and I don't think he's at fault for it, here. And the because he exists bit is what is stated by the characters, dark humor or not, it's the attitude behind the actions that make it ring true to me in this situation.



Presumably every incident in Snape's life, young, young adult and older had a profound impact on his life, due to those factors you named. The guy likely was profundly impacted by the sheets on his bed for those reasons. :lol:

I'm not laughing. :) What happened to him happens to kids every day when you look at gangs and the like... It isn't just about the choices the kids make... it's about the environment, economic and the social situations that they are in that plays a role.

I respect your view and your right to hold it, but I cannot blame others or the system for Snape's poor choices anymore than I can for Voldemort - Bella - Lucius - Regulus - Draco - Rastaban - Greyback - Dawlish - Yaxley - Carrows - Mulciber - Avery - Crabbe - Goyle - etc. That is, I agree that the school system failed them in ways and they went through all sorts of experiences (like everyone else), but I feel they failed themselves even more, imo. In my judgment, Snape was not a feather that bounced upon the winds of everything he experienced; he had some self-determination which was clearly shown in the canon, imo. To me, no one forced him to study the dark arts, create dark curses, call people Mudblood or fight with his enemies; no one forced him to think in the terms he did about others or to elect to be friends with those in Slytherin who were into Voldemort (not all were according to JKR). I feel Snape made some very bad choices and while his young home life and lots of other things may have influenced his doing so, he had Lily (another influence) there trying to show him a different way for a very long time and paid her no heed - that was another poor choice he made, imo. He had all the professors and many students who were not headed down a dark path as still more influences around him (he had to interact with them in class and at events, etc.). Influences are one thing, but one's response to the total sum of them is the important thing, imo.

We don't have enough canon for some of the characters that you mentioned to make an accurate judgment on their particular situation, IMHO. While I do not absolve Snape of every choice that he made, I do feel that children are a product of their environment, the social interactions, their education, their parents...

I do not see any canon that he had any amount of positive personal guidance from adults in this series when he was a boy. From this boy's perspective what he may have perceived was adults that took no special notice in him, but took special notice in children that came from pureblood families, had money, were well connected in some fashion, were charming and engaging. In short... the privileged type in one way or another. He was none of those things, nor was he equipped to be, thanks to his social status, blood status, and rotten childhood. He was damaged goods at nine years old.

What he needed was actual guidance, not just someone who was his friend... someone who was also a child. It seemed to me that he was a child that sort of just fell through the cracks in the muggle world and in the wizarding world, and that helped him along on the wrong path. He made the choice to become a Death Eater, but to him perhaps that seemed like the only real option. They nurtured the wrong things in him, to their benefit. He likely found a group in which he could belong in the Death Eaters... because they welcomed him in some fashion. He was a perfect candidate to mold into what they wanted. He came with some prejudice already and they helped to make it worse, and welcomed him in a way probably no one else had besides Lily, and in his mind he probably felt he had lost her friendship without a chance of fixing it. I think he didn't have enough feelings of self-worth to think that there was anything to be done about it.

IMHO, in his mind, his one real option of becoming someone was to join this powerful group. If he had someone to affirm his worth in some other way and truly guided him maybe he would have made better choices. He had no family that cared about him in any meaningful way, IMHO. None of the teachers probably took much notice of him. He experienced the rich kids not getting in trouble for almost seriously injuring him. He saw them get all the attention, while he was made fun of, or not taken notice of... He had one friend... and she was not enough to push him in the right direction... not with his insecurity coming into play... his bad experiences as a child... and the death eater wannabes waiting in the wings.


The thing is, there were a bad side and a good side in HP series (simplifying); Snape, Draco and Regulus all went from the bad side to the good side. Others remained on the bad side like Voldemort, Bella, etc. To try and say everyone on the bad side had horrible influences that caused them all to be on the bad side (and that it was those who defied them that were a cause), to me is not what the series was trying to say because: lots of the good guys had trauma as well, but they did not move to the dark path. Many of them were traumatized by those on the bad side, and still they did not hop over to the bad side to beat them at their own game. JKR has said repeatedly that she felt "choices" were very important and that she tried to stress that in the books. Snape made some bad ones, then he made some good ones. That is his story - and it could be worse; he could have made all bad ones like Voldemort and look where that guy ended up.

Lots of factors come into play in order for one to be able to make the right choices more often than not. She gave Snape the background that she did for a few reasons, and IMHO, one big reason is because it made him poorly equipped to pull away from something like the Death Eater cult, and it made him well equipped to make big mistakes, and wrong choices. I think few, if any, characters had it quite as bad as Snape did. At a young age he only really had one positive influence in his life, IMHO. Everyone else had some sort of support system that they could lean on. His support system consisted of one person, as far as I'm concerned, until he got to Hogwarts and the DE support system and influence started to take hold because Lily was just one person, sorted into the rival house... there was only so much she could do for him while he was in the environment that he was in, and with the background that he had.

Anyway, this post is massive and I'm probably going to move away from the debate here because I feel like I've said way more than enough to try to get my points and feelings across. Thanks for reading even if you don't agree. :)

I want to go back to the discussion of Vance. Here is what Snape actually said:

"The Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him on the Order. It led, as perhaps you have guessed, to the recent capture and murder of Emmeline Vance, and it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black, though I give you full credit for finishing him off."

Look at the context - both Black and Vance are mentioned in the same sentence, and what Snape claims is that he passed information that led to their deaths.

Black died because he showed up at the Ministry, not because Snape betrayed his secret location or anything like that. (He could not have - he was not the Secret Keeper, the spell does not work that way. :lol: ) So what I think Snape passed on was nothing more than the information that the Order were protecting the Prophecy, and this information he can claim is associated to BOTH deaths. I believe what got Vance killed was that she had the bad luck to be the Order's guard on the night the Death Eaters and Voldemort set a trap for Harry.

That's something I've been wondering about too, maybe Snape was just showing off for Bella and Voldemort didn't give him credit for that. But it's possible that Snape told Voldemort how Dumbledore wanted him to teach Harry occlumency and how he didn't (sucessfully), thereby enableing Voldemort to lure Harry to the MoM. Also Snape did refuse to help Umbridge, who might have ruined it all. And he probably told Voldy about Harry being close to Sirius, it would have been too risky to lie, since Wormtail had told Voldemort all he knew.
Since we don't know what happened to Emmeline Vance, it's hard to speculate. Maybe Snape she was supposed to have left the hiding place Snape 'betrayed', or maybe Snape knew that another DE was about to give Voldemort information on her and he beat him to it but couldn't warn Emmeline ....

Oh! I think Occlumency is a good catch. I think you are right about this. Snape could easily say he opened Harry's mind, when he taught him Occlumency. Still as Snape says (zgirnius has given the quote below) his information led to the capture and death of Vance and helped to off Sirius. He had claimed almost the entire credit, which IMO would have been pretty difficult, but something Snape apparently managed easily. :)

This bothered me when I first read DH. However, I am not so sure now that he did claim credit for these deaths with Voldemort.

He did claim credit for both these deaths TT, but he was not responsible for either. His information was not the cause for their deaths. We know that in Sirius's case and we know it must be true in Vance's case too, because Snape was loyal to Harry all the way through IMO.

It was because of Snape was not involved and yet claimed credit to Bellatrix, trying to cement his place in Voldemort's circle, I wondered how he had carried it off.

As for Snape; well the morality of spies in general is of course always questionable, as on principle the job enails lying, deciet, coverup, misinformation, treachery, and allowing for atrocities to occur while you do nothing about it. So his profession was morally quesitonable from the start. Spies are always executable criminals to at least one at least party (in this case Voldemort).

If Snape's morality was so dubious, I wonder why the good people who had higher moralities used him to help them win the war. Not only Dumbledore, even Harry by throwing Snape's loyalty on Voldmeort's face, accepted every duboious act, every murder, every torture and watching every good man killed apart from treachery, deceit, misinformation, allowing for atrocities to occur so that their cause will be helped. And not only Harry, but until Snape killed Dumbledore and the Order thought him a traitor, every member of the Order from the Weasleys to Dung were okay with Snape's not so moral and questionable actions for the Light and in fact welcomed it and hoped it would help them as it did; always IMO.

I want to go back to the discussion of Vance. Here is what Snape actually said:

"The Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him on the Order. It led, as perhaps you have guessed, to the recent capture and murder of Emmeline Vance, and it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black, though I give you full credit for finishing him off."

Look at the context - both Black and Vance are mentioned in the same sentence, and what Snape claims is that he passed information that led to their deaths.

Black died because he showed up at the Ministry, not because Snape betrayed his secret location or anything like that. (He could not have - he was not the Secret Keeper, the spell does not work that way. :lol: ) So what I think Snape passed on was nothing more than the information that the Order were protecting the Prophecy, and this information he can claim is associated to BOTH deaths. I believe what got Vance killed was that she had the bad luck to be the Order's guard on the night the Death Eaters and Voldemort set a trap for Harry.

That is exactly what I am asking. Snape could not have passed on any information. He was working for the Order. But he was claiming credit and I wondered how he managed it, for DEs as high up as Bellatrix were still suspicious of him and could verify his statements, in which case they'd be false. So Snape would have to claim credit in such a way it would stand. I wonder what he would have used. Occlumency like Murzim said is one. Others I don't have a clue in Sirius's case. Vance, we don't know much, so it would all be speculation IMO.

Excellent posts boushh! :tu:

I want to go back to the discussion of Vance. Here is what Snape actually said:

"The Dark Lord is satisfied with the information I have passed him on the Order. It led, as perhaps you have guessed, to the recent capture and murder of Emmeline Vance, and it certainly helped dispose of Sirius Black, though I give you full credit for finishing him off."

Look at the context - both Black and Vance are mentioned in the same sentence, and what Snape claims is that he passed information that led to their deaths.

Black died because he showed up at the Ministry, not because Snape betrayed his secret location or anything like that. (He could not have - he was not the Secret Keeper, the spell does not work that way. :lol: ) So what I think Snape passed on was nothing more than the information that the Order were protecting the Prophecy, and this information he can claim is associated to BOTH deaths. I believe what got Vance killed was that she had the bad luck to be the Order's guard on the night the Death Eaters and Voldemort set a trap for Harry.

Good point about the Fidelius Charm relative to Sirius' location. But I doubt Snape would lie to Bella about 'information' because it seemed to be her goal to expose him and if by chance she went to Voldemort then Bella would know he was lying. It doesn't matter if Voldemort thought he lied, all the DEs lied. But if Bella thought he was lying to her, she'd wonder why and become a regular nuisance. Besides, there would be no harm in Snape repeating to Bella the very things that Dumbledore wished for him to tell Voldemort in the first place; those are the things Dumbledore wished for the DEs to believe.

However, whatever Snape's message was, it was actually Dumbledore's message - meaning, if he divulged the location of Vance, Dumbledore wanted him to. Perhaps he merely confirmed Sirius was in England after Lucius indicated the dog was at the station - but it was whatever Dumbledore wanted him to say, imo. You could be right that it was nothing more than giving the info about the guards - that sounds like Dumbledore - send his men out and set Voldemort upon them...like in 7 Potters. But I thought that Vance was the one that was "missing" and it was because she'd been on vacation and simply never returned - they said she was inattentive or some such - but I may be confusing her with another character.

Anyway, this post is massive and I'm probably going to move away from the debate here because I feel like I've said way more than enough to try to get my points and feelings across. Thanks for reading even if you don't agree. :)

Your points and opinions are noted. :tu: We can agree to disagree as it seems that is what you would like to do. :)

He did claim credit for both these deaths TT, but he was not responsible for either. His information was not the cause for their deaths. We know that in Sirius's case and we know it must be true in Vance's case too, because Snape was loyal to Harry all the way through IMO.

It was because of Snape was not involved and yet claimed credit to Bellatrix, trying to cement his place in Voldemort's circle, I wondered how he had carried it off.

Yes, TGW, I agree that he claimed credit for these deaths to Bellatrix, but how do we know that he claimed them to Voldemort. Snape reports only directly to Voldemort, so other Death Eaters would not know what he is reporting, unless Voldemort enlightened them.

HBP,"Spinners End"
'My information has been conveyed directly to the Dark Lord,' said Snape. 'If he chooses not to share it with you -'
'He shares everything with me!' said Bellatrix, firing up at once.'He calls me his most loyal, faithful -'
'Does he?' said Snape, his voice delicately inflected to suggest his disbelief. 'Does he still, after the fiasco at the Ministry?'

I doubt that Bellatrix would be reporting her converstaion with Snape to Voldemort, as at the time she is out of favour; and at Spinner's End she became involved in Narcissa's plan to ask for Snape's help, going directly against Voldemort's wishes.

Black died because he showed up at the Ministry, not because Snape betrayed his secret location or anything like that. (He could not have - he was not the Secret Keeper, the spell does not work that way. :lol: ) So what I think Snape passed on was nothing more than the information that the Order were protecting the Prophecy, and this information he can claim is associated to BOTH deaths. I believe what got Vance killed was that she had the bad luck to be the Order's guard on the night the Death Eaters and Voldemort set a trap for Harry.

Zgirnius, I think this could be what Snape was talking about during his conversation with Bella and he just exaggerated his role. This would be easy to explain away if Voldemort heard of his claims to Bella, as I imagine his Death Eaters often play this sort of one-upmanship with each other.



If Snape's morality was so dubious, I wonder why the good people who had higher moralities used him to help them win the war. Not only Dumbledore, even Harry by throwing Snape's loyalty on Voldmeort's face, accepted every duboious act, every murder, every torture and watching every good man killed apart from treachery, deceit, misinformation, allowing for atrocities to occur so that their cause will be helped. And not only Harry, but until Snape killed Dumbledore and the Order thought him a traitor, every member of the Order from the Weasleys to Dung were okay with Snape's not so moral and questionable actions for the Light and in fact welcomed it and hoped it would help them as it did; always IMO.

Good point, TGW! :tu:

boushh! :tu:

If Snape's morality was so dubious, I wonder why the good people who had higher moralities used him to help them win the war. Not only Dumbledore, even Harry by throwing Snape's loyalty on Voldmeort's face, accepted every duboious act, every murder, every torture and watching every good man killed apart from treachery, deceit, misinformation, allowing for atrocities to occur so that their cause will be helped. And not only Harry, but until Snape killed Dumbledore and the Order thought him a traitor, every member of the Order from the Weasleys to Dung were okay with Snape's not so moral and questionable actions for the Light and in fact welcomed it and hoped it would help them as it did; always IMO.

You misunderstand. Everyone you named was a good sider.

Voldemort didn't see Snape in this light, and Snape told Voldemort that he was loyally spying for him. From Voldemort's view, Snape was treacherous, decietful, passing wrong information and a wholly despicable individual - hence deserving of the death he'd metered out to him.

From Dumbledore's side, Snape was helping them, so he was not treacherous or practicing deciet with them. Dumbledore didn't consider him a traitor nor would he have recommended Snape be executed, he would have praised Snape's efforts.

That is what it means to be a spy - there are two sides, and one side sees you in a totally negative light, while the other side sees you in a positive one (assuming you are not a honest to goodness double spy :lol: which Snape wasn't.) So the job in and of itself is morally questionable, because even lying, deceiving and betraying the 'bad guys' is still lying, deceiving and betraying someone. We happen to know that in this case, the bad buys were truly the bad guys in the series, so most people side with Dumbledore's viewpoint. But for those who wanted Voldemort to win, they would see Snape from Voldemort's view, as a traitor, liar and deceiver of the cause (the evil cause).

What happened to him happens to kids every day when you look at gangs and the like... It isn't just about the choices the kids make... it's about the environment, economic and the social situations that they are in that plays a role.:agree: I'm not laughing either. i do not find child neglect or child poverty in the least bit funny.

But no matter how he explained it, IMO, it wasn't the biggest gamble of his spying career to claim credit for those deaths. The DEs seem to spend a lot of their time trying to gain ground in the DE hierarchy. If Snape lied about his involvement in these deaths and then was caught, he could just explain that away by claiming that he was bragging to his fellow DEs.

I have never really understood why people make a fuss about Snape claiming credit for these deaths. It is something that spies do all the time if they can safely get away with it - especially in a set up like this when there is so much currying favour and he is actually talking to a jealous/suspicious equal rather than the boss himself.

:agree: I'm not laughing either. i do not find child neglect or child poverty in the least bit funny.

I would appreciate my joke not being misconstrued, thanks. :) Of course the issues are not funny ones - neither are the bullying of children and one's peers which Snape partook in, imo. But none of these things detract from Snape's power of choice as an individual which was my point - and the point JKR said she was attempting to stress.

JKR used Harry as an example. He had a miserable and abusive childhood; at times his peers and some of his professors (Snape/Umbridge) made his time at Hogwarts miserable; he underwent horrible events (in the chamber, DOM, etc.) and faced the loss of a number of loved ones close to his heart. But it did not detract from his power of choice, to choose to do the right thing and stand firm against evil throughout his life. Snape on the other hand, had a poor childhood at home to some extent at least (we know his father was verbally abusive to his mother), but for Snape too, the power of choice as an individual was his and he did not choose to do the right thing and embraced evil as a young person. That is the distinction I was trying to make - JKR has said time and again that it was all about choice in the end - not background, not influences, not others - but one's personal choice based on the sum total of all of those things, imo.

Later in life, Snape chose to reject evil - it doesn't matter that Lily was his motivation or that he was influenced by her death and Dumbledore's manipulation. Snape still made the choice in the end and if we are to congratulate him for that choice, then I see no reason not to condemn him for his original one rather than blaming it on others, his background, etc. - it was a bad choice in the end and he made it, despite all of those factors, just like he made the good one despite the surrounding influences. To neither congratulate him or condemn him for his choices, but place the blame or praise on others instead, steals from Snape's personal autonomy, imo. Harry too had a myriad of good and bad influences (not to mention a piece of Voldy's soul inside which Snape's woes cannot hold a candle to, imo) - and many bad things befell him, but he still made the proper choice in terms of good and evil from the gate and stuck with it.

Yes, TGW, I agree that he claimed credit for these deaths to Bellatrix, but how do we know that he claimed them to Voldemort. Snape reports only directly to Voldemort, so other Death Eaters would not know what he is reporting, unless Voldemort enlightened them.

HBP,"Spinners End"


I doubt that Bellatrix would be reporting her converstaion with Snape to Voldemort, as at the time she is out of favour; and at Spinner's End she became involved in Narcissa's plan to ask for Snape's help, going directly against Voldemort's wishes.

Okay! You are saying what Snape could have told Voldemort would be essentially different from what he told the others? That's a great point and that could very well be the way it happened. :)

So the job in and of itself is morally questionable, because even lying, deceiving and betraying the 'bad guys' is still lying, deceiving and betraying someone. We happen to know that in this case, the bad buys were truly the bad guys in the series, so most people side with Dumbledore's viewpoint. But for those who wanted Voldemort to win, they would see Snape from Voldemort's view, as a traitor, liar and deceiver of the cause (the evil cause).

Okay, I understand now :); but morally questionable I think is not applicable here to Snape, unless Snape was a double agent or working for the bad side. He was neither IMO.

have never really understood why people make a fuss about Snape claiming credit for these deaths. It is something that spies do all the time if they can safely get away with it - especially in a set up like this when there is so much currying favour and he is actually talking to a jealous/suspicious equal rather than the boss himself.

It is not about claiming credit; I wondered how he claimed credit; just what he would have told Voldemort as his work which resulted in these people being captured/killed. It was just something I had been curious about for a long time. While TT satisfied my curiosity about how he spoke seperately to Voldemort and the others differentiating them so that what he told the others could very well be bragging or even concealed so that no one apart from Voldmeort would know exactly what work he did; I just wanted to know how Snape would prove something/anything as his idea in case Voldmeort questioned him about it IMO.

Okay, I understand now :); but morally questionable I think is not applicable here to Snape, unless Snape was a double agent or working for the bad side. He was neither IMO.

I do see what wickedwickedboy is saying. The role of spy is in many ways an amoral or even immoral job, because it does involve deceit at a very profound level ... Snape was working towards Voldemort's destruction whilst pretending to be completely on Voldemort's side.

All I can say is, 'it's an unpleasant job but someone has to do it.' So I guess I would agree with you, TGW, because I see Snape's role as similar to those who plot to assassinate a wicked tyrant whilst pretending to be on his side. Voldemort and his ideology pose such a danger to the free world that it is actually a moral imperative to work towards getting rid of him.

Just a thought. :)

And I do think Snape's job was very unpleasant! And dangerous, obviously.

It is not about claiming credit; I wondered how he claimed credit; just what he would have told Voldemort as his work which resulted in these people being captured/killed. It was just something I had been curious about for a long time. While TT satisfied my curiosity about how he spoke seperately to Voldemort and the others differentiating them so that what he told the others could very well be bragging or even concealed so that no one apart from Voldmeort would know exactly what work he did; I just wanted to know how Snape would prove something/anything as his idea in case Voldmeort questioned him about it IMO.

Because he was supposedly a trusted Order member (from Voldemort's view) and deceiving them into believing he was on their side. So they would tell him things. Then he could pass them on to Voldemort. Voldemort wouldn't think they were Snape's "ideas", but rather information that he found out at the Order meetings. For example, Snape wouldn't tell Voldemort that Vance would be at the corner at 5 pm, so let's go kill her. He would just tell Voldemort that she'd be at the corner - so then Voldemort would say, 'okay, let's go kill her'. So the ideas were Voldemort's ideas, Snape just supplied information that helped him to come up with them.

I agree. It's like with the Prophecy. Snape didn't come out and say "Here's what the prophecy said...I think it means James and Lily's kid" he just said "Here's the Prophecy"

I know that's a bit different because Snape would never have sent Voldemort after Lily, but you know what I mean...

For example, Snape wouldn't tell Voldemort that Vance would be at the corner at 5 pm, so let's go kill her. He would just tell Voldemort that she'd be at the corner - so then Voldemort would say, 'okay, let's go kill her'. So the ideas were Voldemort's ideas, Snape just supplied information that helped him to come up with them.

I don't think Snape would have said any of these things. Snape would have said only what Dumbledore told him to. In the 7 Potters, Snape uses only the Confundus, a Dumbledore portrait suggestion; I don't think Snape makes individual decisions; he obeys Dumbledore about the information and the misinformation he needs to give Voldemort IMO.

Dumbledore would have known only after the event; so it probabbly boiled into preparing in the little time between Dumbledore getting to know the facts and briefing Snape, who would then go on to tell Voldemort precisely that. Since there would be very little time, I am assuming between Snape being called and the aftermath of an encounter with the Order; Snape and Dumbledore would have to quickly prepare something to satify Voldemort IMO.

I think it was an example, not what Snape actually said...

I think that if Snape only parrotted what Dumbledore told him to, he would resent it, I think that Snape did use some sort of initiative to make it convincing, embroidering the story to make Voldemort believe him

I think it was an example, not what Snape actually said...

I think that if Snape only parrotted what Dumbledore told him to, he would resent it, I think that Snape did use some sort of initiative to make it convincing, embroidering the story to make Voldemort believe him

Exactly, I agree. :tu:

I don't think Snape would have said any of these things. Snape would have said only what Dumbledore told him to. In the 7 Potters, Snape uses only the Confundus, a Dumbledore portrait suggestion; I don't think Snape makes individual decisions; he obeys Dumbledore about the information and the misinformation he needs to give Voldemort IMO.

Dumbledore would have known only after the event; so it probabbly boiled into preparing in the little time between Dumbledore getting to know the facts and briefing Snape, who would then go on to tell Voldemort precisely that. Since there would be very little time, I am assuming between Snape being called and the aftermath of an encounter with the Order; Snape and Dumbledore would have to quickly prepare something to satify Voldemort IMO.

I don't know what this means. Dumbledore would only know what after the event?

What I was saying was, if Dumbledore intended to help Snape prove himself a valuable spy to Voldemort, he would have to tell him things that would be helpful to capturing and killing Order members, or helpful to thwarting certain plans. So if Dumbledore sent Vance out on a mission, he knew where she was. If he then told Snape to tell Voldemort where she was, Dumbledore good as killed her and Snape, the messenger facilitated it.

I mean if all Snape was telling Voldemort were things like what color shirt Tonks was wearing at the Order meeting, that would not gain Voldemort's trust. Nor would it gain his trust to speak of events that had already occurred - what good would that be? The way to gain trust was to give information that would help Voldemort forward his own plans - killing Muggles/Muggleborns and Order members/Aurors and others against him - also other things along the way like getting ahold of the prophecy and getting to Harry Potter. In addition, Snape could pass on lies, like the Order did not know about a specific plan of Voldemort's and things along those lines.

In this light it is easy to see why spies (as messengers of misinformation or helpful information to gain trust) would be in a morally questionable situation. Their daily duties could be construed as immoral, but some consider the "greater good" that will come from the efforts sufficient to justify the immoral behavior.

I don't know what this means. Dumbledore would only know what after the event?

After the DE/Order confrontation.

What I was saying was, if Dumbledore intended to help Snape prove himself a valuable spy to Voldemort, he would have to tell him things that would be helpful to capturing and killing Order members, or helpful to thwarting certain plans. So if Dumbledore sent Vance out on a mission, he knew where she was. If he then told Snape to tell Voldemort where she was, Dumbledore good as killed her and Snape, the messenger facilitated it.


Are you saying Dumbledore sent Vance on a mission and then told Snape to tell that to Voldemort thereby sacrificing Vance? If you did, I respectfully disagree with you. I don't think Dumbledore would ever do anything like simply sacrificing a person to keep Snape in place. I just cannot see Dumbledore doing that, however manipulating he may be.

The way to gain trust was to give information that would help Voldemort forward his own plans - killing Muggles/Muggleborns and Order members/Aurors and others against him - also other things along the way like getting ahold of the prophecy and getting to Harry Potter. In addition, Snape could pass on lies, like the Order did not know about a specific plan of Voldemort's and things along those lines.

Again, I respectfully disagree with you. In Sirius's case Snape gave nothing and yet he claimed he gave information; the speculation was what such information could have been; I just cannot think Dumbledore would just kill someone without any reason. To accuse Dumbledore of sending people to death I think defeats the purpose of Light and Dark IMO. If Dumbledore had sent Vance and Sirius to die; this IMO is not a war on the Dark by the Light; it is a fight between 2 factions that do not like each other IMO.

I don't think that Dumbledore would have sacrificed Emmeline Vance, or anyone else bar himself for that matter.

This quote might help to elucidate the type of information Snape was passing to Voldemort.

DH, Chapter 33, 'The Prince's Tale'

Do not think I underestimate the constant danger in which you place yourself, Severus.To give Voldemort what appears to be valuable information while withholding the essentials is a job I would entrust to nobody but you.

I don't think that Dumbledore would have sacrificed Emmeline Vance, or anyone else bar himself for that matter.

:tu: I completely agree.

This quote might help to elucidate the type of information Snape was passing to Voldemort.

DH, Chapter 33, 'The Prince's Tale'Do not think I underestimate the constant danger in which you place yourself, Severus.To give Voldemort what appears to be valuable information while withholding the essentials is a job I would entrust to nobody but you.

:clap: That was exactly what I meant. The speculation was about the type of misinformation Dumbledore asked Snape to give; I don't think Dumbledore would set up people to die for anyone let alone Snape, except himself like Schlubalybub said IMO. :)

After the DE/Order confrontation.

Which one are you referring to?

Are you saying Dumbledore sent Vance on a mission and then told Snape to tell that to Voldemort thereby sacrificing Vance? If you did, I respectfully disagree with you. I don't think Dumbledore would ever do anything like simply sacrificing a person to keep Snape in place. I just cannot see Dumbledore doing that, however manipulating he may be.

We saw him risk the lives of 7 members of the Order in 7 Potters. All were at risk of being killed, not merely because it was dangerous and they were always at risk, but in addition because Dumbledore, through Snape, double crossed the Order members and Harry (and the trio) and told Snape to inform Voldemort of their plans - and Snape complied. Proof of the gravity of the risk - the danger involved - was the fact that Moody was killed.

Dumbledore flat out told Harry in OOTP that he would risk the life of anyone in order to protect Harry. So I am not sure why you think he would not do this. He not only said he would, but we have proof he did in 7 Potters.

I did not mean that Dumbledore had Vance purposely killed, I was just using that as an example.

Again, I respectfully disagree with you. In Sirius's case Snape gave nothing and yet he claimed he gave information; the speculation was what such information could have been; I just cannot think Dumbledore would just kill someone without any reason. To accuse Dumbledore of sending people to death I think defeats the purpose of Light and Dark IMO. If Dumbledore had sent Vance and Sirius to die; this IMO is not a war on the Dark by the Light; it is a fight between 2 factions that do not like each other IMO.

I agree it is defeative of the purpose, but some people feel the greater good justifies this type of behavior. I don't; I feel the means are just as important as the ends.

It is not killing people for no reason. I agree Dumbledore would never do that. What I am saying is that he risked people's lives - big risks - that would very likely end in their deaths. Snape worked with him in doing this. I do not know what Snape thought about it because he never tells us in canon. However, he went along with it, independent of how he felt. I feel Dumbledore did this to Snape also - with the Elder Wand business. It is a matter of taking risks that have a great potential to end in the deaths of others due to mechanisms that go beyond mere 'necessary risks'. That is like Snape sending the DEs after the Order and Harry in 7 Potters. So far, nobody has suggested a reason this was necessary beyond showing Snape was still 'in the know' and loyal to Voldemort. But it did no good at all, imo - Snape was already trusted; he'd killed Dumbledore.

I agree Dumbledore would never do that. What I am saying is that he risked people's lives - big risks - that would very likely end in their deaths.

Yes, I am sure all the members of the Order were well aware that their lives were in constant danger, and were all prepared to lay them down for the cause.

DH, Chapter 34 'The Forest Again'

'I am sorry too,' said Lupin. Sorry I will never know him (Teddy)...but he will know why I died and I hope he will understand. I was trying to make a world in which he could live a happier life.'

Such is war, unfortunately.

That is like Snape sending the DEs after the Order and Harry in 7 Potters. So far, nobody has suggested a reason this was necessary beyond showing Snape was still 'in the know' and loyal to Voldemort. But it did no good at all, imo - Snape was already trusted; he'd killed Dumbledore.

This was Dumbledore's reasoning for this.

DH, Chapter 33, 'The Prince's Tale'

'You will have to give Voldemort the correct date of Harry's departure from his aunt and uncle's.' said Dumbledore. 'Not to do so will raise suspicion, when Voldemort believes you so well informed.'

Yes, I am sure all the members of the Order were well aware that their lives were in constant danger, and were all prepared to lay them down for the cause.

DH, Chapter 34 'The Forest Again'

'I am sorry too,' said Lupin. Sorry I will never know him (Teddy)...but he will know why I died and I hope he will understand. I was trying to make a world in which he could live a happier life.'

Such is war, unfortunately.

But this is not what I was referring to. Lupin went to fight knowing he might die because DEs were going to battle and try to kill him. That is legit warfare. But in 7 Potters, Dumbledore not only arranged the means for the Order members to get Harry to safety, he then had Snape sick the DEs on them. That is what I am talking about. The Order was already taking a risk, but they had not bargained for the secondary and more deadly risk that Dumbledore had added to the mix - and he was supposed to be on their side.


This was Dumbledore's reasoning for this.

DH, Chapter 33, 'The Prince's Tale'

'You will have to give Voldemort the correct date of Harry's departure from his aunt and uncle's.' said Dumbledore. 'Not to do so will raise suspicion, when Voldemort believes you so well informed.'


Yes.

First. Voldemort should no longer believe that Snape is well informed. He'd killed Dumbledore for goodness sakes, no Order member in their right mind would trust him. Voldemort knew this and knew that Snape should be a person non-grata among the Order members - no longer being informed about their movements, plans or anything else. So in what possible way would suspicion arise if Snape didn't have any information? To me, the opposite is true; by Snape STILL having information after killing Dumbledore should have raised suspicion with Voldemort.

Second. Snape told Voldemort that he had a "Source" - well this source would either have to be "imperiused" or "a traitor". If he was a traitor, then Voldemort would want him in the DE fold. So I assume he was thought to be imperiused. All Snape would have to say to Voldemort is that his "imperiused" source was no longer trusted by the Order. End of problem. Now he and Dumbledore no longer have to betray the Order because Snape would have no means of being informed through the source.

We have absolutely no canon on why it was necessary to sick the DEs on the Order members and for Moody to die (and Hedwig and George to lose an ear) - all we have is that piece of information you provided and it tells us nothing, imo, because it does not inform why Voldemort would be suspicious - for example, if Snape were telling Voldemort other things - well that is just speculation because we never heard about any other things. As a matter of fact, Voldemort left town after that, hunting for the Elder Wand, so he wasn't even around to talk to Snape.

We have absolutely no canon on why it was necessary to sick the DEs on the Order members and for Moody to die (and Hedwig and George to lose an ear).


That part of the story has always baffled me. I'm not sure I'll ever figure it out.

In my opinion, the 7 Potter plan does show us that Dumbledore and Snape were willing to sell out Order members to keep Snape's job secure, and that this probably also applied to past events like Emmeline Vance. Even if Snape and Dumbledore betraying the Order at the beginning of DH didn't make much sense, I think it shows what their mindset was. I think that when Snape was actually spying for the Order before Dumbldore's death it was tactically necessary to occasionally pass on information that could lead to an Order member's death (the Greater Good, and all that).

It seems to me that the 7 Potters plan was designed to get at least some people killed. In my opinion, if the idea is to get in good with Voldemort by passing on information, than that information needs to bear fruit. But just why this was necessary at that point was never fully explained. Also, neither Snape nor Dumbledore's portrait were in a position to know what they were tactically risking by endangering Order lives, because Dumbledore had been dead for two months and Snape was on the run, so they could hardly be privy to all the Order's newest plans.

Which one are you referring to?

Any DE/Order skirmish, fight, battle or anything for which Voldemort would demand an explanation from Snape or information from him IMO.

We saw him risk the lives of 7 members of the Order in 7 Potters. All were at risk of being killed, not merely because it was dangerous and they were always at risk, but in addition because Dumbledore, through Snape, double crossed the Order members and Harry (and the trio) and told Snape to inform Voldemort of their plans - and Snape complied. Proof of the gravity of the risk - the danger involved - was the fact that Moody was killed.

And I think you know my theory that the 7 Potters was for the EW; because of that I think Dumbledore was completely in the right to risk the lives, for it was for the most important purpose IMO. :D

Dumbledore flat out told Harry in OOTP that he would risk the life of anyone in order to protect Harry. So I am not sure why you think he would not do this. He not only said he would, but we have proof he did in 7 Potters.

And he had no business to say it IMO. He said that out of love, telling Harry that he regarded Harry as his own, even then I think since Dumbledore was the leader of the Order he should not have said that. I am begining to think he said that because he was already planning to sacrifice Snape for Harry's sake.

I did not mean that Dumbledore had Vance purposely killed, I was just using that as an example.

I understood, but that would still imply Dumbledore was willing to do this; which I respectfully disagree with.

I agree it is defeative of the purpose, but some people feel the greater good justifies this type of behavior. I don't; I feel the means are just as important as the ends.

But the problem with this (thinking I mean) in a war is, how would you determine which means are good, which are bad and which are ugly. I think it's impossible to do so, for all actions are dubious and morally suspect IMO.

What I am saying is that he risked people's lives - big risks - that would very likely end in their deaths.

They were aware of that; every member of the Order from Snape to Dung agreed to regard Dumbledore as their leader and agreed to obey him with respect to the war with Voldemort, from the moment they joined the Order IMO.

That part of the story has always baffled me. I'm not sure I'll ever figure it out.

In my opinion, the 7 Potter plan does show us that Dumbledore and Snape were willing to sell out Order members to keep Snape's job secure, and that this probably also applied to past events like Emmeline Vance. Even if Snape and Dumbledore betraying the Order at the beginning of DH didn't make much sense, I think it shows what their mindset was. I think that when Snape was actually spying for the Order before Dumbldore's death it was tactically necessary to occasionally pass on information that could lead to an Order member's death (the Greater Good, and all that).

It seems to me that the 7 Potters plan was designed to get at least some people killed. In my opinion, if the idea is to get in good with Voldemort by passing on information, than that information needs to bear fruit. But just why this was necessary at that point was never fully explained. Also, neither Snape nor Dumbledore's portrait were in a position to know what they were tactically risking by endangering Order lives, because Dumbledore had been dead for two months and Snape was on the run, so they could hardly be privy to all the Order's newest plans.

That is how I feel about it as well. Dumbledore had left the Order members with orders before he died to some extent. But I don't think everyone had orders, and some people completed their orders I would imagine. Also, there was at least Order member, McGonagall, at Hogwarts and it is possible that Dumbledore traveled to another portrait to speak to her. But he obviously did not tell her much of importance as to his ongoing plans as she did not know anything about what was going on. She would not be able to give him much information either because Hogwarts was fairly isolated once Voldemort took over and Order members were not going there for obvious reasons.

So I agree that from a tactical standpoint, Dumbledore was playing it fairly blind.

Any DE/Order skirmish, fight, battle or anything for which Voldemort would demand an explanation from Snape or information from him IMO.

Oh. What information do you feel that Voldemort would want or need after a skirmish took place?

And I think you know my theory that the 7 Potters was for the EW; because of that I think Dumbledore was completely in the right to risk the lives, for it was for the most important purpose IMO. :D

Yes I remember your theory. But it seems to contradict Dumbledore telling Snape that the 7 Potter's plan would ensure Harry's safety. Also, Dumbledore could not have known that Voldemort would figure out which one was the real Harry - remember that only happened because Stan was broken out of jail and imperiused and also participating. Something Dumbledore could not have planned nor foreseen happening. Nor could he have known that Harry's wand would act against Lucius' wand in the way that it did. Maybe you could explain those parts in association with your theory.

And he had no business to say it IMO. He said that out of love, telling Harry that he regarded Harry as his own, even then I think since Dumbledore was the leader of the Order he should not have said that. I am begining to think he said that because he was already planning to sacrifice Snape for Harry's sake.

:rotfl: - well he may have had no business saying it, but he did. Actually, I agree that Dumbledore had likely already formed his plan to sacrifice Snape over the Elder Wand business. It was not too much after that time that Dumbledore asked Snape to murder him. And remember that Snape made the vow with Narcissa also, so there had to be time for that to happen as well. It would seem that all took place that summer after the DOM.

But it wasn't just Snape. Dumbledore was referring to everyone else. He could not be certain who might die, but his focus was only upon keeping Harry safe for the most part (according to him).

I understood, but that would still imply Dumbledore was willing to do this; which I respectfully disagree with.

I am getting all the deaths mixed up :lol:. I know the Bones family suffered more death at the hands of Voldemort than any other wizarding family (the grandparents, Edgar and his whole family, Amelia's nasty death - and perhaps her own parents?). That might have been who I was thinking of, not Emmeline Vance.

But yeah, if as Zg said, Dumbledore simply had Snape tell Voldemort that the Order members were on guard at the Ministry, well then they would have attacked any Order member they found and just happened to find Vance. But it doesn't matter how it was achieved; if Dumbledore had a hand in it, then it would have still been a form of betrayal by him and Snape, imo.

But the problem with this (thinking I mean) in a war is, how would you determine which means are good, which are bad and which are ugly. I think it's impossible to do so, for all actions are dubious and morally suspect IMO.

There is no confusion as to whether betraying your own men is "bad" and "ugly" to my mind. It is. I don't personally have a problem determining which acts fit into which category.

The thing is, the Order members signed up to help and agreed to take risks - even risk their lives for the cause. But they did not bargain for Dumbledore and Snape's side deals and plans to work against them and betray them. The job they signed up for was already dangerous enough, and for Dumbledore to add that secondary danger without advising them was simply wrong, imo.

Dumbledore's priorities were all wrong, imo. Let's say Zg is correct and Dumbledore told Snape to tell Voldemort the Order members were guarding the Ministry in order to secure Snape's position as a spy. Well anyone could have been killed - Arthur, Kingsley, Molly, Lupin, Vance, Bones, Moody, Bill, Hestia and any other Order member who happened to be on duty. It happened to be Vance. Now Vance could have been killed anyway on the day the Death Eaters traveled to the DOM for the prophecy - but that is not what happened, it occurred prior to that because Dumbledore squealed on his own men (assuming this was the plan).

But the same thing happened in 7 Potters. Sure, someone could have died anyway, but because Dumbledore through Snape double crossed the Order, the risk was greater and the potential for death nearly certain as opposed to a possibility.

In my opinion, that is not what the Order members agreed to do for Dumbledore. They trusted him to work with them, not against them. No one suspected Dumbledore as the one who betrayed them; they never even considered that it might be "another one of his complex plans" that might mean their deaths. That tells me that they were completely unaware that Dumbledore had ever or would ever work against them. Due to that plan, the Order members lost trust in one another and their work toward defeating Voldemort would naturally suffer (divided we fall).

Snape allowed himself to be used as a pawn in that regard. He was intelligent enough to understand the results of his participation. So he too was placing his position as a spy with Voldemeort ahead of the lives of the other Order members, imo. Snape did try to help (like in 7 Potters when he tried to take off the DEs hand) - but attempting to "undo" what he'd set in motion in the first place was a completely backdoor methodology. He could not be everywhere at once and hence, Moody died as did Hedwig. The plan turned out to be a fiasco because of Harry's intervention - but Dumbledore could not have foreseen that Stan would be there and how Harry would react as a result. But he was wise enough to understand things could go wrong and he was simply willing to take that risk, imo.

They were aware of that; every member of the Order from Snape to Dung agreed to regard Dumbledore as their leader and agreed to obey him with respect to the war with Voldemort, from the moment they joined the Order IMO.

I agree - but they didn't agree to Dumbledore betraying them with Snape's help, just to secure his position as a spy - that is something that was not a part of the bargain, imo.

And I think you know my theory that the 7 Potters was for the EW; because of that I think Dumbledore was completely in the right to risk the lives, for it was for the most important purpose IMO. :D

GW, what is your theory? If it was in a recent post and I've overlooked it, my bad!

They were aware of that; every member of the Order from Snape to Dung agreed to regard Dumbledore as their leader and agreed to obey him with respect to the war with Voldemort, from the moment they joined the Order IMO.

In regards to the 7 Potters, Dumbledore was no longer leader then. Once he had died, I think it reasonable that all the Order members would start regarding someone else as their new leader, and take direction from them instead. Possibly that was Moody, who ended up being the one Snape's and Dumbledore's actions got killed.

It makes sense that Dumbledore was the one who picked what vital information to feed Voldemort to make Snape's spy cover look good. That's not a decision Snape could make on his own. After Dumbledore's death, in my opinion Snape didn't feel capable of using making those momentum decisions on his own (and certainly was not in an informed position to do so wisely!), and hence we have him seeking orders from a dead man's portrait. I think this that was a bad decision. Someone alive and in the know needed to be making those tough decisions, and I think Snape should have realized that.

We have absolutely no canon on why it was necessary to sick the DEs on the Order members and for Moody to die (and Hedwig and George to lose an ear) - all we have is that piece of information you provided and it tells us nothing, imo, because it does not inform why Voldemort would be suspicious .

The information I supplied on Dumbledore's reasons, for telling Voldemort the true date of Harry's departure from the Dursley's, is canon. Now, the quote may not supply enough information for you, or you may not like Dumbledore's reasoning and think it is flawed, but nevertheless it is canon and it is Dumbledore's reasoning.


They were aware of that; every member of the Order from Snape to Dung agreed to regard Dumbledore as their leader and agreed to obey him with respect to the war with Voldemort, from the moment they joined the Order IMO.

I agree with this TGW!


But yeah, if as Zg said, Dumbledore simply had Snape tell Voldemort that the Order members were on guard at the Ministry, well then they would have attacked any Order member they found and just happened to find Vance. But it doesn't matter how it was achieved; if Dumbledore had a hand in it, then it would have still been a form of betrayal by him and Snape, imo.


I don't consider the information that the Order was protecting the prophecy as vital information. This is something that Voldemort would have found out very easily for himself, without any assisstance. I think much of the imformation Snape was supplying to Voldemort was like this.

And I think you know my theory that the 7 Potters was for the EW I'd appreciate an explanation or a link back to this theory too, if you would be so kind. At first, I couldn't even figure what you meant by EW... though I gathered from subsequent posts (Wwb's) that it's the Elder Wand. :yuhup:

The information I supplied on Dumbledore's reasons, for telling Voldemort the true date of Harry's departure from the Dursley's, is canon. Now, the quote may not supply enough information for you, or you may not like Dumbledore's reasoning and think it is flawed, but nevertheless it is canon and it is Dumbledore's reasoning.

That is the reason why Dumbledore wanted Snape to do it. That says nothing about why Voldemort would be suspicious if he believed Snape was not well informed. You provided a canon answer for a great question - just not the question I posed.

I don't consider the information that the Order was protecting the prophecy as vital information. This is something that Voldemort would have found out very easily for himself, without any assisstance. I think much of the imformation Snape was supplying to Voldemort was like this.

Well if all Snape had given to Voldemort was 'non-vital' information that Voldemort could easily discover for himself, he would not have been very useful, nor do I feel he would have been elevated to the position of right hand man. Dumbledore needed for Snape to be very trusted and very high ranking among the DEs in order to both get the *most important* information, and to be able to pass on false information that would be believed. But he'd have to have Snape pass real important information in order to enable the other two functions, imo. Voldemort was not a fool. That Dumbledore was willing risk others lives for this reason in the name of the greater good (which the information you provided re: 7 Potters proved he would) was to me, a betrayal of the Order and immoral behavior and I do not approve of such means. I think Snape should have stood up to him in that regard also. I mean, "life" is not something to be treated in a summary fashion, imo. I am sure that Dumbledore employed other means as well (at least I hope so) - and he should have stuck to those, even if it meant Snape would not be positioned as he was among the Death Eaters.

Snape's morals were already dubious in that regard; he claimed that he only watched those die that he could not save. There is personal "judgment" associated with that statement, because Snape is reserving the right for himself to determine whether or not a person can be saved and he didn't tell us what his basis for judgment was. But quite obviously it includes not saving anyone, where doing so might interfere with his position as a spy (see Charity Burbage). I of course do not hold Snape culpable in a moral sense for watching Death Eaters die that he could save at risk to himself, when they are engaged in criminal activities (which is nearly 24/7), as the Death Eaters have assumed that risk as a part of their activity. But in my judgment, it is immoral to watch an innocent die without making an effort to save them - for any reason. Now, that is a highly personal outlook; many feel that when one's own life is in the balance, they are justified in not making the effort - especially where the person would die anyway. But those outside considerations do not speak to the morality of the person making the decision, imo. Am I requiring that everyone play hero? I guess I am, because heroes should not exist on those terms - in my view, everyone should be a hero in that light. (Note: I feel JKR wished for us to take the opposite view and understand that when one's own life was at risk, the victim would die anyway and an important mission was in the balance, it was okay to allow an innocent to die. That was my understanding from the canon because she never addressed the issue again after showing us the Burbage death.)

Well if all Snape had given to Voldemort was 'non-vital' information that Voldemort could easily discover for himself, he would not have been very useful, nor do I feel he would have been elevated to the position of right hand man.

I posted this a page back perhaps you missed it.

DH, Chapter 33, "THe Prince's Tale'

Do not think that I underestimate the constant danger in which you place yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what appears to be valuable information while withholding the essentials is a job I would entrust to nobody but you.

I posted this a page back perhaps you missed it.

Oh I absolutely believe that is how Dumbledore viewed it. However, what Dumbledore saw as "essential" is what is in debate. Clearly Moody's life was not "essential" - nor those lives of the other members who participated in 7 Potters - as Dumbledore (and Snape via complicity) placed them at great risk of death (through an unbargained for act of betrayal, imo). So while Dumbledore apparently would not call the information that Snape gave Voldemort about Harry's moving date "essential", I would. (Snape may have had a greater sense of morality in this respect than Dumbledore, as he did feel compelled to attempt to save Lupin. But that is questionable as his method ensured against nearly all risk to himself.)

This is precisely my point. For you see, Voldemort would see this type of information as "essential" even if Dumbledore and Snape did not. It allowed Voldemort victory by way of wiping out some of those against him. And some of us common men would see it as essential information too. To me, all Dumbledore meant by "essential" information was that it was information that would not ruin his plans (and Snape agreed via his complicit actions). I feel my point still stands, because from Voldemort's view, the information was "essential" (and in the examples we are given of the type of information that included, I would agree with Voldemort.) And btw - Dumbledore knew Voldemort would see it as essential, imo, which is what I was referring to.

Snape's morals were already dubious in that regard; he claimed that he only watched those die that he could not save. There is personal "judgment" associated with that statement, because Snape is reserving the right for himself to determine whether or not a person can be saved and he didn't tell us what his basis for judgment was. But quite obviously it includes not saving anyone, where doing so might interfere with his position as a spy (see Charity Burbage). I of course do not hold Snape culpable in a moral sense for watching Death Eaters die that he could save at risk to himself, when they are engaged in criminal activities (which is nearly 24/7), as the Death Eaters have assumed that risk as a part of their activity. But in my judgment, it is immoral to watch an innocent die without making an effort to save them - for any reason. Now, that is a highly personal outlook; many feel that when one's own life is in the balance, they are justified in not making the effort - especially where the person would die anyway. But those outside considerations do not speak to the morality of the person making the decision, imo. Am I requiring that everyone play hero? I guess I am, because heroes should not exist on those terms - in my view, everyone should be a hero in that light. (Note: I feel JKR wished for us to take the opposite view and understand that when one's own life was at risk, the victim would die anyway and an important mission was in the balance, it was okay to allow an innocent to die. That was my understanding from the canon because she never addressed the issue again after showing us the Burbage death.)

I see it as a statement of fact, Snape felt he did all could to save people whenever possible. To say everyone must drop everything no matter what the situation is around them to save another is unrealistic in war. Whether it be a battle field or anywhere. It's not saying it's okay to let an innocent die, it's saying this is the cold, harsh and cruel truth that is war. If Snape had spoken up and tried to save Charity Burbage, both of them would have been killed. That would have accomplished nothing and would have put many others in danger in the future from Voldemort and the DE's.

Harry learnt this when he pretended to be dead coming out of the Forbidden Forest. He had to choose the right moment to make his move, even though people he cared about were being hurt around him.

I see it as a statement of fact, Snape felt he did all could to save people whenever possible. To say everyone must drop everything no matter what the situation is around them, to save another is unrealistic in war. Whether it be a battle field or anywhere. It's not saying it's okay to let an innocent die, it's saying this is the cold, harsh and cruel truth that is war. If Snape had spoken up and tried to save Charity Burbage, both of them would have been killed. That would have accomplished nothing and would have put many others in danger in the future from Voldemort and the DE's.

Well Annie, I gave props to that view and even indicated it was the one I feel JKR wanted us to take with respect to Snape's actions. But I simply disagree with the ideology and what I believe to be JKR's view in that regard.

I am not referring to impossibility - if it is not possible to save someone that is something else altogether (like on a war torn battlefield where you cannot possibly run around saving everyone that is in harms way). One can't be held accountable for not doing the impossible. :lol:. I am referring to situations like the Burbage one, where a choice is made (in which adequate time is available to make the choice).

Well Annie, I gave props to that view and even indicated it was the one I feel JKR wanted us to take with respect to Snape's actions. But I simply disagree with the ideology and what I believe to be JKR's view in that regard.

I am not referring to impossibility - if it is not possible to save someone that is something else altogether (like on a war torn battlefield where you cannot possibly run around saving everyone that is in harms way). One can't be held accountable for not doing the impossible. :lol:. I am referring to situations like the Burbage one, where a choice is made (in which adequate time is available to make the choice).

People have to make choices all the time whether they be the officers or spies, etc, as to who they might be sending or leaving to their deaths in war. I too think JKR perhaps recognizes this. Snape acknowledges and remembers those he couldn't save. I've read such sad stories about some people who didnt do that in past history, especially if a person was captured.

People have to make choices all the time whether they be the officers or spies, etc, as to who they might be sending or leaving to their deaths in war. Snape acknowledges and remembers those he couldn't save. I've read such sad stories about some people who didnt do that in past history, especially if a person was captured.

I know...and if it helps, this is a topic that is debated internationally and there is no agreement. Some countries put forth that a person should be guilty in that situation because it is morally wrong to allow someone to die. Other countries take the opposite stance (similar to yours). So it is not an easy issue and there is no universal agreement on what should be done in that type of situation.

Snape did the right thing according to many (and likely JKR), but to me, he made the morally wrong decision not to act on Charity's behalf. It is a harsh judgment, I realize, and it would take bravery in terms of risking one's life to act in that regard (with such a small probability of coming out alive).

I understand in this situation that the probable outcome would make Snape consider it 'stupid' to act on her behalf because he would be risking not only his life, but the mission as well. And I am not discrediting Snape's bravery because if it had been Harry - the mission would call for him acting to save the kid and I think he would have. But my point is the 'value' of life is being placed on the fact that Charity's life served no purpose toward the greater good and so she was considered expendable - further, saving her would jeopardize the mission. Thus, it is easy to rationalize from there that "not to act" on behalf of this innocent is the best way to handle the situation. I simply disagree from a moral standpoint that it is ever correct to omit to act for those reasons.

The way I see it, yes, it was up to Snape in those moments to make the important decision of who to save and who not to save. But, as Annie said, war does sometimes require such decisions from people.

When faced with the problem of who lives and who dies, Snape had two options: save the person and blow his cover, or let the person die and continue giving the Order information. It's not pleasant to see someone die, but nor is it pleasant to see the entire Order's operation fail. If the Order did not know where/when/how the DEs would attack, many, many more lives would be lost-- more than just the one life Snape managed to save. I think Mr. Spock said it best when he pointed out that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Snape was not passing information to the Order at that time...information he passed to Dumbledore would not be put to use in an effort to save anyone, but only forward his personal plans. So I don't think that rationale is applicable here. Mr. Spock spoke in terms of his own life, which he was willing to give - not the life of another (an unwilling 3rd party) that he was debating whether or not to be taken in an effort to forward his goals.

Nonetheless, I respect your view and the ideology it is based upon; but I just disagree with it.

I like the Spock quote - very apt imo

The situation reminds me somewhat of the one Churchill had to make about the bombing of Coventry in WWII. either he saved the people of Coventry or he let them risk death in an air raid he could have stopped but in the process show that the allies had decripted the enigma machine and so lose the lives of countless people and lose one of the biggest advantages he had in wnning the war. A horrible situation but sometimes you have, as spock and many others have said, play a numbers game. Not nice but war isn't :sigh:

I know...and if it helps, this is a topic that is debated internationally and there is no agreement. Some countries put forth that a person should be guilty in that situation because it is morally wrong to allow someone to die. Other countries take the opposite stance (similar to yours). So it is not an easy issue and there is no universal agreement on what should be done in that type of situation.



Indeed, I can understand why it is debated, and why the decision would be a very difficult one to make.

Snape was not passing information to the Order at that time...information he passed to Dumbledore would not be put to use in an effort to save anyone, but only forward his personal plans. So I don't think that rationale is applicable here.

Snape had important information that he would be passing on in the future. He was also in the position to pass information back to Dumbledore, to plan their next move, etc.

I don't consider the information that the Order was protecting the prophecy as vital information. This is something that Voldemort would have found out very easily for himself, without any assisstance. I think much of the imformation Snape was supplying to Voldemort was like this.

It is certain he would have found out. If he did not already know, when he sent Nagini to check the hallway out, he would have learned. There is no conceivable legitimate work reason for someone in Improper Use of Muggle Artifacts to be hanging out at the Department of Mysteries under an Invisibility Cloak in the middle of the night. :lol:

After Dumbledore's death, in my opinion Snape didn't feel capable of using making those momentum decisions on his own (and certainly was not in an informed position to do so wisely!), and hence we have him seeking orders from a dead man's portrait. I think this that was a bad decision. Someone alive and in the know needed to be making those tough decisions, and I think Snape should have realized that.

I disagree. Dumbledore WAS "in the know". He knew more than the Order about Voldemort's intentions, because he had Snape's reports. And unlike the Order and Snape, the portrait knew what was needed to take Voldemort down. Only the Trio among the living knew that, and Harry did not confide it to the Order either. By sticking with the portrait, Snape, alone among the adult characters, furthered Harry's mission.

If Snape had spoken up and tried to save Charity Burbage, both of them would have been killed. That would have accomplished nothing and would have put many others in danger in the future from Voldemort and the DE's.

As Annie said, if Snape had tried to save Charity it would have resulted in both their deaths. Therefore it was not strategic to attempt to save her, or Snape's mission would have failed.

I simply disagree from a moral standpoint that it is ever correct to omit to act for those reasons.

I respect this view. But Snape had agreed to do a job, a dirty job, but he did his best under extreme circumstances, imo.

I think Mr. Spock said it best when he pointed out that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

I think this sums up the situation Snape was in nicely!

I thought that the image of Charity Burbage hanging over the table, pleading for Snape to help her while all the other Death Eaters just watched was extremely emotional. It was our first view into what life as Dumbledore's spy was really like for Snape. I got the impression that he wasn't the only Death Eater uncomfortable with what was going on. On the other hand, I think it may have been the hardest on him because she was reaching out to him and he had to turn off his emotions. I certainly have tons of issues with Dumbledore's actions and Snape's role, but I could see in that scene how successful Snape had been at fooling Voldemort. Very few people could have done it and Snape was the best there was. All in my opinion.

I simply disagree from a moral standpoint that it is ever correct to omit to act for those reasons.

I agree with you in principle but I really don't think Snape had much choice. If he intervened to save Charity, he might well blow his whole cover and in that case a lot more people besides Charity would die. So, do you choose between one life or many? -- a morally uncomfortable choice indeed. I really thought that's what JKR was implying with the Charity scene, and I still hold to that view ... and I think that's why JKR wrote that scene as she did.

I guess some readers who still thought Snape would turn out to be evil just thought it was evidence of his cold-heartedness. I interpreted the apparent coldness as all part of his act as spy.

I thought that the image of Charity Burbage hanging over the table, pleading for Snape to help her while all the other Death Eaters just watched was extremely emotional. It was our first view into what life as Dumbledore's spy was really like for Snape. I got the impression that he wasn't the only Death Eater uncomfortable with what was going on. On the other hand, I think it may have been the hardest on him because she was reaching out to him and he had to turn off his emotions. I certainly have tons of issues with Dumbledore's actions and Snape's role, but I could see in that scene how successful Snape had been at fooling Voldemort. Very few people could have done it and Snape was the best there was. All in my opinion.

That was exactly what I thought when I read that scene for the first time.

And it's gut-wrenching. Poor Charity. It's a really, really horrible situation but I honestly do not think Snape had any choice but to go along with Voldemort.

I disagree. Dumbledore WAS "in the know". He knew more than the Order about Voldemort's intentions, because he had Snape's reports. And unlike the Order and Snape, the portrait knew what was needed to take Voldemort down. Only the Trio among the living knew that, and Harry did not confide it to the Order either. By sticking with the portrait, Snape, alone among the adult characters, furthered Harry's mission.

My understanding was that reference was being made to the Order members and whatever plans they were making and carrying out. Dumbledore was not directing them at that time (except for orders he gave prior to his death) and any Dumbledore would be unaware of any contengencies or problems they encountered relative to old plans - as well as all new plans.

What if the Order's plans were thwarted merely because they didn't know Dumbledore's plans? Well that became a reality and it seems to me there is an almost absolute lack of sympathy and consideration for the Order members throughout by Dumbledore and Snape (Snape to a slightly lesser degree). Dumbledore pretty much had abandoned them to fodder in his continued planning efforts, I think they would have been more than a little unhappy with both Dumbledore and Snape.

The idea that Dumbledore could do no wrong as long as he kept the greater good in his sights is to me, a rather short-sighted take on the situation. Sure, Snape was safe until his number came up for similar betrayal and disregard, but that is the point, isn't it? Dumbledore's game of use them up until they are expendable in as far as his plan was concerned was nefarious, imo. Snape's duty (delivery of the message) was less important than his being present to take the fall for the Elder Wand scheme, because Dumbledore incapsulated in his portrait could handle that if worse came to worse. But what of Snape going from important liason to fodder in the blink of an eye at the capricious whim of the dark lord? Even if Dumbledore didn't want that - didn't hope or plan for it precisely, he knew it was a high probability outcome, imo. Same with Moody in his 7 Potters fiasco of a plan, imo. I respect that people find his kind of thing justified by war, but I do not.

Snape went along with Dumbledore's plan and even resigned himself to death when he realized that his position was equal to the other Order members in Dumbledore's eyes in as far as his plans overriding his consideration of their welfare. Not exactly an eye opener after all Snape had seen - and what he thought he knew: Dumbledore was going to similarly sacrifice Harry like a pig for slaughter and didn't seem to mind too much. For all the detriment Dumbleodre practiced with respect to Harry; that he actually did his best to attempt to ensure he would live speaks volumes for a man of his ilk, imo.

One does not sacrifice morality, good faith and fair dealing for war, imo, it is common in warfare, but practiced by disreputable parties, imo. Sending willing warriors into battle - even requiring unknown risks of them is fine if they agree to it. But ethics compel certain war time moral behavior and that includes not betraying your own people and a continued consideration of their general welfare. Dumbledore should not have been making behind the scenes plans without a contact among the Order Members, imo, because their lives were in the balance. He used them just as he used Snape and any other person he needed to use, imo.

I agree with you in principle but I really don't think Snape had much choice. If he intervened to save Charity, he might well blow his whole cover and in that case a lot more people besides Charity would die. So, do you choose between one life or many? -- a morally uncomfortable choice indeed. I really thought that's what JKR was implying with the Charity scene, and I still hold to that view ... and I think that's why JKR wrote that scene as she did.

I guess some readers who still thought Snape would turn out to be evil just thought it was evidence of his cold-heartedness. I interpreted the apparent coldness as all part of his act as spy.

While I hoped Snape would turn out to be evil, I never counted on it and didn't believe it throughout the series, so no suprise when he didn't. But that played no role in my thoughts on the Charity Burbage scene. I didn't see Snape as cold-hearted at all. I too felt he was hiding behind his mask as a spy. But understand that too is separate from the morality of allowing an innocent to die before your eyes.

You know, Stan was an innocent and Harry made this same moral argument. Harry had way less standing to make it though, because Stan was attempting to kill him, innocent or not. But it is the same principle. "I'm not going to shoot everyone out of the sky - that is Voldemort's job" and he implied, even at risk to his own life (and the entire mission for Dumbledore) - well point noted, but not excercised by Snape in the Burbage situation.

Some here attempt to defend both Harry and Snape in their separate situations, but the only distinguishing factor is that Harry had to make a snap judgment and Snape had time for consideration. And too, Stan was attempting to kill Harry, but Charity was not attempting to kill Snape. In both situations there were others around who would cause a risk to their lives for their actions. Yet Harry acted, risking everything whereas Snape did not. From a moral standpoint, I champion Harry's act (although not his choice of spell), but I cannot champion Snape's not acting. (From a purely logical standpoint, I well understand it.)

My understanding was that reference was being made to the Order members and whatever plans they were making and carrying out. Dumbledore was not directing them at that time (except for orders he gave prior to his death) and any Dumbledore would be unaware of any contengencies or problems they encountered relative to old plans - as well as all new plans.

Oh, well, at the specific time in question (the 7 Potters), Snape and Albus knew not only what the Order was planning, but that it was a great way to get lots of them, and maybe Harry too, killed. So they stepped in with full knowledge of the existing plan, to suggest a better plan. Which, presumably because it was better in ways that were apparent to such smart and experienced people like Moody and Shacklebolt, the Order promptly CHOSE to adopt. They could have also told Dung (and therefore, though they knew it not, Snape) to get lost.

What if the Order's plans were thwarted merely because they didn't know Dumbledore's plans? Well that became a reality and it seems to me there is an almost absolute lack of sympathy and consideration for the Order members throughout by Dumbledore and Snape (Snape to a slightly lesser degree).

On the contrary, their plan worked. Harry was delivered safely to the Burrow. Voldemort identifying Harry was not part of anyone's plan, (Yes, TGW, I realize you may not agree with me!).

The idea that Dumbledore could do no wrong as long as he kept the greater good in his sights is to me, a rather short-sighted take on the situation.

I hope you are not suggesting that this is my position. :sad:

But what of Snape going from important liason to fodder in the blink of an eye at the capricious whim of the dark lord?

Snape was a volunteer. He knew he was being kept in the dark about some key things, Albus was quite open about that. He accepted that the reason for that was his vulnerability to the psychopath he willingly went back to as a spy. And indeed there can be no doubt his and Albus's estimate of the danger was exagegrated. It got Snape killed, in the end.

I don't agree there was a scheme about the Wand, but that is a matter for the Snape and Dumbledore thread. There was certainly a risk about which Snape was not informed, but to me that's different from a scheme to get Snape killed.

Not exactly an eye opener after all Snape had seen - and what he thought he knew: Dumbledore was going to similarly sacrifice Harry like a pig for slaughter and didn't seem to mind too much. For all the detriment Dumbleodre practiced with respect to Harry; that he actually did his best to attempt to ensure he would live speaks volumes for a man of his ilk, imo.

Dumbledore's plan was, ever since GoF, for Harry to live. (Before that, it would be quite unfair to say Albus planned for Harry to be killed. Harry's death was not necessary until Voldemort was back. And until Voldemort was back, I believe Albus was thinking about ways out.) Because his plan was the best he could think of to ensure Harry's survival, his use of Snape to further that plan was, IMHO, fine. Snape could not know the details for reasons of security, but Albus had his prior consent to so use him.

Oh, well, at the specific time in question (the 7 Potters), Snape and Albus knew not only what the Order was planning, but that it was a great way to get lots of them, and maybe Harry too, killed. So they stepped in with full knowledge of the existing plan, to suggest a better plan. Which, presumably because it was better in ways that were apparent to such smart and experienced people like Moody and Shacklebolt, the Order promptly CHOSE to adopt. They could have also told Dung (and therefore, though they knew it not, Snape) to get lost.

I didn't mean the plan in and of itself was not a good one. I think it had a lot of potential - that is why I think the Order adopted it. I am not sure upon what you are basing your idea that Dumbledore knew the Order's plan and considered it a good way to get Harry killed - where did we find that out? Nonetheless, the Order and I agree the 7 Potters plan was fine as they knew it. What they didn't know was the bad part of the plan - that Dumbledore planned to betray them with Snape's help. Btw, why would they tell Dung to get lost?

On the contrary, their plan worked. Harry was delivered safely to the Burrow. Voldemort identifying Harry was not part of anyone's plan, (Yes, TGW, I realize you may not agree with me!).

I agree with you about Harry's bit. Moody being killed was a risk that Dumbledore undertook though (along with the deaths of all of the other participants) - and frankly, I have no idea how he didn't see the risk of Harry being killed as well. The DEs were shooting off Avada Kedavras at him. Harry was safe by the luck of the Gods (Jo's pen :lol:), but I do not see his survival as evidence of the 7 Potters plan being a good one relative to Dumbledore's betrayal of the Order via Snape/Dung.

I hope you are not suggesting that this is my position. :sad:

No...and I certainly do not wish for you to cry. :lol:. I was speaking in general as that point has been made by several posters.

Snape was a volunteer. He knew he was being kept in the dark about some key things, Albus was quite open about that. He accepted that the reason for that was his vulnerability to the psychopath he willingly went back to as a spy. And indeed there can be no doubt his and Albus's estimate of the danger was exagegrated. It got Snape killed, in the end.

I don't agree there was a scheme about the Wand, but that is a matter for the Snape and Dumbledore thread. There was certainly a risk about which Snape was not informed, but to me that's different from a scheme to get Snape killed.

Well I tried to incorporate your view, which is the view of many. Do you at least see it as something that Dumbledore could foresee happening? The point being that no fair warning was given and it was an unbargained for betrayal not to disclose that information. Now perhaps in the case of Snape one could argue that it was bargained for because Dumbledore told him he was keeping information from him - however, Snape had made it very plain that he was wholly against being used himself in matters that pertained to him personally (DH TPT) - so I do not think we can accept his understanding that information was kept from him to further assume he meant it was okay even if it pertianed to him personally - and his death would fit into that category.

Dumbledore's plan was, ever since GoF, for Harry to live. (Before that, it would be quite unfair to say Albus planned for Harry to be killed. Harry's death was not necessary until Voldemort was back. And until Voldemort was back, I believe Albus was thinking about ways out.)

Well despite my poor election of words, that is what I meant.

Because his plan was the best he could think of to ensure Harry's survival, his use of Snape to further that plan was, IMHO, fine. Snape could not know the details for reasons of security, but Albus had his prior consent to so use him.

As I said above, I disagree that Dumbledore had Snape's consent. I think he understood Snape's anger and ademant disapproval of being used as meaning he did not consent to being 'used' for purposes that pertained to him. He agreed to be used to further purposes that might include the using of others though (i.e., Harry) - as well as to be used relative to the way he'd been used to date (participating in things that were not honoring Lily's sacrifice after all), imo.

Oh. What information do you feel that Voldemort would want or need after a skirmish took place?

It could be anything, from a general Q & A session about what the Order/Dumbledore were feeling about the battle that just happened; if something had gone wrong like Voldemort's inability to possess Harry, then did Dumbledore discuss it or what was his next plan of action now this meeting had finished; things like that. What had Snape been doing in the time the battle was happening; what Snape's disinformation to Dumbledore be.....IMO.

Yes I remember your theory. But it seems to contradict Dumbledore telling Snape that the 7 Potter's plan would ensure Harry's safety. Also, Dumbledore could not have known that Voldemort would figure out which one was the real Harry - remember that only happened because Stan was broken out of jail and imperiused and also participating. Something Dumbledore could not have planned nor foreseen happening. Nor could he have known that Harry's wand would act against Lucius' wand in the way that it did. Maybe you could explain those parts in association with your theory.

There was in some way a Harry/Voldemort meeting would have taken place IMO. That it took place because of Stan is what we saw and from then we saw the confrontation. If Harry and Voldemort did not meet at all that time, I have no doubt Dumbledore would have arranged another meeting during Bill's marriage IMO.

I think Dumbledore went with 7 Harry Potters because he could not have Voldemort reaching Harry soon after they took off; Harry would have been captured and killed. At the same time he needed a confrontation IMO and so he organised 7 Potters who would create confusion and at the same time allow for a brief meeting between Voldemort and the real Harry. Voldemort started from the toughest; Moody, then Kingsley and he would have worked his way up the ladder to eventually reach the real Harry who would have come close to Tonk's place by then; so a meeting would take place; Voldemort would find out that Harry could not be defeated by his wand or by any other wand and before he asked the other DEs to capture Harry, Harry would reach the safe house IMO.

The idea being Voldemort would systematically search for Harry Potter from the 7 Potters from the time he began the attack which was as soon as they were airborne at Privet Drive, and before they reached the safe house. One of them would be the real Potter; and Voldemort would realise the real Potter could not be killed by Voldemort even when he had a wand that was not his Phoenix and Yew wand IMO.

I think the plan was that precise; only discovering Stan, Voldemort came sooner to Harry and as a result Hedwig died and much chaos occurred IMO.

I think Dumbledore knew that no wand except the EW would work for Voldemort against Harry. Harry and Voldemort were bound together by too many things. The failed curse; the soul bit, the priori incantatem and blood transfer and Harry's victory over Voldemort in the priori incantatem. There was too much magic between them and I presume Dumbledore knew enough of both the magic and about the meaning of what such a blood transfer would mean for Harry and the Light. Based on that I think Dumbledore planned, knowing that the 7 Potters would be safe from the other DEs, for every DE had orders not to kill Potter; so they would not kill any Potter because they did not know if he was the real Potter and then they would not kill him, because he was the real Potter for Harry he was Voldemort's to kill IMO.

There is no confusion as to whether betraying your own men is "bad" and "ugly" to my mind. It is. I don't personally have a problem determining which acts fit into which category.

I agree; only I think in a war one has no choice.

The thing is, the Order members signed up to help and agreed to take risks - even risk their lives for the cause. But they did not bargain for Dumbledore and Snape's side deals and plans to work against them and betray them. The job they signed up for was already dangerous enough, and for Dumbledore to add that secondary danger without advising them was simply wrong, imo.

How can it be betrayal when every effort and every plan was to win the war? That was what the Order members signed up for and unless Dumbledore was working to lose the war, I think no action of his is a betrayal; for every action was one step closer to winning the war for the Light IMO.

But the same thing happened in 7 Potters. Sure, someone could have died anyway, but because Dumbledore through Snape double crossed the Order, the risk was greater and the potential for death nearly certain as opposed to a possibility.

In this I am alone in this whole wide forum of COS, for my theory says Dumbledore was not wrong. :D

Snape's morals were already dubious in that regard; he claimed that he only watched those die that he could not save. There is personal "judgement" associated with that statement, because Snape is reserving the right for himself to determine whether or not a person can be saved and he didn't tell us what his basis for judgement was.

In a war that has to suffice IMO. In Charity's case for example, Snape reserved the right to make the decision either to save her and allow both of them to be killed or to watch her die, keeping in mind the bigger picture. That was accepted as right by Dumbledore because Snape was loyal to the Order, and Dumbledore as the leader had full faith and absolute trust that this man would not let anyone die if he can help them live IMO.

I see it as a statement of fact, Snape felt he did all could to save people whenever possible. To say everyone must drop everything no matter what the situation is around them to save another is unrealistic in war. Whether it be a battle field or anywhere. It's not saying it's okay to let an innocent die, it's saying this is the cold, harsh and cruel truth that is war. If Snape had spoken up and tried to save Charity Burbage, both of them would have been killed. That would have accomplished nothing and would have put many others in danger in the future from Voldemort and the DE's.

Harry learnt this when he pretended to be dead coming out of the Forbidden Forest. He had to choose the right moment to make his move, even though people he cared about were being hurt around him.

I agree. :tu:

I thought that the image of Charity Burbage hanging over the table, pleading for Snape to help her while all the other Death Eaters just watched was extremely emotional. It was our first view into what life as Dumbledore's spy was really like for Snape. I got the impression that he wasn't the only Death Eater uncomfortable with what was going on. On the other hand, I think it may have been the hardest on him because she was reaching out to him and he had to turn off his emotions. I certainly have tons of issues with Dumbledore's actions and Snape's role, but I could see in that scene how successful Snape had been at fooling Voldemort. Very few people could have done it and Snape was the best there was. All in my opinion.

Plus it would have been also hard on him, because he was not a DE. If other DEs were affected by this, I can only imagine how much more Snape who was not a DE would have been affected by this scene.

One does not sacrifice morality, good faith and fair dealing for war, imo, it is common in warfare, but practised by disreputable parties, imo.

How do you define morality in a war? Where will you draw lines and how will you differentiate between a right and a wrong action.

For me there is no morality in a war. There are only actions I took because I had no choice, there are actions I had to take keeping the larger picture in mind and there are actions I will be deeply ashamed of all my life, because I took them in the heat of battle, but IMO none of those actions can be called moral or immoral. Immoral actions in a war would be to take offencive to kill civilians, bomb hospitals and kill deliberately and wantonly without reason IMO.

You know, Stan was an innocent and Harry made this same moral argument. Harry had way less standing to make it though, because Stan was attempting to kill him, innocent or not. But it is the same principle.

But Harry's victory did not come out of those moral actions. Harry's moral victory came out of many, many immoral actions and if Harry wanted a moral victory, he should have denounced these immoral actions and gone on his own. In a war I believe no action is moral.

Some here attempt to defend both Harry and Snape in their separate situations, but the only distinguishing factor is that Harry had to make a snap judgement and Snape had time for consideration. And too, Stan was attempting to kill Harry, but Charity was not attempting to kill Snape. In both situations there were others around who would cause a risk to their lives for their actions. Yet Harry acted, risking everything whereas Snape did not. From a moral standpoint, I champion Harry's act (although not his choice of spell), but I cannot champion Snape's not acting. (From a purely logical standpoint, I well understand it.)

Harry could afford to risk everything; it was not as if he would be found out to be acting for the Light; Snape on the other hand could not; Harry was not acting as a DE, Snape was, I really think there is not much comparison between the 2 situations.

On the contrary, their plan worked. Harry was delivered safely to the Burrow. Voldemort identifying Harry was not part of anyone's plan, (Yes, TGW, I realize you may not agree with me!).


:lol: Though with no one even considering my theory, I may as well switch sides. I would have only I am still in love this theory which refuses to go away from my head. :lol:

LyraLovegood and OldMotherCrow:: My theory was that the 7 Potters was organised by Dumbledore only for Voldemort to start off on the search for the Elder Wand. :D

http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=4995641&postcount=334

http://www.cosforums.com/showpost.php?p=4986049&postcount=331

And if you are interested in the replies, all of which disagreed with my posts, you can find those in the Snape and the Dumbledore thread here in Legilimency Studies, from page 17. :)

It could be anything, from a general Q & A session about what the Order/Dumbledore were feeling about the battle that just happened; if something had gone wrong like Voldemort's inability to possess Harry, then did Dumbledore discuss it or what was his next plan of action now this meeting had finished; things like that. What had Snape been doing in the time the battle was happening; what Snape's disinformation to Dumbledore be.....IMO.

Well I believe that would be the type of thing that Dumbledore would prep Snape to answer. Those are the easy questions. The hard questions would be ones that Voldemort came up with 'out of the blue'. Those he and Dumbledore did not speak about. Snape could simply say that he did not know and would find out.

There was in some way a Harry/Voldemort meeting would have taken place IMO. That it took place because of Stan is what we saw and from then we saw the confrontation. If Harry and Voldemort did not meet at all that time, I have no doubt Dumbledore would have arranged another meeting during Bill's marriage IMO.

And if that did not work, would Dumbledore go on attempting to plan meetings? Sending Voldemort after Harry while he hunted the horcruxes? What if Voldemort saw Harry with a horcrux and made more just in case?

I think Dumbledore knew that no wand except the EW would work for Voldemort against Harry. Harry and Voldemort were bound together by too many things. The failed curse; the soul bit, the priori incantatem and blood transfer and Harry's victory over Voldemort in the priori incantatem. There was too much magic between them and I presume Dumbledore knew enough of both the magic and about the meaning of what such a blood transfer would mean for Harry and the Light. Based on that I think Dumbledore planned, knowing that the 7 Potters would be safe from the other DEs, for every DE had orders not to kill Potter; so they would not kill any Potter because they did not know if he was the real Potter and then they would not kill him, because he was the real Potter for Harry he was Voldemort's to kill IMO.

But they were shooting killing curses - and a lot of them - at Harry. Apparently at all the Harrys. (7 Potters)

How can it be betrayal when every effort and every plan was to win the war? That was what the Order members signed up for and unless Dumbledore was working to lose the war, I think no action of his is a betrayal; for every action was one step closer to winning the war for the Light IMO.

I don't understand what you mean. Snape attempted to save Lupin and the Harry with him, so obviously he wasn't thinking in those terms, imo. In other words he acknowledged Dumbledore's betrayal and was attempting to mitigate some of the collateral damage. If he felt that Dumbledore's plan was perfectly sound and to be carried out with out variance he would not have done that, imo. Recall Dumbledore told him to make it look good - well Snape kept that in mind, but what he was attempting was not something that would make it look good on the whole. He should have killed Lupin and allowed George to get away - now that would make it look good. That is why I say that Snape seemed to have a greater sense of morality in the situation.

In this I am alone in this whole wide forum of COS, for my theory says Dumbledore was not wrong. :D

Well there are others who feel Dumbeldore was not wrong, they just believe it for different reasons.

In a war that has to suffice IMO. In Charity's case for example, Snape reserved the right to make the decision either to save her and allow both of them to be killed or to watch her die, keeping in mind the bigger picture. That was accepted as right by Dumbledore because Snape was loyal to the Order, and Dumbledore as the leader had full faith and absolute trust that this man would not let anyone die if he can help them live IMO.

How do you define morality in a war? Where will you draw lines and how will you differentiate between a right and a wrong action.

For me there is no morality in a war. There are only actions I took because I had no choice, there are actions I had to take keeping the larger picture in mind and there are actions I will be deeply ashamed of all my life, because I took them in the heat of battle, but IMO none of those actions can be called moral or immoral. Immoral actions in a war would be to take offencive to kill civilians, bomb hospitals and kill deliberately and wantonly without reason IMO.

Well that is how I see what Snape did; he took offensive to kill the civilian, Charity Burbage (either by his own hand or by omitting to act while Voldemort did it, the book is unclear on that.) But I do not believe she was the only one; many innocents died at Voldemort's hand, we know this - like Ted Tonks and all of those put to death at the Ministry. Plus all of those *unknown* people that died before their wizard neighbors could help them that Harry heard about on the magical radio. Snape (by and through Dumbledore's plan) did not warn the Order members or Aurors or anyone else that these things would happen - he did not make a move to raise the alarm about what was happening at Hogwarts so the troops could come in and save them. That was all done via good siders who had to get the information filtered out to the masses.

Harry, Hermione and Ron did act when they got to the Ministry and saw what was taking place. Harry did act when confronted with Stan. Neville did act to try to stop what was happening at Hogwarts; the Order members did act when they found out what was happening in Muggle neighborhoods.

That is the problem with Dumbledore's plan that he and Snape were upon. It was underhanded and disregarded all of those people, relegating them to war fodder or collateral damage - and the value of their lives was held as less in comparison to "the greater good". That is what was immoral to me - I draw the line at devaluing innocents. And as I said, Snape was the principle actor - he was right in the middle of everything while Dumbledore sat snug as a bug in a rug in his portrait. Faced with the atrocities, Snape did show a bit more sense of moral right than Dumbledore - but still, Snape allowed Dumbledore to lead him into a lot of behavior that was quite immoral, imo.

But Harry's victory did not come out of those moral actions. Harry's moral victory came out of many, many immoral actions and if Harry wanted a moral victory, he should have denounced these immoral actions and gone on his own. In a war I believe no action is moral.

But never within the scope of Harry's actions did he devalue the lives of the innocents around him. As I pointed out, in every instance he attempted to help in some way to stop the carnage. He could of course not save everyone, but he tried in every case to do so.

Harry could afford to risk everything; it was not as if he would be found out to be acting for the Light; Snape on the other hand could not; Harry was not acting as a DE, Snape was, I really think there is not much comparison between the 2 situations.

"Being found out" is not the point. That would only stand as the reason for Snape to be killed. Harry was already going to be killed - either because the DEs did not realize it was him (and they were shooting killing curses at him - see, A Fallen Warrior) or when they discovered his identify, by Voldemort. If Harry was killed, he was risking WAY more than Snape. Snape was not the chosen one; he did not know about destroying horcruxes; he did not have the capacity to be master of the hallows and he could not kill Voldemort by himself.

I am totally missing your point here. Harry had way more to lose and was risking far more than Snape when he attempted to save lives in the midst of his efforts. Snape only carried a message that Dumbledore's portrait could deliver itself - so there was much less to lose in that respect. Of course Snape's life was as valuable as Harry's - but Snape chose not to risk it, whereas Harry did. Snape had far less at risk than Harry the entire time, imo.

For me there is no morality in a war. There are only actions I took because I had no choice, there are actions I had to take keeping the larger picture in mind and there are actions I will be deeply ashamed of all my life, because I took them in the heat of battle, but IMO none of those actions can be called moral or immoral. Immoral actions in a war would be to take offencive to kill civilians, bomb hospitals and kill deliberately and wantonly without reason IMO. Excellent point! :tu:
It is very easy to take the moral high ground sitting at home safely in front of your computer, but it is a completely different matter to be forced to make life and death decisions which could have terrible repercussions if you get it wrong. I think that Jo Rowling was in the last book presenting Snape as a character who had gone through a fundamental change in his attitude towards people - this to me is the point she is making when she has Snape say "Only those I couldn't save" It is all very well to take the line out of context and get pedantic about the exact meaning of the exact wording but ultimately these words are there to show us how Snape has changed from when he came to Dumbledore on the hill, and are not there as an absolute definition of Snape's morality.

but ultimately these words are there to show us how Snape has changed from when he came to Dumbledore on the hill, and are not there as an absolute definition of Snape's morality.

I agree - but together with his behaivor and actions in DH, one can reach a more encompassing idea of Snape's morality. Snape cannot hide behind Dumbledore's skirts anymore than Wormtail can hide behind Voldemort's, imo. They were both carrying out the orders of their masters, but they did not cease to be autonomous beings.

IMHO, there is morality in war, but the situations make it so that a person sometimes has no choice. For instance, if you're on the battlefield, and an enemy soldier aims a gun at you, it's still wrong to kill him. However, you must, or you will die. I think Snape was in a slightly similar situation: it is and always will be wrong to stand by and watch someone be killed without helping them. But he cannot be blamed for, say, what he did in Ch. 1 of DH. Snape had to make a very difficult and very serious choice, between attempting to save one life, and destroying many others, and allowing one life to end so that he could continue spying (thereby saving lives).
He had no right choices. It was, morally, a lose-lose situation, and he chose the lesser of two evils.

Perhaps this is moving off topic...but most systems of ethical thought with which I am familiar include a duty to oneself. (This is why suicide, for example, is outright not permitted, or at least frowned upon and circumscribed, by many such systems). So persoanally, I would not agree that "it is and always will be wrong to stand by and watch someone be killed without helping them". I would say this is only true if

1) you are the only person who can help (if I see an armed criminal attack someone and there is a policeman present who I expect will intervene...I would not consider myself to blame for staying out of it, s/he is betetr trained and prepared to deal with the emergency).
2) you really CAN help (someone who cannot swim is surely not obligated to leap into deep water to try and save a drowing person!)
3) helping does not endanger others/yourself.

Snape's situation with Charity meets only the first test, in my opinion. He knew no one else would consider trying to help her in some way, and of those present, he may well have been the best able to help. But I disagree he could have helped her, and I am convinced any meaningful attempt at help would, in addition to failing, have endangered him and others.

They were both carrying out the orders of their masters, but they did not cease to be autonomous beings.

I completely agree. And unlike Peter, Snape in my view acted autonomously, agreeing to carry out Dumledore's orders only to the extent he found them worthy. We see this in "The Prince's Tale". He agrees immediately and without argument with certain requests (like agreeing to protect the students of Hogwarts), I believe because he agrees with the need/goodness of those requests. He himself makes plans independently because they seem right to him (such as his decision to return to Voldemort - Albus did not order him back, Albus asked him what he intended.) And he disagrees and argues against plans he finds objectionable (such as killing Dumbledore). This plan he agrees to, but Albus needs to persuade him of the merit of the plan (which he does by portraying it as an act of mercy. Since I believe Snape had seen things like the death of Charity before...I have no trouble believing he found this argument persuasive). Finally, he simply does not carry out orders and suggestions with which he disagrees. Told to act his part convincingly in the 7 Potters, Snape opts to try and save Lupin, and ends up obeying Albus only by the acidental injury to George.

And if that did not work, would Dumbledore go on attempting to plan meetings? Sending Voldemort after Harry while he hunted the horcruxes? What if Voldemort saw Harry with a horcrux and made more just in case?

Well Dumbledore would have had to do it, before Harry started off on his horcrux hunting; after that Harry was not available IMO.

But assuming for a moment that the 7 Potters happened for the reasons stated on page, then how and more importantly why would Voldmeort start his search for the EW?

He started his search, which became an obssession because neither his wand nor any random wand worked against Harry's. If Dumbledore had not intended for Harry and Voldemort to meet, Voldemort would have simply continued with using Lucius's wand or he would ahve had another wand made for him; for there would be no reason for him to even seek out another wand which will not react to a magical bond between 2 enemies.

The next meeting between Harry and Voldemort was at the Forest; Harry, even though he lost his wand, he still had the magic bond with Voldmeort which would be chanelised through a wand he had won and so worked well for him and that would not have allowed him to die and it would have rebelled against Voldemort and would have blasted him back like it happened in the 7 Potters; that time Harry being alone would have been killed by the other DEs and Snape being dead would not be able to help him either IMO.

That is why I say that Snape seemed to have a greater sense of morality in the situation.

This is not a sense of greater or lesser morality; IMO this was what Snape meant when he said "lately only those I cannot save". In Charity's case, Snape could not save her. Here Snape found he could help Lupin without harming the bigger picture and so he did IMO.

Of course Snape's life was as valuable as Harry's - but Snape chose not to risk it, whereas Harry did.

I don't understand. In what way did Snape choose not to risk his life? I thought Snape was risking his life every time he went to Voldmeort and told him lies for Harry and the Light IMO.

Perhaps this is moving off topic...but most systems of ethical thought with which I am familiar include a duty to oneself. (This is why suicide, for example, is outright not permitted, or at least frowned upon and circumscribed, by many such systems). So persoanally, I would not agree that "it is and always will be wrong to stand by and watch someone be killed without helping them". I would say this is only true if

1) you are the only person who can help (if I see an armed criminal attack someone and there is a policeman present who I expect will intervene...I would not consider myself to blame for staying out of it, s/he is betetr trained and prepared to deal with the emergency).
2) you really CAN help (someone who cannot swim is surely not obligated to leap into deep water to try and save a drowing person!)
3) helping does not endanger others/yourself.

Snape's situation with Charity meets only the first test, in my opinion. He knew no one else would consider trying to help her in some way, and of those present, he may well have been the best able to help. But I disagree he could have helped her, and I am convinced any meaningful attempt at help would, in addition to failing, have endangered him and others.


Well your argument is a highly respected example of one side of the discussion. The other side, also highly respected, feels that in situations 2 and 3, you will play the hero and act. Naturally acting does not mean jumping into water and drowning, but getting a stick for the victim to hold onto. Similarly, Snape acting would not mean jumping up on the table and cutting Charity loose :lol:. He would have to figure out the best means of attempting to help her in that situation - rather than just watching her die.

But again, it is just two sides to a largely discussed issue - on an international scale. I should not imagine we could come to a ready compromise type conclusion if they have not. It is just one of those issues in which people are always going to take an opposite view. Both are respectable, imo. :tu: (And as I have noted, JKR gave props to both views in the series using primarily Snape and Harry, but others as well.)

I completely agree. And unlike Peter, Snape in my view acted autonomously, agreeing to carry out Dumledore's orders only to the extent he found them worthy. We see this in "The Prince's Tale". He agrees immediately and without argument with certain requests (like agreeing to protect the students of Hogwarts), I believe because he agrees with the need/goodness of those requests. He himself makes plans independently because they seem right to him (such as his decision to return to Voldemort - Albus did not order him back, Albus asked him what he intended.) And he disagrees and argues against plans he finds objectionable (such as killing Dumbledore). This plan he agrees to, but Albus needs to persuade him of the merit of the plan (which he does by portraying it as an act of mercy. Since I believe Snape had seen things like the death of Charity before...I have no trouble believing he found this argument persuasive). Finally, he simply does not carry out orders and suggestions with which he disagrees. Told to act his part convincingly in the 7 Potters, Snape opts to try and save Lupin, and ends up obeying Albus only by the acidental injury to George.

Yup - I have said about 5 times throughout this discussion that I felt Snape acted with a greater moral sense than Dumbledore overall, imo. Some of his actions did not meet the moral standard I would expect of a goodsider, but he exceeded Dumbledore in that regard for sure, imo.

I don't understand. In what way did Snape choose not to risk his life? I thought Snape was risking his life every time he went to Voldmeort and told him lies for Harry and the Light IMO.

I was referring to their respective situations with Charity and Stan.

IMO, sometimes the best move in war is the more effective. It's not always a case of being noble or nice. If Snape had leapt onto the table and tried to free Charity, they would both be killed, the Order would lose a valuable ally, and Harry would never learn the key to killing Voldemort. No good would come of it.

Harry learns this lesson at the end of DH. It would have a been a sweet move if he had stopped pretending to be dead and plucked the burning Sorting Hat off of Neville's face. But, IMO, he knew that it was more important in the big picture to stay still and help Neville and his friends when it was most likely to be effective.

IMO, sometimes the best move in war is the more effective. It's not always a case of being noble or nice. If Snape had leapt onto the table and tried to free Charity, they would both be killed, the Order would lose a valuable ally, and Harry would never learn the key to killing Voldemort. No good would come of it.

The portrait could tell Harry. I think nobility is important, even in war (although being nice goes too far :lol:). But we just disagree on that issue (although I wouldn't suggest Snape leap onto the table and free Charity. There were better means). Nonetheless, there is no right or wrong answer here, imo - both sides of the argument have merit. ;)

Harry learns this lesson at the end of DH. It would have a been a sweet move if he had stopped pretending to be dead and plucked the burning Sorting Hat off of Neville's face. But, IMO, he knew that it was more important in the big picture to stay still and help Neville and his friends when it was most likely to be effective.

Not a life or death moment - but note that in the life and death moment, Harry threw up a shield charm in front of Neville, despite still in hiding himself and despite the fact that someone could have figured that out and blown his cover (as unlikely as that might have been).

Though the questions are similar- The two situations are not really comparable.

Neville was in front of a crowd of allies faced by enemies on the battlefield during a time of relative confusion. The shield charm was a complement to the magic that was already taking a hold via Harry's sacrifice and the destruction of the Horcruxes.

Charity was alone in a room full of Death Eaters while Voldy was at the height of his powers. I think The Dark Lord might have noticed if a shield charm was thrown up in the middle of the room while he was trying to kill a defenseless victim. :)

Though the questions are similar- The two situations are not really comparable.

Neville was in front of a crowd of allies faced by enemies on the battlefield during a time of relative confusion. The shield charm was a complement to the magic that was already taking a hold via Harry's sacrifice and the destruction of the Horcruxes.

Charity was alone in a room full of Death Eaters while Voldy was at the height of his powers. I think The Dark Lord might have noticed if a shield charm was thrown up in the middle of the room while he was trying to kill a defenseless victim. :)

Well the point was to act or not to act - not the amount of risk taken by the act. I already gave an example where Harry took more risk in doing the same thing (Stan), moreover he did it more times throughout DH as well (Draco in the ROR, the Muggles in the MOM, etc.)

It isn't about risk, because each time Harry risked his life, unlike Snape, he risked the entire mission - it was solely and wholly dependent on his remaining alive in its current form. He knew that much early on. That is not to degrade Snape or Kingsley or anyone else's jobs, which were also important - but their deaths would not risk nearly as much.

So I agree that Snape would be taking a great risk in acting (in any way) at the time he did; but that is not the point. The point is that he had a choice to act or not act, and he chose not to act. Harry, faced with that same choice, time and time again, chose to act. JKR simply showed the two sides of this debate and she showed them both in a manner which could be justified as the correct way to handle the situation, imo.

But again, it is just two sides to a largely discussed issue - on an international scale. I should not imagine we could come to a ready compromise type conclusion if they have not. It is just one of those issues in which people are always going to take an opposite view. Both are respectable, imo. :tu: (And as I have noted, JKR gave props to both views in the series using primarily Snape and Harry, but others as well.)



Good point. I can only give my personal view on the matter, that Snape's failure to aid Charity Burbage was neither moral nor immoral, but amoral in those difficult circumstances.

But it gets very complicated. I think wickedwickedboy had a good point earlier about Snape no longer being the useful spy feeding information to the Order in order to thwart Voldemort's plans. The 7 Potters betrayal strikes me as both immoral and irresponsible, because Snape (and the portrait) is no longer privy to the inner workings of the Order, and has no idea what kind of damage the deaths and seeds of discord will cause to whatever operations the Order has come up with since Dumbledore died.

So, given that Snape is no longer using the information he gains to help the good guys, what is it that makes Snape and Dumbledore believe Snape is the most important element in the resistance, and all others-- including the Horcrux hunters-- should be sacrificed if it is deemed necessary? I probably haven't phrased this very well, and I apologise because I'm not trying to be belligerent or stir up trouble. I just honestly don't understand what the plot was, or why Snape keeping his position with Voldemort was so much more important than anything or anyone else.

This brings me to The Green Woods' thoughts on the Elder Wand (thank you for explaining your theory!). My daughter was actually telling me today that she thought Dumbledore wanted Voldemort to have the wand, because she found it suspicious that Dumbledore would just leave his wand in his tomb unprotected-- a very compelling argument for the theory, in my opinion. Unfortunately, there are also a lot of holes in the theory, but no more than in any other explanation of the Elder Wand plot that I know of. I've actually always wondered if Dumbledore had planned for Snape to become the master of the wand so that Snape could use it to kill off Voldemort once Harry was dead. If that were so, I still think that the 7 Potters was immoral and irresponsible for the same reason (it wasn't an informed plan), but at least I would then understand why Snape was considered more important than anything or anyone else. Of course, there are also huge holes in the Snape-was-supposed-to-end-up-with-the-Elder-Wand theory, so I might remain forever confused. I'm not sure my brain is capable of untangling the various plot threads into an order that makes sense to me. :(

So, given that Snape is no longer using the information he gains to help the good guys, what is it that makes Snape and Dumbledore believe Snape is the most important element in the resistance, and all others-- including the Horcrux hunters-- should be sacrificed if it is deemed necessary? I probably haven't phrased this very well, and I apologise because I'm not trying to be belligerent or stir up trouble. I just honestly don't understand what the plot was, or why Snape keeping his position with Voldemort was so much more important than anything or anyone else.

Snape was the most important element in the resistence; he had to stay alive; stay free and above suspicion (the reason Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him) until Snape could give Harry the message about the soul bit inside him. No one else knew this, except Snape, and unless Snape passed this on to Harry, Voldemort would never be vanquished.

And Snape had also to hold the EW untill he could give it to Voldemort. The EW would then do two things; one it would defeat the bonds of magic and Lily's protection which were between Voldemort and Harry and kill Harry. Since Voldemort who also had Lily's blood was alive, Harry would not die; instead it would take the only thing in Harry's body which was not protected by Lily's blood, because it was not a part of Harry; Voldmeort's soul bit IMO.

For these 2 actions which were very, very important for the war to end and end in a victory for the Light, Snape was the most important person IMO.

This brings me to The Green Woods' thoughts on the Elder Wand (thank you for explaining your theory!).

You are welcome; I enjoy talking about it and indeed enjoy talking about Snape. :D

My daughter was actually telling me today that she thought Dumbledore wanted Voldemort to have the wand, because she found it suspicious that Dumbledore would just leave his wand in his tomb unprotected-- a very compelling argument for the theory, in my opinion.

That is a very good point; Dumbledore wanted Voldemort to have that wand. Facing Harry with a wand that will not work for him, was Dumbledore's plan. Harry could meet Voldmeort on equal grounds then, for Voldemort would have been at a disadvantage. That Harry somehow became the Master of the EW was a plus Dumbledore had not forseen IMO.

I've actually always wondered if Dumbledore had planned for Snape to become the master of the wand so that Snape could use it to kill off Voldemort once Harry was dead.

I think Dumbledore chose Snape to become the Master of the EW because he was the only Order member in a position to hand the wand at the right time (when Nagini was in a protective cage) to Voldemort. No one else could do this IMO.

Plus Snape was the only one who had that awesome something in him IMO, who was even willing to take on the name of murderer, traitor, betrayer and contempt from his colleagues, the Order and the WW so that the Light may benefit. I cannot see any Order member willing to kill Dumbeldore and become the most hated person in the WW next only to Voldemort and even more hated than Bellatrix and remain so until the war was finally over IMO.

Snape was really the bravest man Harry had ever known IMO.

If that were so, I still think that the 7 Potters was immoral and irresponsible for the same reason (it wasn't an informed plan), but at least I would then understand why Snape was considered more important than anything or anyone else. Of course, there are also huge holes in the Snape-was-supposed-to-end-up-with-the-Elder-Wand theory, so I might remain forever confused. I'm not sure my brain is capable of untangling the various plot threads into an order that makes sense to me. :(

Dumbledore making Snape the Master of the EW was sure to end in a death of Snape IMO. But the 7 Potters was not an excersice that would only result in death. It ws IMO an undertaking which would help Harry win the war. In that light immorality of that action is removed. Information is necessary when one is sure to die because of an action instigated by the leader. Making Snape the master of the EW was one such action, which I believe was not informed and I believe it should have been.

Here in the 7 Potters, it was like any other exercise Dumbledore planned for the Order in the war, so that it would take them closer to victory. The point was did those 14 men and women trust Dung's plan enough to carry it off? Yes they did. They knew it was risky; they knew they could lose their lives and they were prepared for that IMO.

The were not prepared for the betrayal which was organised by Dumbledore; that IMO that was a secretive operation meant for far reaching results, on which depended the outcome of the war itself IMO. In that light the betrayal of Dumbledore through Snape beomes yet another strategy in the war operations for victory IMO.

The 7 Potters betrayal strikes me as both immoral and irresponsible, because Snape (and the portrait) is no longer privy to the inner workings of the Order, and has no idea what kind of damage the deaths and seeds of discord will cause to whatever operations the Order has come up with since Dumbledore died.

Here is how I see it.

Voldemort knows the indentity of a "source" Snape has in the Order.

"Good. Very good. And this information comes - "
"from the source we discussed," said Snape.

This makes "I don't know" a useless answer. Voldemort can go to the source and get the information himself. It makes a lie , the other option other than the truth, deadly, to Snape, and to Harry/the world's hopes. If Voldemort knows for a fact that he has read Snape's mind and believed his statements and one of those statements is a lie, Snape is toast. Further, Voldemort will discover everything Albus has ever told Snape about anything before he finishes him off, a la Bertha Jorkins. This would, most notably, include the scene in which Snape sees Voldemort's destroyed Ring Horcrux lying on Albus's desk, moving up Voldemort's moment of discovery of what Albus and Harry were up to by what, 8 or 10 months?

Further, it is possible Voldemort has the house under observation. He can have someone looking out for suspicious activity and that someone can summon the Death Eaters instantly with the Dark Mark. Which would result in substabtially the same outcome we saw. And the Order is so oblivious to this possibility Snape cannot protect them from, that they have adopted a -plan that is likely to get a lot of them killed.

So instead Snape reveals the date, covering himself without giving away anything vital Voldemort could not get himself, AND suggests to the order a far better, safer plan than they had (7 Potters). It's not immoral, it's smart and it saves lives. As I see it, anyway.

So instead Snape reveals the date, covering himself without giving away anything vital Voldemort could not get himself, AND suggests to the order a far better, safer plan than they had (7 Potters). It's not immoral, it's smart and it saves lives. As I see it, anyway.

I don't understand this point zg. How does it save lives?

Remember, only that morning (I think) the Dursleys left Privet Drive, without a problem. If Dumbledore really did not want Harry and Voldemort to meet, he could have had Harry leave that morning in secret with the Dursleys and still make 6 Potters instead of 7 IMO. And even if Voldemort had come, they could have carried it off; this way Snape is safe; Harry is safe and the Order is also mostly safe IMO. But this way Harry would not have met Voldmeort and Voldemort would not have searched for the EW. :D

It saves lives compared to the actual plan the Order was going to implement. If the Order had all been together in a clump with only one Harry among them when they were surprised by DEs and Voldemort, more of them would have been killed, since Voldemort was totally happy to see Harry's friends die at DE hands, and the same confrontation with Harry would have taken place for sure (rather than simply because Harry used his signature move and a smart DE figured out he was the real one).

I think considering other EVEN better plans that the Order's or Dumbldore's, does not prove malicious intent by anyone. And my view is that we are Muggles - there could be excellent reasons why the plans we suggest would not work that we don;t even know about. I can think of ways yours may not work (in secret how?), but I also think analyzing all possible such plans is sort of pointless. Even if we do come up with one we both agree is superior, we cannot conclude Rowling also knew about it and deliberately decided Albus would not suggest it because he wanted Harry and Voldemort to fight each other. It could also just mean Rowling is simply less clever or more lazy than we are. ;)

It saves lives compared to the actual plan the Order was going to implement. If the Order had all been together in a clump with only one Harry among them when they were surprised by DEs and Voldemort, more of them would have been killed, since Voldemort was totally happy to see Harry's friends die at DE hands,

Okay! I understand. :)

(in secret how?),

Disillusioned at the back of the car, if they meant to drive off; polyjuiced as a randon muggle and take a bus to London (GP) or even Tonks's safe house accompanied by a couple of polyjuiced order members who come for protection....

but I also think analyzing all possible such plans is sort of pointless. Even if we do come up with one we both agree is superior, we cannot conclude Rowling also knew about it and deliberately decided Albus would not suggest it because he wanted Harry and Voldemort to fight each other. It could also just mean Rowling is simply less clever or more lazy than we are. ;)

:lol:

Disillusioned at the back of the car, if they meant to drive off; polyjuiced as a randon muggle and take a bus to London (GP) or even Tonks's safe house accompanied by a couple of polyjuiced order members who come for protection....Firstly Voldemort wasn't after the Dursleys - he was quite happy to let them leave unmolested as long as Harry wasn't with them. Secondly I don't think a disillusionment charm or polyjuice would have fooled Voldemort and the Death Eaters - they would have had no qualms about killing the Dursley family or some random muggle if there was the slightest chance they were Harry Potter. I think the plan as it was was a good one and made for exciting reading.

Snape was the most important element in the resistence; he had to stay alive; stay free and above suspicion (the reason Dumbledore asked Snape to kill him) until Snape could give Harry the message about the soul bit inside him. No one else knew this, except Snape, and unless Snape passed this on to Harry, Voldemort would never be vanquished.

But why Snape? Why must Snape be the one to carry this message? The only reason he is the only one who knows is because he is the only one whom Dumbledore told. How could he even be expected to deliver this message to someone whose whereabouts he doesn't know, and who considers him a mortal enemy? Plus, he only needs to deliver the message if a very specific set of circumstances comes to pass, which quite possibly would never happen. Dumbledore could have chosen a different messanger, he just didn't. The whole unlikelihood of the plan was shown when Snape is bleeding out and Harry comes along at just the right moment. It is accomplished only by pure luck.

Why squander Snape's excellent position as a spy in order to keep him safe to be a messanger boy? Snape's no longer passing useful information on to the Good Guys, so whatever he's up to has to be more vital than what is being lost.

And Snape had also to hold the EW untill he could give it to Voldemort. The EW would then do two things; one it would defeat the bonds of magic and Lily's protection which were between Voldemort and Harry and kill Harry. Since Voldemort who also had Lily's blood was alive, Harry would not die; instead it would take the only thing in Harry's body which was not protected by Lily's blood, because it was not a part of Harry; Voldemort's soul bit IMO.

For these 2 actions which were very, very important for the war to end and end in a victory for the Light, Snape was the most important person IMO.

I don't know. It does all come back to the Elder Wand, because the Elder Wand plot and the Messanger Boy plot were always at odds. The Elder Wand plot drew a big target on Snape, and did get him killed. It was only by pure luck that he got the message to Harry. Since I can't see Snape being the Messenger Boy as vital, that leads me to think the Elder Wand was what was really important. Is there a thread to discuss the Elder Wand plot in more detail somewhere?


That is a very good point; Dumbledore wanted Voldemort to have that wand. Facing Harry with a wand that will not work for him, was Dumbledore's plan. Harry could meet Voldmeort on equal grounds then, for Voldemort would have been at a disadvantage. That Harry somehow became the Master of the EW was a plus Dumbledore had not forseen IMO.

I'm still not sure what that would gain, though. Voldemort realizes that he is not the master of the wand, and complains that the wand doesn't do extraordinary magic right before he kills Snape. Timing is everything, and I don't see how Dumbledore could control the timing. Voldemort has the wand for some time before killing Snape. It seems a risky plan for so little gain.

I think Dumbledore chose Snape to become the Master of the EW because he was the only Order member in a position to hand the wand at the right time (when Nagini was in a protective cage) to Voldemort. No one else could do this IMO.

Your plot is confusing me now :) Do you mean that Snape would be the master of the wand, and hand it over to Voldemort who wasn't supposed to realize this (because if Snape was the master, killing him had a good chance of turning Voldemort into the master, and why give a madman an ultra-powerful wand; or do you mean Voldemort would just think Snape was the master, but he really wasn't? I'm going to have to go back and read your theory was better attention, I think :lol: or, again, if there is a better thread for this I would be interested in discussing it there!

Plus Snape was the only one who had that awesome something in him IMO, who was even willing to take on the name of murderer, traitor, betrayer and contempt from his colleagues, the Order and the WW so that the Light may benefit. I cannot see any Order member willing to kill Dumbeldore and become the most hated person in the WW next only to Voldemort and even more hated than Bellatrix and remain so until the war was finally over IMO.

He was willing to do so, but again why? Specifically, what did Snape himself think he was accomplishing? He was no longer a useful spy for the Order, so why did he think that the mission he was on was more vital than Order lives or Order plans? Did he understand Dumbledore's plan, and what he was doing? Was he wrong? I'm curious to know what was going on in Snape's head while he was carrying out these missions.

They were not prepared for the betrayal which was organised by Dumbledore; that IMO that was a secretive operation meant for far reaching results, on which depended the outcome of the war itself IMO. In that light the betrayal of Dumbledore through Snape beomes yet another strategy in the war operations for victory IMO.

I think I understand you to mean that you believe the betrayal was orchestrated for the purpose of Harry and Voldemort confronting each other, thus it was a necessary action in the war effort.

I can't say I agree with you (for various reasons), but I think I do understand where you are coming from. Your theory does give a purpose to the betrayal beyond simply protecting Snape's position.

Here is how I see it.

Voldemort knows the indentity of a "source" Snape has in the Order.

Possibly. But what this source is, is never explained. Why allow the source to continue operating if it is such a threat? Snape could remove the source from the picture, or, if he had still been a useful spy to the Order, let them know who was a danger to them. Why let the Order be destroyed through betrayal? Why leave this source in place to do more damage? It all comes back to the idea that Snape is far more important than any of them or their efforts to destroy Voldemort and what Voldemort stands for. I'm trying to get at the heart of why Snape thought this.

.... it is possible Voldemort has the house under observation. He can have someone looking out for suspicious activity and that someone can summon the Death Eaters instantly with the Dark Mark. Which would result in substabtially the same outcome we saw. And the Order is so oblivious to this possibility Snape cannot protect them from, that they have adopted a -plan that is likely to get a lot of them killed.

Moody mentions the probability of lookouts, so that's not something the Order didn't think of. It is likely that with only lookouts, the 7 Potters would have already split up and been flying away before the Death Eaters could scramble. The lookouts would have had to pick one or two sets to follow, and as the Order revealed, Moody assumed the Death Eaters would pick him or another tough Auror as the most likely escort for Harry. So the Death Eaters would have likely chased the wrong groups, and because the other groups could get away safely without Death Eaters trying to kill them, the groups that were being chased had the option of Apparating out if necessary.

But that only works if the time hasn't been betrayed, and there isn't an army of Death eaters waiting at the ready. There is nothing wrong with the 7 Potters plan as long as the time has not been betrayed. Any other reasonable plan would have worked also. But only if the time had not have been betrayed.

It saves lives compared to the actual plan the Order was going to implement. If the Order had all been together in a clump with only one Harry among them when they were surprised by DEs and Voldemort, more of them would have been killed, since Voldemort was totally happy to see Harry's friends die at DE hands, and the same confrontation with Harry would have taken place for sure (rather than simply because Harry used his signature move and a smart DE figured out he was the real one).


I still have no idea what canon you are basing the idea that the Order had a "bad" plan on. As far as we know, they had no plan at all and then Mundungus suggested his. There is no canon that they switched plans, to my memory. I realize it supports the idea that Dumbledore had to act, but I don't think furnishing Dumbledore with excuses for his behavior (at the expense of the Order members) is fair. Especially when Dumbledore stated his reason was merely to keep Snape in good standing with Voldemort, not to ensure there was a better plan because the Order was bungling things.

But why Snape? Why must Snape be the one to carry this message? The only reason he is the only one who knows is because he is the only one whom Dumbledore told. How could he even be expected to deliver this message to someone whose whereabouts he doesn't know, and who considers him a mortal enemy? Plus, he only needs to deliver the message if a very specific set of circumstances comes to pass, which quite possibly would never happen.

If you accept that the circumstances were important for Albus, you also have your answer to "Why Snape?" No other Order member would be in a position to know that Voldemort has started to take special care of his pet snake.

Why squander Snape's excellent position as a spy in order to keep him safe to be a messanger boy? Snape's no longer passing useful information on to the Good Guys, so whatever he's up to has to be more vital than what is being lost.

Snape is still passing information on to Dumbledore. Whatever the Order was up to, Dumbledore believed that the war would be won by Harry via the Horcrux destruction mission. And Snape was Albus's means to support that mission. Snape did more to win the war in DH (by acting as Dumbledore's spy and errand boy) than any other adult character of the series - he provided the means to destroy a Horcrux to Harry, in addition to passing on the message. I disagree this would be less useful than reporting stuff to Moody, or whoever, in the Order. It did not seem they were up to much other than staying alive, providing alternative news to the populace, and awaiting an opportunity to do more.

Since I can't see Snape being the Messenger Boy as vital, that leads me to think the Elder Wand was what was really important. Is there a thread to discuss the Elder Wand plot in more detail somewhere?

We've been discussing it on the LS thread for joint character analysis of Albus and Snape. :)

Snape is still passing information on to Dumbledore. Whatever the Order was up to, Dumbledore believed that the war would be won by Harry via the Horcrux destruction mission. And Snape was Albus's means to support that mission. Snape did more to win the war in DH (by acting as Dumbledore's spy and errand boy) than any other adult character of the series - he provided the means to destroy a Horcrux to Harry, in addition to passing on the message. I disagree this would be less useful than reporting stuff to Moody, or whoever, in the Order. It did not seem they were up to much other than staying alive, providing alternative news to the populace, and awaiting an opportunity to do more.

Perhaps that is adequate storytelling if one has a great amount of appreciation for Snape. The fact that you left out a large portion of the relative to what we know the Order members did, makes it quite impossible for me to accept this version of the canon. For example, Kingsley was protecting the Muggle Minister AND bringing news to other Order members about the Ministry - which resulted in his being able to alert Harry himself to danger ahead of time. Plus he was involved in the little plots the Order members came up with besides AND he was an Auror. In another example, the Order members were not only giving alternative information, but directions as well, such as means and ways for wizards to protect their Muggle neighbors.

Our focus cannot remain glued to the Lupins, Moody or the Weasleys as Order members because they were all specifically targeted and hunted to the ground or killed. But they still managed to do what they could. Nonetheless, there were many other Order members, like Kingsley, who were not sitting around twiddling their thumbs. In addition, there were Aurors and those who were not in Voldemort's pocket, I doubt were sitting around drooling either.

The idea that Snape was alone running around like a chicken with his head cut off working for the cause, while everyone else kicked back and smoked cigars on the porch, I feel, is highly disrespectful to all of the other characters in the book. Especially in light of the fact that apart from about 2 hours time, we didn't see Snape doing anything and I could as easily claim he sat around twiddling his thumbs for the most part.

"Snape did more to win the war in DH (by acting as Dumbledore's spy and errand boy) than any other adult character of the series" of course includes the trio - but perhaps you considered them children still since they were for the most part throughout the series. If by some chance you are including them, then I would have to say you are in contradition with the canon in that respect as well. Further, since you, nor I have any idea all of what Snape did - or any other character, I cannot see how you could reach such an outstanding conclusion. You named all of two acts of Snape, and I will add another - he was Headmaster and was able to provide a little assistance in that regard. But apart from those three things and 7 Potters, what else did he do that was so overwhelmingly important that you are not using speculation to support? I gave you four things for Kingsley as well and while I respect your right to place value judgments on the work that people did for the cause (including the trio), I think that conclusion, stated as fact, is entirely erroneous.

Possibly. But what this source is, is never explained. Why allow the source to continue operating if it is such a threat?

We are, I presume, talking about a person. Causing a person to cease operating has less pretty names. ;) My own theory is that the person is Dung, and that Voldemort knew of him well before Albus died, so it is not that Snape and Albus were valuing their access to this source over anything in particular, but that this source was a loose end from before that they were managing in this one instance and would have found some way to deal with over the long haul. (If I am right about the identity of the source, the problem solved itself.)

Why let the Order be destroyed through betrayal?

It wasn't. The Order as a force to do whatever it decided it ought to do, continued to exist as an effective organization after 7 Potters. They lost Moody (to death), and an unreliable member to desertion (Dung) in that raid.

Moody mentions the probability of lookouts, so that's not something the Order didn't think of. It is likely that with only lookouts, the 7 Potters would have already split up and been flying away before the Death Eaters could scramble.

The 7 Potters was Albus's plan, NOT Moody's. Moody mentioned the possibility of lookouts, yes, but until Dung suggested polyjuice, Moody planned for thr Order to fly with Harry as a single massed group. Whether this was because he originally did not think of lookouts, or because he is a lousy tatical thinker compared to Albus, I could not say. That there was a late change to the plan is mentioned in that chapter, and Dung is credited with suggesting it.

The 7 Potters was Albus's plan, NOT Moody's. Moody mentioned the possibility of lookouts, yes, but until Dung suggested polyjuice, Moody planned for thr Order to fly with Harry as a single massed group. Whether this was because he originally did not think of lookouts, or because he is a lousy tatical thinker compared to Albus, I could not say. That there was a late change to the plan is mentioned in that chapter, and Dung is credited with suggesting it.


Do you have canon for Moody's original plan? What chapter are you referring to? The canon I see says that Moody felt they had to abandon "Plan A" because Thicknesse went over to the other side and no magic could be done at Privet Drive - not because Dung offered a better plan. Is that what you are referring to? There was no talk of all of them flying out together until Harry raised it as a poor suggestion.

If you accept that the circumstances were important for Albus, you also have your answer to "Why Snape?" No other Order member would be in a position to know that Voldemort has started to take special care of his pet snake.

I don't understand why Voldemort taking special care of his snake is all that important. What looks important to me is that all the Horcruxes are destroyed. Harry is the accidental Horcrux, so he must die if Voldemort is to be killed. Dumbledore could have set up Harry with a special contact who could have kept track of how many Horcruxes had been destroyed and told Harry the truth once it was the right time. As for the snake, Voldemort might have never discovered his Horcruxes were being destroyed, so never started protecting her. Or he might have discovered the danger before very many were destroyed. Or Nagini might have been killed at Godric's Hollow, and so much for the snake. I just don't see what's so vital about timing this to the snake, or how Snape was even supposed to get this information to Harry.

Snape is still passing information on to Dumbledore. Whatever the Order was up to, Dumbledore believed that the war would be won by Harry via the Horcrux destruction mission. And Snape was Albus's means to support that mission. Snape did more to win the war in DH (by acting as Dumbledore's spy and errand boy) than any other adult character of the series - he provided the means to destroy a Horcrux to Harry, in addition to passing on the message. I disagree this would be less useful than reporting stuff to Moody, or whoever, in the Order. It did not seem they were up to much other than staying alive, providing alternative news to the populace, and awaiting an opportunity to do more.

Again, Snape is only being a messenger. The sword could have been delivered before the ministry fell if Dumbledore had filled someone in to the need. So it wasn't a job that only Snape could have undertaken (in fact, again he only manages it through luck!), anymore than telling Harry he was a Horcrux was. I just can't see the placing Snape in the messenger role as so vital it warrants helping to destroy the Order.

As for Snape passing information on to Dumbledore, what he was actually doing was passing information on to the portrait of a dead man. It is possible that Snape at least at first thought this was the same thing, and was so used to taking orders from Dumbledore that he just didn't consider that Dumbledore was no longer leader of the Order. That seems really weird to me.

We've been discussing it on the LS thread for joint character analysis of Albus and Snape. :)

Thanks! It sounds interesting, and I'll take a look at it when I've got extra time (which might not be until next week, unfortunately).

The idea that Snape was alone running around like a chicken with his head cut off working for the cause, while everyone else kicked back and smoked cigars on the porch, I feel, is highly disrespectful to all of the other characters in the book.

And I agree. Loads of people fought against Voldemort in many ways. Many of them made a tremendous difference in the fight against Voldemort, and sometimes paid dearly for their efforts. Snape isn't better than anyone else.

The way I worded my question might have brought this about. Sorry. It wasn't meant to be a contest where Snape has to come out the winner 'cause he's so awesome!!!!! and every one else is a loser!!! I just want to know why Dumbledore and Snape thought he was so much more vital than everyone else. It is really hard to word that question in a manner that focuses on what I mean, I guess :(

I don't understand why Voldemort taking special care of his snake is all that important. What looks important to me is that all the Horcruxes are destroyed. Harry is the accidental Horcrux, so he must die if Voldemort is to be killed. Dumbledore could have set up Harry with a special contact who could have kept track of how many Horcruxes had been destroyed and told Harry the truth once it was the right time. As for the snake, Voldemort might have never discovered his Horcruxes were being destroyed, so never started protecting her. Or he might have discovered the danger before very many were destroyed. Or Nagini might have been killed at Godric's Hollow, and so much for the snake. I just don't see what's so vital about timing this to the snake, or how Snape was even supposed to get this information to Harry.

Well it was my understanding that JKR intended for the protection of the snake to signal the fact that all of the Horcruxes except him were destroyed. She did not take into account that the snake might be destroyed prior to that time because she had no intent to write his destruction. :lol:. But deep analysis of the situation would bring that fact to light of course.

And I agree. Loads of people fought against Voldemort in many ways. Many of them made a tremendous difference in the fight against Voldemort, and sometimes paid dearly for their efforts. Snape isn't better than anyone else.

The way I worded my question might have brought this about. Sorry. It wasn't meant to be a contest where Snape has to come out the winner 'cause he's so awesome!!!!! and every one else is a loser!!! I just want to know why Dumbledore and Snape thought he was so much more vital than everyone else. It is really hard to word that question in a manner that focuses on what I mean, I guess :(

I knew exactly what you meant, I did not feel you were implying that. I was responding to what Zg said.

To me, Snape's acts were not to relegate him to the most important actor on the good side in DH. All JKR was doing was showing that his acts were important also. She had to in line with attempting to redeem his character for Harry, imo. But despite the fact that we only saw about 4 or 5 acts from him throughout DH, all of which could have been performed by another or need not have been done at all, it is often contended that these acts were so crucial to the plot that Snape is elevated to a position superior to all others (in some cases that contention includes Harry). But that is not the canon, imo, it simply cannot be reasonably supported. Snape's role was very helpful and important, but not anymore so than anyone else's and further, like every other character in the book, his efforts paled and were inferior to that of the trio - and Harry stood out in that regard as the hero who took out the dark lord, imo.

Snape and Dumbledore were definitely important to DH in as far as their overall character subplots went, that was where we found out answers related to questions JKR had raised about them in previous books. But that has nothing to do with the germane plotline, imo.

I would have to agree with zg that Snape's source was Dung as well (IMO). It seems that he's already told Voldemort he has this source, and to do that, he would need memories of meeting with the source. We have at least one of those in TPT.

Also, there is one more way in which Snape was still useful in DH. In fact, Dumbledore refers to it:

"I am counting on you to remain in Lord Voldermorts' good books as long as possible, or Hogwarts will be left to the mercy of the Carrows."

Without Snape being there to do his part for damage control, it's possible more students would have been badly hurt.

Do you have canon for Moody's original plan? What chapter are you referring to? The canon I see says that Moody felt they had to abandon "Plan A" because Thicknesse went over to the other side and no magic could be done at Privet Drive - not because Dung offered a better plan. Is that what you are referring to? There was no talk of all of them flying out together until Harry raised it as a poor suggestion.

The evidence is in Ch. 33. Snape took a tour of Dung's head in order to get the date, and then found it necessary to suggest decoys to him, which means to me that whatever the original "new" plan was, it did not include decoys.

I don't understand why Voldemort taking special care of his snake is all that important. What looks important to me is that all the Horcruxes are destroyed.

Exactly, what matters is that the Horcruxes be destroyed. But Albus did not so much as breathe a word about them to anyone other than Harry because he felt it was that hot a secret. Albus figured that Voldemort protecting Nagini, would mean Voldemort knew he was down to one Horcrux. He just wasn't going to give his instructions to Snape in those terms.

Dumbledore could have set up Harry with a special contact who could have kept track of how many Horcruxes had been destroyed and told Harry the truth once it was the right time.

This would necessitate the special contact knowing about the Horcruxes, and having some way to find/communicate with Harry on an ongoing basis. Both risky from a security standpoint.

As for the snake, Voldemort might have never discovered his Horcruxes were being destroyed, so never started protecting her. Or he might have discovered the danger before very many were destroyed. Or Nagini might have been killed at Godric's Hollow, and so much for the snake.

Albus was still around to alter Snape's orders, in those cases. If her never started protecting her, Harry would eventually come to kill her, so Albus would learn of it.

So it wasn't a job that only Snape could have undertaken (in fact, again he only manages it through luck!),

I disagree, he had a spy in Hermione's pocketbook. It was a matter of time, but eventually he could hope to pass the sword on. Albus did attemopt to get the sword to Harry in another way, but Scrimgeour interfered.

As for Snape passing information on to Dumbledore, what he was actually doing was passing information on to the portrait of a dead man. It is possible that Snape at least at first thought this was the same thing, and was so used to taking orders from Dumbledore that he just didn't consider that Dumbledore was no longer leader of the Order. That seems really weird to me.

Snape was not following Albus because Albus was the proper bureaucrat to obey ("leader of the Order"). He was following Albus because Albus was the man he had sworn to help protect Harry, and later because Snape trusted he was the person with the best plan to defeat Voldemort. His loyalty was not to the Order as an organization, it was to the Order's goals. So I see nothing weird in his continuing to assist and take advice from Albus merely because Albus was dead and nobody else was talking to him anymore. Albus still quite clearly had a [plan and was able to adjust to make it happen.

Well it was my understanding that JKR intended for the protection of the snake to signal the fact that all of the Horcruxes except him were destroyed. She did not take into account that the snake might be destroyed prior to that time because she had no intent to write his destruction. :lol:. But deep analysis of the situation would bring that fact to light of course.

:lol: But I think I'll start with the assumption that the plot was supposed to make sense, and use "Because" as an explanation of last resort.

I knew exactly what you meant, I did not feel you were implying that. I was responding to what Zg said.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you didn't understand what I meant, because I know you did get the question I was asking. I just wanted to agree with your point because I think it bears emphasis, and also to take some responsibility for the wording of my question, because it might inadvertently attract such comparisons when that wasn't what was meant at all.

The 7 Potters was Albus's plan, NOT Moody's.

Yes, I know. My point was that it was the betrayal that was the unknown danger. Moody agreed to the plan because it looked sound to him, and would have been sound without the betrayal. Another plan might have been adopted, and been perfectly sound without the betrayal. I see the betrayal, not the plan, as the problem. If I understand your position correctly, you see it as the opposite, that the plan was the problem, and not the betrayal. Correct?

We are, I presume, talking about a person. Causing a person to cease operating has less pretty names.

Assuming it is a person, then that word would be "assassination". Or "Imperio". Or "Look, Order, you have a traitor in your midst!" Or "Memory Charm" ("You are really a retired fishmonger... You have an overwhelming urge to move to Canada..."). I don't see why disposing of this source is less palatable than betraying Order members to their death.

My own theory is that the person is Dung, and that Voldemort knew of him well before Albus died, so it is not that Snape and Albus were valuing their access to this source over anything in particular, but that this source was a loose end from before that they were managing in this one instance and would have found some way to deal with over the long haul. (If I am right about the identity of the source, the problem solved itself.)

I suspect you are right, but the expedient thing to do would be remove Dung as a source before any more harm is done. The "problem solved itself" by means of Moody's murder. I don't think that was such a great solution.


Also, there is one more way in which Snape was still useful in DH. In fact, Dumbledore refers to it:


Quote:
Originally Posted by TPT
"I am counting on you to remain in Lord Voldermorts' good books as long as possible, or Hogwarts will be left to the mercy of the Carrows."

Without Snape being there to do his part for damage control, it's possible more students would have been badly hurt.

A noble cause.

--BUT--

Is it worth selling out the very people who are fighting Voldemort to guarantee his Headmaster position? Is it worth more than the entire safety of the Wizarding World?

I just think that there had to be something more to Snape's mission to justify his actions. The Elder Wand plot provides the bet option for that, in my opinion.

I don't see why disposing of this source is less palatable than betraying Order members to their death. Okay you've lost me! If we agree that the "source" Snape and Voldemort are refering to is Dung then I don't see how he is a problem. He was actually being used by Snape and Dumbledore's portrait to give the Order the best plan for getting Harry out of Privet Drive alive. Snape under Dumbledore's orders to maintain his cover gives Voldemort the correct date. I really do not see where the "betrayal" is - unless you are referring to Dung disapparating which was a contributing factor to Moody's death.

Dumbledore could have set up Harry with a special contact who could have kept track of how many Horcruxes had been destroyed and told Harry the truth once it was the right time.I don't see this as being at all feasible because Harry was the one destroying the Horcruxes and as such he was the only one in a position to know how many had been destroyed. Nagini was always going to be the last Horcrux to go because this is the Horcrux that Voldemort kept with him. I think it is worth bearing in mind that at the end it all happens very quickly. The trio set out to Gringotts to find and destroy the cup and the book ends about 36 hours later (probably nearer 24 but I'm feeling generous!)

I really don't understand where the "selling out the Order" comes from. Who sold out the Order and when? :huh:

My understanding is that Moody thought the 7 potters idea was a good one because there were likely to be look outs and they would be attacked and by forcing the DE &/or LV to split into 7 they were giveing everyone the best chance of surviving. I always had the impresson that Moody went in to the situation very much aware of the likely consequences, as did Snape & Albus, but that's just my interpretation or course! :)


As for the reason Snape passing on the message about Nagini was important... I think it was likely imo that Albus (or LV) believed there was little danger of Nagini being destroyed as she was a horocrux she could only be harmed by a few rare and very specific things. Therefore if LV started to protect Nagini then Harry would understand (when the message was passed to him) that Voldemort knew what Harry's plan was, thus be prepared.

But why Snape? Why must Snape be the one to carry this message?

Because Snape was the only one Order member who was close enough to Voldmeort to see when Nagini was in a protective cage. He was pretending to be a DE and so he would be close enough to Voldemort to see when that would happen. Dumbledore had guessed that Voldemort would take extra care of Nagini once he realised he had lost all his horcruxes; and he felt that was the time for Snape to pass on the message; so that Harry's soul bit would also be destroyed when Harry presented himself to Voldemort to be killed IMO.

It is accomplished only by pure luck.

No; I think it was the genius of Dumbledore who understood the 3 principal characters Harry, Voldemort and Snape and planned for all of them. And they acted the whole thing out to a T IMO. I think he had everything, including guessing correctly that Voldemort would have Nagini in a cage when the time came. That was how closely he had studied Voldmeort and I presume he would have studied Harry and Snape even more closely, for they were also important to the final outcome of the war IMO.

I don't know. It does all come back to the Elder Wand, because the Elder Wand plot and the Messanger Boy plot were always at odds. Since I can't see Snape being the Messenger Boy as vital, that leads me to think the Elder Wand was what was really important. Is there a thread to discuss the Elder Wand plot in more detail somewhere?

There is a thread in the Stone forum.

http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=107985&highlight=Elder+wand

It was only by pure luck that he got the message to Harry.

That may have been the flaw in the plan IMO.

I'm still not sure what that would gain, though. Voldemort realizes that he is not the master of the wand, and complains that the wand doesn't do extraordinary magic right before he kills Snape. Timing is everything, and I don't see how Dumbledore could control the timing. Voldemort has the wand for some time before killing Snape. It seems a risky plan for so little gain.

I think Voldemort waited until Harry was within his reach before he killed Snape IMO. Else he would have killed Snape much before IMO; but since he believed Snape was a loyal DE, I think Voldmeort waited until Harry came to Hogwarts and then killed Snape. For all his opther work his Yew wand was working perfectly; it was only for Harry he needed the EW IMO. So even when he realised that the EW was not working properly; he kept quiet because Harry was not available; the moment Voldmeort knew Harry was in Hogwarts and he knew all his horcruxes were gone; he came to kill Harry in Hogwarts and before confronting Harry, he killed Snape IMO.

Your plot is confusing me now :) Do you mean that Snape would be the master of the wand, and hand it over to Voldemort who wasn't supposed to realize this (because if Snape was the master, killing him had a good chance of turning Voldemort into the master, and why give a madman an ultra-powerful wand; or do you mean Voldemort would just think Snape was the master, but he really wasn't? I'm going to have to go back and read your theory was better attention, I think :lol: or, again, if there is a better thread for this I would be interested in discussing it there!

Of course I meant "Voldemort would just think Snape was the master, but he really wasn't" I am sorry for the confusion! :D

I think I understand you to mean that you believe the betrayal was orchestrated for the purpose of Harry and Voldemort confronting each other, thus it was a necessary action in the war effort.

Yes!

Your theory does give a purpose to the betrayal beyond simply protecting Snape's position.

Yes; I think so! :)

It all comes back to the idea that Snape is far more important than any of them.

No; I don't think so; not to Dumbledore. Snape was important to be kept alive until he could pass on both the message and the EW. He was the one set up to die; a sure death IMO; the 7 Potters operated at a great risk; Snape was to die when his work was over IMO.

Thanks for clarifying, TGW. I've taken the Elder Wand discussion over to the Snape and Dumbledore thread.

The evidence is in Ch. 33. Snape took a tour of Dung's head in order to get the date, and then found it necessary to suggest decoys to him, which means to me that whatever the original "new" plan was, it did not include decoys.

Which brings up another good point - what was Dung doing meeting with Snape anyway? Dung knew him as the killer of Dumbledore and as a loyal Death Eater - how did those two ever even get to a point where Snape could confund him? I mean upon sighting him, wouldn't Dung have risen the alarm? If not, perhaps he was a traitor.

The first words of the memory with Dung read "Now Snape was head to head with Mundungus in an unfamiliar tavern, Mundungus's face looking curiously blank, Snape frowning in concentration." In other words, Dung is already under a spell of some sort and we do not see how it happens. I always supposed Snape must have Confunded him first (from behind, say, and nonverbally) and approached him after.

Yes, Mundungus is not presented as the brightest of bulbs and he is not brave in the least. It would have been simple for Snape to lay a trap for this man. Just off hand I could think of a number of ways Snape could get eye to eye with him- a simple anonymous owl promising riches at this place and that time, some polyjuice for starters- or a darkened alley- whatever. Not hard.

It's also possible that Snape was disguised when he approached Dung, and as Bscorp said it wouldn't be difficult to lure Dung to a hidding meeting place on 'buisness' reasons. Mundungus' blank face shows me that the Seven-Potters-plan was planted into his mind and he wasn't to know that it hadn't been his own. So I don't think he was a (deliberate) traitor.

But Harry recognized Snape in the scene, so I would imagine he could not be too disguised, lol.

But Harry recognized Snape in the scene, so I would imagine he could not be too disguised, lol
Does Harry realy see Snape, or does he just look at Dung through Snape's eyes? :hmm:
But what I thought of was that a disguised Snape had a drink or two with Dung, confunded him then took him to secluded corner dropped his disguise, planted the plan on Dung and left. So Dung never knew he met Snape or that the plan wasn't his own idea.

Those were memories; so I think Harry did look at Snape; for Harry to look at Dung through Snape's mind, he would have to get into Snape's mind, like he did with Voldemort and that was possible because of the mind link; this was part of a lot of memories and I think Harry really saw Snape.

Dung never knew he met Snape, because Snape also tells him to forget him and present it as his own idea.

"You will forget that I have suggested this. You will present this as your own idea. You understand?

Those were memories; so I think Harry did look at Snape; for Harry to look at Dung through Snape's mind, he would have to get into Snape's mind, like he did with Voldemort and that was possible because of the mind link; this was part of a lot of memories and I think Harry really saw Snape.

I agree, TGW. Harry is seeing Snape's memories through the Pensieve, and in all his trips into the Pensieve, Harry witnesses the events from a distance as a passive observer.

I'm moving a discussion we've been having in the Spinner's End Irregulars here.

OK, question for you all. I was flipping through OotP the other day for something unrelated and I started reading one of the Occlumency lessons. I didn't remember this part in detail really, and I was wondering what you all thought it meant. Keep in mind that I haven't re-read the book since probably about a year ago, so I may be missing something taking this bit out of context.

Hope it's OK to ask here. Anyway, there is a bit in the book (Chapter 26 page 591 in the US paperback.) where in the middle of a Legilimens spell Harry is on the grounds by the lake and dementors are swarming around him and drawing closer, but Harry can also see Snape in front of him muttering under his breath and the dementors start to fade away and Snape starts to grow clearer. Then Harry does the Protego spell.

Anyway, I was just wondering what this bit meant to you all. Did he see Snape as worse than dementors and replacing them as one of his worst fears or is Snape sort of representing getting rid of the dementors? Is it both? Another double meaning kind of thing? Is there any significance to Snape muttering under his breath?

My brain is abit mushy right now but one thing occurs to me...
Dementors represent depression & both (Being attacked by a dementor & depression) have the same symptoms - lethergy & hopelesness sem to feature prominantly. Where as Harrys reaction to Snape while being negitive is a very active reaction, even the metaphors that spring to mind are active.
So prehaps seeing Snape helped galvinise Harry's urge to fight back which the dementors had / tend to quash thus leaving him better able to resist....
Of course it could also be a metaphor Snape mobilising Harry, being something that helps dispell dementors - thi could have been a tine litary clue for the reader that maybe Snape wasn't all bad / wasn't on the evil side

Ah, interesting take with the active vs hopelessness and his reaction to Snape being something that is not only something that sort of make him take action, but one that accomplishes his task in a way, because he does rebound the spell by using protego. I too wonder if it was one of those seems to be one thing can actually be taken another way type of clue...

I thought Harry's attention for the first time was divided; Snape was seeing a memory, but Harry's attention was divided betweeen the memory Snape was watching and Snape himself; the books says "he screwed up his face in concentration"; so I think Harry was getting the hang of repelling the Occlumency, which was to concentrate on the caster and drive them off from his mind and the memories they were watching.

That part is right after Snape confirms that it is his job to know what Voldemort is saying to his DEs. It's one of those rare moments of insight between the two. Perhaps, then, the dementors represent Harry's fears, insecurities, and erroneous impressions, which prevent him from trying to understand Snape. But now that he's had that moment of honesty with the man, the "dementors"'s power is lesser, and Harry begins to see the "real" Snape beneath the impressions he's built up. That allows him access to more information, represented by his breaking through into Snape's mind.

another interesting way of looking at it ignisia and TGW. I definitely think that there is more than one reason for this scene and one of them being a clue about Snape and his loyalties ect. It's also interesting that what follows this is Snape not even being upset that Harry broke through his memories. If I remember right he seems to get more upset that Harry starts seeing the corridor again.

Yes, Snape does get angrier at Harry when Harry starts getting distracted by the corridor again.
I see that two ways: on one level, it shows that Snape really does care if Harry succeeds in his lessons. Yes, he's unnerved by Harry seeing his memories, but he seems to have his priorities straight here and doesn't dwell on it too much.

On another level, perhaps Snape also became disappointed in Harry.
His reaction to Harry's failure is a bit more dramatic than it ought to be. He starts shouting and carrying on angrily, rather than using verbal barbs and sarcasm, as he is wont to do. When Snape's visibly angry, that should always bring up a little red light to the reader, IMO. :lol: It means that something big is going on beneath the surface.

I think it has to do with his confused feelings about Harry. I think a part of him is genuinely curious about Harry, but cannot direct or show that feeling for various situational and emotional reasons. When Harry stops succeeding, that part of him becomes disappointed, and he falls back on that "Harry ≈ James" mindset. Hence all the shouting about Harry being "lazy and sloppy"...accurate though it is. :lol:

Harry seemed to always keep Snape out of those memories that were most sacred to him - the baby Voldemort, kissing Cho, the dementors by the lake (which I feel relates to POA). So I don't find that scene very remarkable. Like TGW, I felt Harry was simply protecting himself and warding off the spell.

I don't think Snape was genuinely curious though. He hated Harry, imo, and so his angry reactions always made perfect sense to me. Harry could do no right in his eyes. By OOTP, Snape knew Harry and still felt the same way he had about him in PS/SS. It wasn't because he was mentally handicapped and actually thought Harry was a clone of his dad, but because he didn't like people who were like James. They made him jealous (in re: Lily - having her love and indicating her preference for another man, which both James and Harry did to Snape on an emotional level, imo). Snape did not like people who made him feel that way, imo.

But Snape's dislike went a bit deeper, imo. Harry was not innocent. Like his father, he did not like Snape in return, he showed him scorn and on occassion disrespect. He was not nice to Snape; he made fun of him in his thoughts and aloud to his friends; Harry sat imagining terrible things happening to Snape in GoF and HBP and refused to let go of the idea that Snape was a death eater. So it isn't like Harry was some loving kid who was actually trying to be kindhearted and generous with Snape - or even respectful - and he was completely disobedient, arrogant and impertinent at times. Much of that behavior was just like his father relative to the way James seemed to behave with Snape (and visa versa). Nonetheless, in addition to Harry reminding Snape of his father physically and being a representation of Lily's preference for another man - fueling his jealousy, Snape actually had similar feed back from Harry in terms of their interaction - much like that he'd had with James (on a mental level). Thus, while Snape was guilty of looking for similarities instead of distinctions that made Harry his own person - it wasn't like Harry was making them very obivious when he was around Snape.

So to me, Snape's anger was not covering up for some hidden curiosity or emotion other than hate; I feel he saw his loathing as completely justified and his ranting and bullying as something Harry deserved. But of course none of the children, including Harry, merited the bullying and mistreatment Snape doled out to them under any circumstances, imo, one simply does not treat poor little innocents that way - especially if, like Snape, one is in a position of power over them.

Harry was not innocent. Like his father, he did not like Snape in return, he showed him scorn and on occassion disrespect. He was not nice to Snape; he made fun of him in his thoughts and aloud to his friends...

But only after Snape started it : Harry comes to the table as a blank canvas in this respect - he doesn't know Snape from Adam. Is clueless about the wizarding world generally and his own history, at that stage. Notices Snape's eyes boring into him that first time in the Great Hall (....goes off on a mental wander at the thought of being bored into by Snape's eyes...) but has no idea what lies behind it.

Snape's nastiness to him in that first class starts the feud. Sure, George and Fred already hate him, don't they, but Harry has no personal reason to do so at that point ; the grown up started the mess. Maybe that's your point, Wicked (sorry if I've misconstrued it). All I'm trying to say is that Harry comes to the relationship with Snape initially as an impartial and "innocent" character. There's no instinctive repulsion towards Snape on Harry's part...nothwithstanding the greasy curtains of hair, hooked nose and sallow complexion..... (mmm, dreamy....:p)

Why do you think Snape chose to become a Death Eater?


To impress Lily. :p But then to spy for Dumbledor. . .When she died.

But only after Snape started it : Harry comes to the table as a blank canvas in this respect - he doesn't know Snape from Adam. Is clueless about the wizarding world generally and his own history, at that stage. Notices Snape's eyes boring into him that first time in the Great Hall (....goes off on a mental wander at the thought of being bored into by Snape's eyes...) but has no idea what lies behind it.

Snape's nastiness to him in that first class starts the feud. Sure, George and Fred already hate him, don't they, but Harry has no personal reason to do so at that point ; the grown up started the mess. Maybe that's your point, Wicked (sorry if I've misconstrued it). All I'm trying to say is that Harry comes to the relationship with Snape initially as an impartial and "innocent" character. There's no instinctive repulsion towards Snape on Harry's part...nothwithstanding the greasy curtains of hair, hooked nose and sallow complexion..... (mmm, dreamy....:p)

Yes, I agree with you completely. :). I was speaking from Snape's point of view and I also feel it was an unfair point of view for the reasons you stated. As you mentioned, we expect kids to react to pettiness in the way Harry did. In fact, I expect Snape and James to react as they did when they were kids. But as an Adult, Snape had much more responsibility, imo.

But as an Adult, Snape had much more responsibility, imo.

In theory, yes. But you are presupposing that age in terms of years means maturity in terms of emotions/mental control ; if that were really how people are we wouldn't live in a world where people routinely mess up their families, end their marriages, commit crimes, overeat/drink/take drugs etc etc. It's not children who are in therapy half as much as the so-called "grown ups" around them!

I think people are moulded by their childhood experiences profoundly ; it takes insight and emotional intelligence to break out of negative patterns - Snape has the intelligence but not the EmoIntel to do so, imo.

There's no instinctive repulsion towards Snape on Harry's part...

Well the first time Harry and Snape make eye contact is also the first time Harry comes into contact with Voldemort. We know he reacted badly to this (the pain in his scar) and it seems likely from the way the story continues that Harry is influenced by the pain but blames it on Snape as opposed to Voldemort, who is the true cause of that pain.

So I'm not sure I can entirely agree with your point :)

Well the first time Harry and Snape make eye contact is also the first time Harry comes into contact with Voldemort. We know he reacted badly to this (the pain in his scar) and it seems likely from the way the story continues that Harry is influenced by the pain but blames it on Snape as opposed to Voldemort, who is the true cause of that pain.

So I'm not sure I can entirely agree with your point :)

I have always thought this was an interesting point. Voldemort was an element between them from the start. Not to say that Snape's animosity wasn't present but Harry was also fed with a prejudice against Snape from day one. This is apparent in the narrative and by Percy's comments to Harry at that moment as well as the pain in Harry's scar - which Harry wouldn't attribute to Voldemort until the last chapter in the book.

I have always thought this was an interesting point. Voldemort was an element between them from the start. Not to say that Snape's animosity wasn't present but Harry was also fed with a prejudice against Snape from day one. This is apparent in the narrative and by Percy's comments to Harry at that moment as well as the pain in Harry's scar - which Harry wouldn't attribute to Voldemort until the last chapter in the book.

Right, but Harry gets the pain while looking and speaking at other people too, the most astounding example being Dumbledore. I feel Snape exacerbated any negative association Harry may have made with the pain, by causing Harry further pain, humiliation, anger adn unhappiness with his behavior, attitude and words.

Snape behaved toward Harry in the same way Voldemort would on occassion; I don't think that factor can be overlooked either.

Well the first time Harry and Snape make eye contact is also the first time Harry comes into contact with Voldemort. We know he reacted badly to this (the pain in his scar) and it seems likely from the way the story continues that Harry is influenced by the pain but blames it on Snape as opposed to Voldemort, who is the true cause of that pain.I don't agree with this at all. From the time between the opening feast when Snape looks at Harry and their first potions lesson, I don't think Harry spares a single thought towards Snape. He doesn't ever once blames the pain on his scar on Snape. Harry also never thinks about this opening feast scene once. Harry fully realizes by the end of SS/PS that Voldemort is the cause of the pain, and he never blamed it on Snape.

In theory, yes. But you are presupposing that age in terms of years means maturity in terms of emotions/mental control ; if that were really how people are we wouldn't live in a world where people routinely mess up their families, end their marriages, commit crimes, overeat/drink/take drugs etc etc. It's not children who are in therapy half as much as the so-called "grown ups" around them!

Absolutely - but none of the adults are excused for this behavior in the way children are, unless they have a mental disability. Adults are jailed, fined, and in other ways subject to intervention for their acts of unlawfulness or socially unacceptable behavior. They are also responsible to themselves for things like overeating, marital problems and similar abuses or problems. There is no 'parent' figure that has the authority to instruct them in that regard - unless they move into illegal channels with their actions at which point the law steps in.

So emotional insecurity or lack of emotional development, in an otherwise mentally functioning adult, has no merit in the world of excuses and/or justifications unless it is a serious enough illness to where the person requires the intervention of a health or medical professional. Otherwise, the only function served by this type of information is in the weak and irrelevant category: 'explanation'.

Explanation is relevant of course to a character analysis of Snape, but not in terms of then using that to justify or excuse his interaction with and behavior towards others, imo. It is like Dung being a thief - why he is a thief is unimportant in terms of his stealing Sirius' things. All that is important is the fact that he stole them and the impact that has on others.

But we were talking about first meetings and it seems to me (and others apparently :D) that it did play an important part. As for the 'he felt it with others' well yes he did but in PS that isn't really the case and he describes it as 'a warning' later in PS. That makes me question, given the current topic, did he apply this idea to Snape??? Did he se the pain as a warning about Snape?

And as this is the Snape thread, not the Harry thread, how did Harry's reaction to the pain during thier first meeting effect Snape? Did he see Harry's pained look and take it personaly? Did it give a kick to his idea that Harry was just like his father?