Severus Snape: Character Analysis v.12

I couldn't relate to Snape at all because I felt that he behaved in a very self interested manner, yet I too could enjoy reading his portrayal.

I disagree. There was nothing selfish IMO about Snape killing Dumbledore, about Snape spying for Dumbledore, about Snape working for the Light; he may have turned for Lily, but she was dead and no one was going to appreciate Snape turning away from the Light or doing anything to undo his mistakes. He still did them, because he knew he had made a mistake and wanted to rectify it. I don't think I can call that self interested for only others benefited by his actions; he himself could not gain anything, because the person whom he would have wanted to know was dead already.

I feel like Snape's character portrayal explored certain aspects of life; none of which were familiar to me on a personal level, so that made him come across a little fantastic and carticaturish in some respects, imo.

I think Snape's life was all too familiar; it was about strength, hope and dignity. Snape lived isolated all his life; he died alone, with no one to help him; yet he helped everyone!

For example, JKR indicating that Snape felt joining the DEs would impress Lily in an interview; or his idea that using dark magic against others was a laugh (DH).

Yes; Snape was indeed mistaken when he said those things, but others could not give the same excuse when they attacked other students because they existed and thought it was hilarious to remove underpants of students in front of the whole School as a joke.

To me being dark is not just joining the DEs alone; while being a DE is wrong, I would say Umbridge and Fudge were a lot darker and more dangerous because they were cruel, while being on the Light side.

With the DEs one knows they are the enemy; with people on the Light side, who act in an irresponsible, cruel way, I think is worse, for they stab from behind, while throwing an arm around in friendship and cordiality and attact people's dignity and self respect. That is equally bad as being a DE and harming people, because this would harm others more, as they would not expect it from a member of the LIght or from one who was not a DE IMO.

To me, those types of ideas are somewhat far fetched in terms of analysing Snape as a character. Nonetheless, I think his portrayal allowed me to investigate the outer limits of redemption, taking into consideration his life, his acts good and bad, and the circumstances he encountered in life. I felt that Snape went beyond the limits in terms of redemption (imo).

I disagree. One canon says differently IMO, and two Snape's acts once he turned to the Light were always good; his feelings on the other hand were different; they IMO should not confused with his actions, because his feelings of love, hate, dislike and despair come because of and through his interactions with other people.

Every interaction which brings about different reactions in Snape, is caused by events that happened between Snape and others. If Snape for example hated James, IMO that would be because his interactions with James was never positive.

I believe what should be taken into consideration is not the person's feelings, but the person's remorse of their actions; which I believe Snape felt, enormously.

I don't think Snape can be called selfish either. He did what he did because of another person, and also FOR another person. I don't think there's any selfishness in it - not after Voldemort decided to kill Lily at least. And I also think he became a better person in general with the years he spent working for Dumbledore (he said he didn't let anyone die if he could save him in the last book).

I find it rather illogical to call a man selfish when he devotes a large part of his life to achieve and end where there is no personal gain for him at all. I also find it illogical to call a man selfish when he risks his life on a daily basis by deceiving an evil wizard who also happens to be a great legilimens. I can understand why some people don't like Snape, - horses for courses and all that, but to call him selfish is IMO completely inaccurate based on the canon. Snape was not killed by accident or bad luck - he was murdered by Voldemort, who believed Snape had served him faithfully for nearly 20 years. I think Snape's death is enough to show how Voldemort would kill his followers without a second thought if it suited his purpose, so what he would do to someone whom he discovered had been deceiving him for 17 years I shudder to contemplate. To me however it is clear, as indeed it was to Dumbeldore and Harry, that Severus risked his life everytime he was in the prescence of the Dark Lord. I do not regard that as selfish.

To me being dark is not just joining the DEs alone; while being a DE is wrong, I would say Umbridge and Fudge were a lot darker and more dangerous because they were cruel, while being on the Light side. :agree: Yes i would even say that this was one of the big points of the books. Isn't it Srius who says "The world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters" so while being a Death Eater does undoubtedly mean doing bad things, it doesn't mean that not being a death eater automatically makes you good. IMO it is not a good idea to assume that everything a character does is good, or not so very bad, just because they are not a death eater.

I don't think Snape can be called selfish either. He did what he did because of another person, and also FOR another person. I don't think there's any selfishness in it - not after Voldemort decided to kill Lily at least. And I also think he became a better person in general with the years he spent working for Dumbledore (he said he didn't let anyone die if he could save him in the last book).:agree: In his later years Snape certainly valued human life. He may not have been "nice" but if you compare him to say Lockhart who was always "nice" in that he didn't give any of the students a hard time as Snape did we see that not only was Lockhart useless as a teacher but he also was a coward and did not care about human life because he was quite happy to let Ginny die in the Chamber of Secrets. IMO the contrast between these two chracters is deliberate - one has all the goodness and the other all the appearance of it.

I've never been able to figure out how the Unbreakable Vow could be seen as selfish when by definition Snape's life could have been snuffed out by it. :relax: He really gained nothing and had everything to lose.

There were so many essays on Mugglenet and elsewhere about Snape being "Machiavellian" or trying to pull strings to save himself or gain power, but those didn't fit the facts of HBP, and certainly after DH he doesn't seem that way, in my opinion.

I've never been able to figure out how the Unbreakable Vow could be seen as selfish when by definition Snape's life could have been snuffed out by it. :relax: He really gained nothing and had everything to lose.

There were so many essays on Mugglenet and elsewhere about Snape being "Machiavellian" or trying to pull strings to save himself or gain power, but those didn't fit the facts of HBP, and certainly after DH he doesn't seem that way, in my opinion.

Yes in fact the one who you take the vow for is the one who appears to be pulling the strings - which is why I think that Snape took the vow. He had already agreed to kill Dumbledore and by taking the vow he made it seem as if Bellatrix and Narcissa were pulling his strings when in fact they weren't. But as we are told by Ron if you don't keep an unbreakable vow you die, so Snape was certainly putting his life on the line to protect Draco because if ne didn't fulfill this vow and anything happened to Draco he would have been dead.

I think the Unbreakable Vow, if it can be called selfish was Narcissa's point of view than Snape's. She was in utter despair and for her saving Draco's life was more important at that time than seeing if she could be hurting Snape by that action; she probably did not care for Snape's life, more than Draco's and she may have also thought that Snape would be able to somehow handle it, far more than Draco did.

Snape on the other hand, took a Vow that could kill him and he would be unable to help Harry or to pass on the message; but knowing that he was going to kill Dumbeldore, he accepted the Vow, so that Narcissa could get some peace about her son. I don't think anyone can come to a conclusion that the Vow was a selfish action on Snape's part. Just my opinion. :)

I find it rather illogical to call a man selfish when he devotes a large part of his life to achieve and end where there is no personal gain for him at all. I also find it illogical to call a man selfish when he risks his life on a daily basis by deceiving an evil wizard who also happens to be a great legilimens. I can understand why some people don't like Snape, - horses for courses and all that, but to call him selfish is IMO completely inaccurate based on the canon.

I can explain why I define Snape as selfish. It all comes down to motive.

IMO in DH it was revealed that his primary motive was to make himself feel better for Lily's death. I would consider this unselfish if he wanted to make others harmed by his actions feel better, but it was his own damaged feelings he was concerned with.

I was actually surprised by this reveal in DH, because I had thought throughout the series that he was at least conflicted about what he had done to James and Harry. But then we get to the Patronus scene in Dumbledore's office and that is not the case-- it's all about his feelings for Lily.

I can explain why I define Snape as selfish. It all comes down to motive.

In DH it was revealed that his primary motive was to make himself feel better for Lily's death.

I think differently. I think Snape's primary motive was not to make himself better for Lily's death, but to understand and realise that being a DE was wrong, for it included actions that could harm oneself. That happened to the Malfoys, to Regulus and maybe to others as well. All of the above people realised at one point or the other that by joining they were asked to give a lot more than just loyalty and hard work to the cause. For Snape it ended with the handing over the prophecy; with Regulus it stopped when he realised just what Voldemort was doing to give himself immortality; for Narcissa, it was when she realised Draco was being punished for Lucius's faults and for Draco, when he stood in front of his Headmaster intending to kill him.

None of these people were killers; yet they joined an organisation and were pretty proud of it at one time, shows to me that their ideas about the organisation, their thoughts about what they'd give and get by being part of Voldemort's group was vastly different from the actual reality of being part of the DEs. One needed to be like Bellatrix and the Carrows to appreciate Voldemort and his organisation, but these people who joined found it lacking; they also got the courage to walk away and defy Voldemort when they and theirs were personally attacked, showing once again the power of love by JKR more than anything else. I don't think it was selfish; I think it was being motivated to make a difference when one was personally touched by a tragedy, in which to one's great sadness, one had contributed to the tragedy.

I would consider this unselfish if he wanted to make others harmed by his actions feel better, but it was his own damaged feelings he was concerned with.

Frankly, I would think Snape very foolish and lose respect for him if he went about making everyone feel better for his DE days. How do you make Harry feel better for losing his parents' anyway?

The point is IMO not making others feel better by speaking sweet and soft words; but by working hard to ensure that such mistakes never happen again. The wrong actions will never go away and I think they should not; what I think they should do is to remind a person of what he had mistakenly done and why he should never do it again. I think that's what Snape did and I think he's brave because he had the courage to do it.

I was actually surprised by this reveal in DH, because I had thought throughout the series that he was at least conflicted about what he had done to James and Harry. But then we get to the Patronus scene in Dumbledore's office and that is not the case-- it's all about his feelings for Lily.

Snape was full of remorse for his wrong actions. I think that was the reason he turned. In those wrong actions, it's not only Lily who figures, but everyone he may have help harm as a DE IMO. If he did not feel remorse then he would not have turned IMO.

He felt devastated because Lily died. That was sorrow for her death; on the hill there was fear for her life. But remorse was for all his actions, not just Lily IMO. Otherwise he would have gone back to being a DE once Lily died and he would not have helped James Potter's son survive by working for him for the rest of his life IMO.

In DH it was revealed that his primary motive was to make himself feel better for Lily's death. I would consider this unselfish if he wanted to make others harmed by his actions feel better, but it was his own damaged feelings he was concerned with.

I was actually surprised by this reveal in DH, because I had thought throughout the series that he was at least conflicted about what he had done to James and Harry. But then we get to the Patronus scene in Dumbledore's office and that is not the case-- it's all about his feelings for Lily.
I disagree with this completely. Snape didn't want to feel better about Lily - he had no desire to assuage his guilt. If he did he could have done it easily by forgiving himself, but he doesn't. No he remains miserable and devotes his life to trying to atone for his part in Lily's death. I don't actaully think this was a good or healthy thing to do. It would have been better for him - and probably better for those around him if he could have forgiven himself and moved on in his life. However, not doing so doesn't make him selfish, it just means that he doesn't deal with his feelings very well - which is Snape all over.

I actually think that the patronus scene does show that he is very conflicted about Harry. I don't blame Severus for hating James, but IMO he protests so vehemently that it is all for Lily precisely because he is conflicted about Harry; he cares for Harry as Lily's son but hates him as "the Potter Boy". He cannot bring himself to admit that he cares about someone so closely related to James though. He doesn't deny that he cares for Harry but produces his patronus - a symbol of his love for Lily - so while he loves the Lily in Harry he hates the James in Harry. IMO he was very conflicted about Harry which is why his response is so emotional; he doesn't just shake his head and say "I am not sentimental like you Dumbeldore"

I think differently.

And I can respect that. I just get bristly when I read that my opinion is "completely inaccurate based on the canon" (TGW didn't make that comment, just to be clear) when Snape says right in black & white what his motive is. :lol: My brief post was merely a comment on that.

I think you explain very well why you think Snape was unselfish.

The point is IMO not making others feel better by speaking sweet and soft words; but by working hard to ensure that such mistakes never happen again. The wrong actions will never go away and I think they should not; what I think they should do is to remind a person of what he had mistakenly done and why he should never do it again. I think that's what Snape did and I think he's brave because he had the courage to do it.

My point is that motive matters. Does he care that his actions harmed other people besides himself? When he casts his Patronus and tells us it is all for his love for Lily, I think not.

He felt devastated because Lily died. That was sorrow for her death; on the hill there was fear for her life. But remorse was for all his actions, not just Lily IMO. Otherwise he would have gone back to being a DE once Lily died and he would not have helped James Potter's son survive by working for him for the rest of his life IMO.

I don't agree, though. I think much of that is what he should have been feeling, and what I would have expected from him prior to learning his motive in DH. I don't think he would go back to being a Death Eater, because his feelings for Lily left him feeling devastated and he wanted to feel better.

I actually disagree with the general notion that motive matters all that much. I don't think it does. In the end, the result is what has a material consequence to everyone involved. I subscribe under the saying that the road to hell is covered with good intentions. But what matters in the end is what has come out of it all. It's the principle in sexual harrassment laws, as far as I know - it doesn't matter if you only meant to pay a harmless compliment by commenting on someone's breasts, if they felt uncomfortable and/or offended, you're guilty.

That's why I think that what Snape achieved though continual work, unwavering loyalty, and determination is what matters in forming a judgement on his character, rather than his motivation. Which I actually find admirable, too.

I actually disagree with the general notion that motive matters all that much. I don't think it does. In the end, the result is what has a material consequence to everyone involved. I subscribe under the saying that the road to hell is covered with good intentions. But what matters in the end is what has come out of it all. It's the principle in sexual harrassment laws, as far as I know - it doesn't matter if you only meant to pay a harmless compliment by commenting on someone's breasts, if they felt uncomfortable and/or offended, you're guilty.

That's why I think that what Snape achieved though continual work, unwavering loyalty, and determination is what matters in forming a judgement on his character, rather than his motivation. Which I actually find admirable, too.

I subscribe "the road to hell is covered with good intentions" also, but interprete it entirely differently. Good intentions are good, but it is the arrogance and self absorbtion in implimenting them that leads to the path to hell. Your sexual harrassment example illustrates this perfectly, I think, because it is the stupidity of the person making the comment which is at fault. They were too self absorbed to think what their comment meant to other people, particularly the one they directed it at.

In any case, I do think motive matters. If someone acts out of convenience to themselves and it turns out okay, I think it should be remembered that it could have just as easily gone the other way if that was convenient to them also. I wouldn't trust such a system for achieving any sort of end.

Good point Yoanna - though I don't entirely agree with you. My Dad was fond of telling me that the road to hell was paved with good intentions - then one day I realised that the road to Heaven was as well! :lol:
What bothers me is why Snape's motivations are subjected to such investigation when all the characters are motivated to fight against Voldemort because of love for someone else. Snape joined the fight against evil because he loved Lily - well I think that is a very fine motive. Most of the characters were fighting against Voldemort because someone they loved had been killed or threatened so I don't see how their motives can be held to be any better. Not only that but Severus had lost every chance of ever being loved by Lily in return. Some fought to keep their loved ones alive and protect them - well isn't that selfish because they are only protecting them to prevent the grief they would feel if the person died? Well I don't think so. Nor do I think Severus was selfish to fight for the memory of the woman he loved.

In any case, I do think motive matters. If someone acts out of convenience to themselves and it turns out okay, I think it should be remembered that it could have just as easily gone the other way if that was convenient to them also. I wouldn't trust such a system for achieving any sort of end.
Yes I agree motive matters - but I don't think Severus was ever acting out of convenience to himself. What was convenient about spying on Voldemort for Severus? I rather think that Severus found it distinctly inconvenient when he was killed by Nagini. If you want to look for a character who was acting out of convenience to himself it was Peter.

I just get bristly when I read that my opinion is "completely inaccurate based on the canon" Don't we all?


In DH it was revealed that his primary motive was to make himself feel better for Lily's death. No we weren't shown this at all. We were shown that his motive for turning to Dumbledore was to save Lily's life. We were then shown that his motive for continuing to work for Dumbledore (when he actually wanted to die) was to make sure that her death was not in vain. At no point did Severus say he was doing it to make himself feel better. Of course you are quite welcome to beleive that that is his motive, but that is not what it actually says in the books.

I disagree with this completely. Snape didn't want to feel better about Lily - he had no desire to assuage his guilt. If he did he could have done it easily by forgiving himself, but he doesn't. No he remains miserable and devotes his life to trying to atone for his part in Lily's death. I don't actaully think this was a good or healthy thing to do. It would have been better for him - and probably better for those around him if he could have forgiven himself and moved on in his life. However, not doing so doesn't make him selfish, it just means that he doesn't deal with his feelings very well - which is Snape all over.

I completely agree! I see Snape's motivation in protecting Harry as Lily, but I do not see this as a selfish reason, nor do I see him as feeling better for doing so. He did it for the woman he loved. When we do things for those we love we don't do them out of selfish reasons to make ourselves feel good; we do them for selfless reasons out of love for that person.

Snape led quite a depressing life and was obviously quite miserable. If he were so concerned about his own happiness and convenience, he wasn't doing a very good job. :yuhup:

I'd have to echo what others have said before me. I don't see much evidence at all that by the time he came to Dumbledore, Snape wanted anything but for Lily to remain alive (even if that meant he had to save James and Harry too! :wow:). His main concern appears to be her safety, and not his own feelings. He never mentions those until the memory after her death, when he says he cannot bear for Harry or others to know the truth about him.

That he cared nothing for Harry or James at that point is unfortunate, but thankfully, we see that in later years, he learned that all life is precious. I don't think saving those he could is really very selfish either.

Interesting discussion (as always!)...I find myself conflicted over Snape for all the reasons that have been mentioned. I understand OldMotherCrow's point about the inherent selfishness of Snape's motives. His reveal to DD illuminates the fact that, at that point in time, his motivation had been to preserve Lily's memory by protecting her son. And clearly he had done an imperfect job at that because of his feelings for James. I think that full unselfish motivation would have been Snape's declaration for his commitment to the Order, to goodness and light, to destroying Voldemort, for expressing remorse for getting James killed in addition to Lily. And it's true that (by his own acknowledgment) he is working for DD to protect Harry, not for any other greater good. I think that is what is being referred to as selfish: Snape has a personal agenda that, at most times, is in accordance with the Order, but which he will follow if there is any conflict of interest. So I see why he is judged selfishly for that....his love for Lily is real, and it has significantly changed him from the DE that he was, but his commitment is more narrow than, say, the other Order members. However, as I wrote awhile back, I think that during DH, Snape's actions show that he comes to transcend this limited point of view and he redeems himself more fully: he clearly comes to care about other people: he protects the students who try to steal the sword, he admonishes Phineas for using the term "mudblood," and most importantly, he gives Harry his memories about Lily and confesses to a bunch of bad things and he also gives Harry the message that he has to die so that Voldemort can be defeated. Those are all unselfish actions, in my mind....but yes, there is nothing cut and dry about the character, which I'm sure is why we all enjoy analysing him so much!

My point is that motive matters. Does he care that his actions harmed other people besides himself? When he casts his Patronus and tells us it is all for his love for Lily, I think not.

But Lily was someone "beside himself" for whom he felt responsible, and he tried in vain to save her life. I think that is why Snape wasn't selfish, in my opinion. He chose to live for Lily's son, and that's his only motivation, not any search for personal happiness. Snape doesn't gain personal happiness from helping Harry, although I believe he had a certain satisfaction in keeping "Lily's boy" alive - at least enough for him to keep going as Dumbledore's spy.

But again, Harry is someone besides Snape himself, and so is Dumbledore, and so are other people he helped such as Katie Bell, Narcissa, Draco, Lupin and the other Order members. Snape could have had his selfish dreams of loving Lily without lifting a finger to help anyone, but he channeled his energy into something bigger than himself, in my opinion.

He did the opposite of the Mirror of Erised, turned away from that beautiful vision and looked beyond himself into a harsh reality. Just my opinion.

Can we all take a chill pill please? A bit less personal, a bit more respectful and if you have issues with a post, report it, don't respond to it

There were so many essays on Mugglenet and elsewhere about Snape being "Machiavellian" or trying to pull strings to save himself or gain power, but those didn't fit the facts of HBP, and certainly after DH he doesn't seem that way, in my opinion.

Funnily if you read The Prince it is not very 'Machiavellian' at all :lol: despite the fact that it would seem to be the starting point for the term! However in its down to earth way of looking at politics I think it has a great deal in common with Severus Snape’s way of thinking; although to my mind he is no more Machiavellian than The Prince / Machiavelli is Machiavellian.

What bothers me is why Snape's motivations are subjected to such investigation when all the characters are motivated to fight against Voldemort because of love for someone else. Snape joined the fight against evil because he loved Lily - well I think that is a very fine motive. Most of the characters were fighting against Voldemort because someone they loved had been killed or threatened so I don't see how their motives can be held to be any better.

Reading this I was reminded very strongly of Molly. There is (I think) no mention of her being in the Order during VW1, but we know that 2 of her brothers were and died fighting 5 DE's, so presumable they were on Order business at the time. We do not look at Molly badly because she choose not to join the Order during the first war, when we find out about her brothers it does not diminish her in anyway - to me it seems likely that there was a parallel here in the authors mind between Severus/Lily and Molly/Fabien & Gideon. If I am correct in this then it seems we are meant to look at Snape’s reaction to Lily's death in a similar positive light.

His reveal to DD illuminates the fact that, at that point in time, his motivation had been to preserve Lily's memory by protecting her son.

Yes that is what he say’s but if that was the case then why did he go along with Dumbledore’s plan? I think we know that by the time he died he was working to bring an end to Voldemort more that he was trying to protect Harry, the question is when did this change in mind happen? Sometimes such changes happen without our notice and we continue not to see the changes until they are challenged. I am not say that that is definitely the case with Severus but I do think it likely because he did agree to follow Dumbledore’s plan before Dumbledore dies.

I think that is what is being referred to as selfish: Snape has a personal agenda that, at most times, is in accordance with the Order, but which he will follow if there is any conflict of interest.

I’m struggling to thing of anytime’s Severus puts his own agenda before the Orders? That said I am struggling to think of a time when his personal agenda is not in accordance with the Order. :)

So I see why he is judged selfishly for that....his love for Lily is real, and it has significantly changed him from the DE that he was, but his commitment is more narrow than, say, the other Order members.

I think some people do see it that way and I think it probably comes down to how you interpret the scene where he shows Dumbledore his patronus.
‘I have spied for you, and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter’s son safe. Now you tell me we have been raising him like a pig for slaughter - ’
‘But this is touching, Severus’ said Dumbledore seriously. ‘Have you grown to care for the boy, after all?’
‘For him?’ shouted Snape. ‘Expecto patronum!’
From the tip of his wand burst a silver doe: she landed on the office floor, bounded once across the office and soared out of the window. Dumbledore watched her fly away, and as her silvery glow faded he turned back to Snape, and his eyes were full of tears.
‘After all this time?’
‘Always,’ said Snape.

To me it has always seemed that the ‘Always’ is the result of being questioned is he still cares for Lily, but I think others see it meaning that Lily was always his reason for working for Dumbledore.

However, as I wrote awhile back, I think that during DH, Snape's actions show that he comes to transcend this limited point of view and he redeems himself more fully: he clearly comes to care about other people: he protects the students who try to steal the sword, he admonishes Phineas for using the term "mudblood," and most importantly, he gives Harry his memories about Lily and confesses to a bunch of bad things and he also gives Harry the message that he has to die so that Voldemort can be defeated. Those are all unselfish actions, in my mind.

Agreed – as I said earlier it’s all about when this change actually happened. I’ve already addressed one point but I would also like to add that we see very little of Severus in private, away from Harry until TPT when we have Spinners End then DH when we have 2 chapters*. We see someone who is somewhat different from the Potions teacher, or at least I think another side of him. I think this muddies the water when it comes to making a decision on when the change actually happens because we do not see a clear view of him until we see this other side of him imo.

My point is that motive matters. Does he care that his actions harmed other people besides himself? When he casts his Patronus and tells us it is all for his love for Lily, I think not.

Where do we learn in canon that Snape never feels remorse for his DE days, for all his actions? I don't think there is any canon to that end. While we have canon Snape changed, evolved and repented for his past (Dumbledore says so to Harry; Snape himself tells Phineas not to call muggleborns names, and Snape's conversation with Dumbeldore in the TPT). Snape showed his Patronus when Dumbledore asked him if he loved Harry/ cared for him. Snape IMO never gave a direct answer. He said Him? and cast his Patronus.

Dumbledore immediately veered away from Snape's feeling for Harry and concentrated on Snape's Love for Lily. That is how I read it.

I thought Snape was evasive rather than negative about his concern, care, affection for Harry. Which I felt showed more affection and care, than if Snape actually had said it.

At times, I think there is more meaning in what we don't say; there is more power in silence; Snape's love for Lily is powerful, because he is silent about it, he does not go about talking about this immense love for Lily; he shows it; he shows it in his actions, in his remorse, in his change; likewise he never says he cares for Harry, yet, he is the one, not McGonagall who is watching and reacting the moment Harry's broom buckles in PS/S; he is the one who comes rushing to the shack in POA; he is the one who protects Harry as much as he can all the time.

I don't think he would go back to being a Death Eater, because his feelings for Lily left him feeling devastated and he wanted to feel better.

I don't think Snape feeling better is ever seen on page; I don't see it at all; I think Snape could never forgive himself for what he had done.

I subscribe "the road to hell is covered with good intentions" also, but interprete it entirely differently. Good intentions are good, but it is the arrogance and self absorbtion in implimenting them that leads to the path to hell.

What are good intentions anyway? I can read every action of Dumbledore as evil; I can call Harry, Ron and Neville murderers because they killed Voldemort's soul bits and Nagini. Molly would be evil in Rudolphus's eyes (assuming he lived) because she killed his wife. So, I think good and evil intentions can only be seen relatively and with keeping the larger picture in mind.

For instance I do not agree with a poster (I forgot who) when they said Dumbledore was wrong in sending Harry to the Forest and Snape was culpable in handing over a message that would result in Harry's death, because I see the bigger picture Dumbledore had in mind and I agree with it. So for me that action is okay. For them, it is not, because they see that action as entirely different from me.

For me Snape's actions are good, for they were actions meant to help the Light and Harry. He need not cry and ask for an apology to Harry in order to make himself look good.

Snape may not have been pleasant to Harry; he may never have said one word good about Hermione, but to me he was better than most, because he would in a moment protect them with his life. He need not say the words of remorse or affection; to me he showed it. Always!

What bothers me is why Snape's motivations are subjected to such investigation when all the characters are motivated to fight against Voldemort because of love for someone else. Snape joined the fight against evil because he loved Lily - well I think that is a very fine motive. Most of the characters were fighting against Voldemort because someone they loved had been killed or threatened so I don't see how their motives can be held to be any better. Not only that but Severus had lost every chance of ever being loved by Lily in return. Some fought to keep their loved ones alive and protect them - well isn't that selfish because they are only protecting them to prevent the grief they would feel if the person died? Well I don't think so. Nor do I think Severus was selfish to fight for the memory of the woman he loved.

:agree: :tu:

He did the opposite of the Mirror of Erised, turned away from that beautiful vision and looked beyond himself into a harsh reality. Just my opinion.

Oh; this is lovely SIP; I think this is exactly what Snape did. :)

I’m struggling to thing of anytime’s Severus puts his own agenda before the Orders? That said I am struggling to think of a time when his personal agenda is not in accordance with the Order. :)

Ha, yes, maybe "agenda" isn't the best word...but more that his narrow perspective limits Snape in such a way that he does not fully serve the interests of the Order at all times (that is, the consequences of his limitations are more reactive than machiavellian). I think this comes through in his nasty treatment of Harry and his inability to teach Harry Occlumency. Snape is so burdened by his hatred of James/Harry that he is not as helpful as he could be, which is damaging to the Order's agenda...I think that this can be interpreted as "selfish" because he is bowing to his own personal feelings rather than putting those feelings aside to more effectively deal with the bigger threat. Whether it is understandable or valid or simply human that he might act like this is a different issue altogether. I hope that makes sense!

Ha, yes, maybe "agenda" isn't the best word...but more that his narrow perspective limits Snape in such a way that he does not fully serve the interests of the Order at all times (that is, the consequences of his limitations are more reactive than machiavellian). I think this comes through in his nasty treatment of Harry and his inability to teach Harry Occlumency. Snape is so burdened by his hatred of James/Harry that he is not as helpful as he could be, which is damaging to the Order's agenda...I think that this can be interpreted as "selfish" because he is bowing to his own personal feelings rather than putting those feelings aside to more effectively deal with the bigger threat. Whether it is understandable or valid or simply human that he might act like this is a different issue altogether. I hope that makes sense!
Did the Order have an agenda that is separate from Dumbledore's agenda? I'm not sure what that would be. I do believe that Snape was completely dedicated to Dumbledore's goals and that Dumbledore respected that fact. Dumbledore also gave Snape some leeway to judge how best to accomplish those goals. Obviously he could not tell Snape how to act when he was a spy, and I believe Dumbledore trusted that Snape would use his own judgment to get the job done. :)

And regarding the selfishness of his motives, I don't see Snape as more selfish than any other human being or fictional character, thus repeatedly applying that word to his character strikes me as pejorative. In fact, since he had nothing to gain personally from his struggle, I see him as quite noble and selfless, although sarcastic and not cheerful. We are all motivated by our own feelings and wishes, aren't we? And certainly most of the characters in the series have more to gain than Snape does. I don't see why Professor Snape should be held to a higher standard than any other character.

Ha, yes, maybe "agenda" isn't the best word...but more that his narrow perspective limits Snape in such a way that he does not fully serve the interests of the Order at all times (that is, the consequences of his limitations are more reactive than machiavellian). I think this comes through in his nasty treatment of Harry and his inability to teach Harry Occlumency. Snape is so burdened by his hatred of James/Harry that he is not as helpful as he could be, which is damaging to the Order's agenda...I think that this can be interpreted as "selfish" because he is bowing to his own personal feelings rather than putting those feelings aside to more effectively deal with the bigger threat. Whether it is understandable or valid or simply human that he might act like this is a different issue altogether. I hope that makes sense!

It makes sense to me, sweetsev. :cool:

I think this is what many readers stumble on ... his treatment of Harry.

It doesn't mean they hate Snape as a character (not everybody who disagrees with him hates him), it just puzzles them (and even distresses them).

I love the character, so I embrace him, warts and all, so to speak, and that darkness in his character is what helps make him interesting to me. He has other qualities, too, of course :) but, basically, I see where you're coming from.

I think this comes through in his nasty treatment of Harry and […]Snape is so burdened by his hatred of James/Harry that he is not as helpful as he could be, which is damaging to the Order's agenda

While I agree that he has ‘issues’ about James/Harry and I think they do play a big role in his treatment of Harry but there are two points here that I think need adressing.

1) Is it really just his fault?
2) Is it is damaging to the Order's agenda???

One the first point I would have to give a resounding ‘No’.
There were a lot of factors involved. For a starter their relationship got off on the wrong foot before the first Potions class. During the welcoming feast Harry and Severus look at each other, so does someone sat in the back of Quirrels head, and at the moment Harry’s scar hurts and he blames it on Severus. At this point Harry makes some very damning decisions about Severus that effect his judgment until DH.
Yes Severus is far from nice to Harry, but Harry is no angel either and it is not a one way animosity.
'Yeah, well,' said Harry, glowering at his plate, 'since when has Snape ever been fair to me?'

Neither of the others answered; all three of them knew that Snape and Harry's mutual enmity had been absolute from the moment Harry had set foot in Hogwarts.

As this is the author/narrator interpreting the mind of all of the trio, I take this to be cannon proof that the problem rests on both sides. I know some will say that Severus is the adult and therefore feel he is the only one to have any culpability in that but I think Harry would disagree with this assessment just as he disagreed that people being the same age as him absolved other parties of acts that shocked him in SWM – of course I am under no illusion that this view will be greeted by universal agreement. :lol:

As to the second point, is it is damaging to the Order's agenda? I think not. Had he been sweet and lovely to Harry, it might have presented some problems (not all of which were Snape’s fault) but it also had advantages. If they had got on then how would Severus have dissuaded Voldemort when he asked Severus to bring Harry to him? :hmm: I think it would have been tough! As it was that order was never given - because they did not get on and everyone knew it. It has also been suggested that it was helpful in securing Snape’s position as a spy. This is generally a contentious issue, I think because some see this as people trying to excuse his behaviour – which I am not doing, but I think there is some truth in this argument.

his inability to teach Harry Occlumency.

There’s an old saying ‘You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.’ I think this is extremely pertinent to the Occlumency lessons.

Harry is often resistant to Snape’s teaching (look how easily he learns from the HBP’s book because he pays attention to it – he even goes so far as to say it taught him about bezoars when, as Hermione reminds him, Snape had in his first potions class) and I think this is especially true in the Occlumency lessons. In OotP Harry say’s often that he wants to keep having the dreams, and he isn’t practicing – is this his teachers fault? I would say not personally.

Whether it is understandable or valid or simply human that he might act like this is a different issue altogether.

:tu: I quite agree :)

Did the Order have an agenda that is separate from Dumbledore's agenda? I'm not sure what that would be. I do believe that Snape was completely dedicated to Dumbledore's goals and that Dumbledore respected that fact. Dumbledore also gave Snape some leeway to judge how best to accomplish those goals. Obviously he could not tell Snape how to act when he was a spy, and I believe Dumbledore trusted that Snape would use his own judgment to get the job done. :)

And regarding the selfishness of his motives, I don't see Snape as more selfish than any other human being or fictional character, thus repeatedly applying that word to his character strikes me as pejorative. In fact, since he had nothing to gain personally from his struggle, I see him as quite noble and selfless, although sarcastic and not cheerful. We are all motivated by our own feelings and wishes, aren't we? And certainly most of the characters in the series have more to gain than Snape does. I don't see why Professor Snape should be held to a higher standard than any other character.

Well, yes, I do think that the Order had a different agenda: they wanted to protect Harry and fight Voldemort. At a certain point, DD, with Snape, broke away from them because Harry had to be sacrificed and I don't think the Order would have understood that.

As for seeing him as "selfish," I actually thought about using a different term (immature, emotionally constricted), but to me, selfish fits fine. But I don't mean selfish in that I think Snape is trying to get any personal gain out of his actions....that is one interpretation of "selfish" but not what I am going for. I mean "selfish" in that he is acting out of guilt rather than out of duty to the greater cause. Changing sides, to assuage personal guilt and not because it is the right thing to do, is a self-centered motivation. It is also a good thing to do, but that is not the issue. As I said earlier, I also think that he eventually evolves out of his self-centeredness and becomes incredibly selfless: but I don't see him that way throughout the entire series.

And no, he is not being held to any higher standard (at least not by me) than any other character. I find many of the characters as flawed and complicated with all sorts of intriguing motivations. I certainly don't see James and Sirius as particularly noble and selfless. But this is Snape's thread, so he is the one being analyzed....

And regarding the selfishness of his motives, I don't see Snape as more selfish than any other human being or fictional character, thus repeatedly applying that word to his character strikes me as pejorative. In fact, since he had nothing to gain personally from his struggle, I see him as quite noble and selfless, although sarcastic and not cheerful. We are all motivated by our own feelings and wishes, aren't we? And certainly most of the characters in the series have more to gain than Snape does. I don't see why Professor Snape should be held to a higher standard than any other character.
If we look at the final book as a war novel, which JKR has pretty much said that she does, and Snape as a spy, then why would we expect him to always be happy? Victory was never certain since he never knew about the Elder Wand or how the magical blood would work. I believe Snape was living day to day, like any other soldier - and we don't expect soldiers to all be cheerful saints. I don't think Dumbledore expected that from Snape, and certainly not from Harry, who felt rather grim on a good day.

It wasn't a happy situation, but I don't see Snape at odds with the Order. He had more information than they did. Harry had a choice not to follow Dumbledore's orders, but once again he did, and things turned out to be right. Harry's sacrifice mattered more to the Order than anything else because he was able to shield others with his protection.

Snape was not killed by accident or bad luck - he was murdered by Voldemort, who believed Snape had served him faithfully for nearly 20 years. I think Snape's death is enough to show how Voldemort would kill his followers without a second thought if it suited his purpose, so what he would do to someone whom he discovered had been deceiving him for 17 years I shudder to contemplate.

I agree that Voldemort would kill his followers if he had a reason to do so, but I would respectfully disagree that he did so without a second thought. Voldemort killed Snape for a specific reason; he believed he was the master of the Elder Wand (DH). But he didn't kill Lucius, Bella or the others who had failed him at the MOM - nor did he kill Draco who had failed and betrayed him and imo, showed it quite vividly (DH DLA). I do think all of the DEs, including Snape, were in danger of being killed if they incurred Voldemort's wrath, but JKR never showed us at what level such wrath on Voldemort's part would result in him killing one of his own, imo. Voldy seemed to give his followers a lot of quarter based on the examples I gave - and his behavior in GoF (torturing but not killing his minions). So I feel it is difficult to assess just how much danger Snape was in - which is rather a plot hole, imo.

:agree: Yes i would even say that this was one of the big points of the books. Isn't it Srius who says "The world is not divided into good people and Death Eaters" so while being a Death Eater does undoubtedly mean doing bad things, it doesn't mean that not being a death eater automatically makes you good. IMO it is not a good idea to assume that everything a character does is good, or not so very bad, just because they are not a death eater.

I feel Sirius' words don't apply in terms of the war verses Voldemort and his followers. In my judgment, that is exactly how the world was divided, DEs and those supporting their efforts against those against them.

I think when it comes to who eats lunch, pays taxes or wears trainers, his words could apply because everyone does certain general things in life, imo. However, I do see a clear separation between those who murder, kidnap, torture and caues general mayhem to eradicate and subjugate specific classes of people and those against them.

As I said earlier, I also think that he eventually evolves out of his self-centeredness and becomes incredibly selfless: but I don't see him that way throughout the entire series.
I don't think he's meant to be looked that way either. Snape is a complicated character who I think is in constant conflict with himself. He hates James, see James so much in Harry, yet still does all of this because he's still Lily's son. I've said in the past that Snape choosing to change sides only for Lily sake is something every human is prone to do. Most of us only understand something more clearly when it affects us directly or something we care dearly for. It is a selfish act in a way, but that would be me saying we're all selfish beings. And perfectly okay I think.

So I agree, it is not putting Snape on a higher standard because the same could be said for real life people. We are only human afterall. And IMO, it makes Snape an even more relatable.

I mean "selfish" in that he is acting out of guilt rather than out of duty to the greater cause.

I don't see it that way. Guilt is just guilt, and pretty much anyone feels it for something they have done but don't feel proud of. But how many can start acting out of it in order to make amends? That is no longer mere guilt, I think that is something deserving of admiration. I think there's a difference between guilt and remorse. And I personally think Snape was remorseful and not just guilty - his actions, as opposed to lack of action (as was his original intention: "I wish I was dead!"), make all the difference in his case and that's why I personally find him such an admirable character. He had nothing to gain, and he had no actual need to do what he did all of his life after Lly's death, but he still did it, with remarkable determination. I call this entirely selfless.

Changing sides, to assuage personal guilt and not because it is the right thing to do, is a self-centered motivation.

But how do you define what the right thing to do is? There isn't a universal definition. Therefore the most we can say is that he didn't do it because it was the right thing to do as we define it. And that's hardly selfish, it's just going about it in way which we don't see as strictly "right".

It is also a good thing to do, but that is not the issue. As I said earlier, I also think that he eventually evolves out of his self-centeredness and becomes incredibly selfless: but I don't see him that way throughout the entire series.

I too think he changes as a person in his work for Dumbledore and Harry. But I don't think his original motivation was selfish either, because there was nothing in it for him, not even elief from guilt, as we can plainly see: years later, until his death, he still feels responsible.

Well, yes, I do think that the Order had a different agenda: they wanted to protect Harry and fight Voldemort. At a certain point, DD, with Snape, broke away from them because Harry had to be sacrificed and I don't think the Order would have understood that.

Really? If they were fighting a war and Harry had to be sacrificed in order to defeat Voldemort, then they wouldn't be very effective if they tried to prevent that. In war, every participant must be prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice. So Dumbledore and Snape, along with Harry once he saw Snape's memories, were truly prepared to do what must to be done. In fact, Snape and Dumbledore respected Harry enough to allow him to make the choice. So Snape may not have been all huggy with Harry, but he respected his courage and determination.

It wasn't a happy situation, but I don't see Snape at odds with the Order. He had more information than they did. Harry had a choice not to follow Dumbledore's orders, but once again he did, and things turned out to be right. Harry's sacrifice mattered more to the Order than anything else because he was able to shield others with his protection.
That's true, Snape had more information, and even if he had tried to share it, if it were possible, most in the Order wouldn't have trusted or believed him. So he kept to himself, followed Dumbledore's plan, left Harry's decision to Harry, and it worked.

I subscribe "the road to hell is covered with good intentions" also, but interprete it entirely differently. Good intentions are good, but it is the arrogance and self absorbtion in implimenting them that leads to the path to hell.

In any case, I do think motive matters. If someone acts out of convenience to themselves and it turns out okay, I think it should be remembered that it could have just as easily gone the other way if that was convenient to them also. I wouldn't trust such a system for achieving any sort of end.

I agree. I feel that Snape was in just such a quandary when Lily was targeted. I do not believe that Snape went to Dumbledore on the hill because he represented the good side against Voldemort; but rather because he was the only other big player in the war who might be able to save Lily, imo. Snape actually went to Voldemort too, according to his statement in DH TPT - so he wasn't looking at the values and morals of those he approached, imo, rather their ability to do what he desired, imo. I too felt that Snape was considering only his feelings when he approached these men, because Lily would not have been happy being spared while her entire family was killed, imo. Subsequently, I feel Snape acted both to keep himself out of Azkaban and to make himself feel better for having helped to cause Lily's death - because I think that truly pained him and that was a feeling he wished to alleviate, imo. But I feel that it pained him personally and had nothing to do with Lily because he had no relationship with her at the time and imo. Although the prospective outlook on that was also null and void, imo, his failure to spare her meant that he would never get a chance to pursue her in the future, imo.

Well, yes, I do think that the Order had a different agenda: they wanted to protect Harry and fight Voldemort. At a certain point, DD, with Snape, broke away from them because Harry had to be sacrificed and I don't think the Order would have understood that.

I agree completely. I don't feel that the Order members would support that idea at all, with the exception of perhaps Mundungus (I am not sure he was an order member tho). I feel that is why Dumbledore only told Snape, someone who he understood would support his plan in that regard. In my judgment, Snape reiterated his lack of care for Harry in the same scene Dumbledore told him that Harry had to die. I think this confirmed what Dumbledore already believed and why he trusted Snape to relay the message (DH TPT when Snape issues his doe in response to being asked if he cared about Harry). Too, I feel that Snape's overall character was more prone to the acceptance of the use of any means to achieve certain ends (the examples of Harry's death, Charity Burbage's death and Snape taking the vow with Narcissa all show this, imo). In this case, the end was the destruction of Voldemort, and I feel Snape was mostly focused on any means necessary to achieve that goal, as long as they were workable, as being appropriate - as opposed to worrying about the morality and correctness of the means themselves (imo). I was left in the wake of the series wondering where and if Snape would draw any lines in that regard - I was unsure what he might feel was going to far, if anything.

That's true, Snape had more information, and even if he had tried to share it, if it were possible, most in the Order wouldn't have trusted or believed him. So he kept to himself, followed Dumbledore's plan, left Harry's decision to Harry, and it worked.

I feel that is true - and why Snape was trusted with the information. However, the plan didn't work out in the way that Snape believed it would, imo, in terms of Harry, and I think in terms of character analysis, that reveals an aspect of Snape's character. More precisely, imo, what I was speaking of above about means.

I do think all of the DEs, including Snape, were in danger of being killed if they incurred Voldemort's wrath, but JKR never showed us at what level such wrath on Voldemort's part would result in him killing one of his own, imo.

I think JKR gave us a clear and vivid insight into what could happen if Voldemort's wrath was unleashed, during the chapter The Final Hiding Place.


The Elder Wand slashed through the air and green light erupted through the room, the kneeling goblin rolled over, dead, the watching wizards scattered before him, terrified: Bellatrix and Lucius Malfoy threw others behind them in their race for the door, and again and again his wand fell, and those who were left were slain, all of them, for bringing him this news, . . .

In my opinion, even Bellatrix runs to escape Voldemort's wrath. She doesn't stay, even while knowing she was a loyal DE. She didn't think this would be enough for her to be left unhurt. Plus, the latter part "and those who were left were slain, all of them" strongly implies if those others hadn't left the room, they would have died.

We have been shown throughout the series, there are worse things than death. Voldemort knew it and used it like what he subjected upon the Malfoys. So, punishing might not always involve death on the spot. He might torture them physically or emotionally with loss of some/thing, like with the Malfoys.

Either way, I think Snape was in a great deal of danger everytime he returned to Voldemort. Voldemort could have learnt of his true loyalties in the meantime while Snape was absent or his secrets might have been brought to light while he was there.

I think JKR gave us a clear and vivid insight into what could happen if Voldemort's wrath was unleashed, during the chapter The Final Hiding Place.


The Elder Wand slashed through the air and green light erupted through the room, the kneeling goblin rolled over, dead, the watching wizards scattered before him, terrified: Bellatrix and Lucius Malfoy threw others behind them in their race for the door, and again and again his wand fell, and those who were left were slain, all of them, for bringing him this news, . . .

In my opinion, even Bellatrix runs to escape Voldemort's wrath. She doesn't stay, even while knowing she was a loyal DE. She didn't think this would be enough for her to be left unhurt. Plus, the latter part "and those who were left were slain, all of them" strongly implies if those others hadn't left the room, they would have died.

Ah, thanks Annie, I hadn't recalled that. :). I think that shows that Voldemort's threshhold is crossed upon obtaining news that he'd lost a life (horcrux). Still I think that particular news still has the bar very high because we are talking about Voldemort's personal survival. I was thinking more in terms of what would incite Voldemort to kill his minions if they failed him or incited his wrath on non-life and death issues relating to him personally (which wouldn't generally come up, imo). Snape would not be delivering news of the destruction of horcruxes during his spying adventures, imo, that is why Dumbledore didn't even tell him about them at all, imo. So I still feel like JKR didn't give us a good idea about the danger involved for Voldemort's minions overall.

Well he obviously kills his minios not only at a certain level of wrath but also in perfect calmness, just because killing one serves his purposes - which is how Snape died. So I don't think we can assert a margin of "safety" with Voldemort - as far as I can see such doesn't exist.

While I agree that he has ‘issues’ about James/Harry and I think they do play a big role in his treatment of Harry but there are two points here that I think need adressing.

1) Is it really just his fault?
2) Is it is damaging to the Order's agenda???

One the first point I would have to give a resounding ‘No’.
There were a lot of factors involved. For a starter their relationship got off on the wrong foot before the first Potions class. During the welcoming feast Harry and Severus look at each other, so does someone sat in the back of Quirrels head, and at the moment Harry’s scar hurts and he blames it on Severus. At this point Harry makes some very damning decisions about Severus that effect his judgment until DH.
Yes Severus is far from nice to Harry, but Harry is no angel either and it is not a one way animosity.
'Yeah, well,' said Harry, glowering at his plate, 'since when has Snape ever been fair to me?'

Neither of the others answered; all three of them knew that Snape and Harry's mutual enmity had been absolute from the moment Harry had set foot in Hogwarts.

As this is the author/narrator interpreting the mind of all of the trio, I take this to be cannon proof that the problem rests on both sides. I know some will say that Severus is the adult and therefore feel he is the only one to have any culpability in that but I think Harry would disagree with this assessment just as he disagreed that people being the same age as him absolved other parties of acts that shocked him in SWM – of course I am under no illusion that this view will be greeted by universal agreement. :lol:


Well, I'm not sure the first part matters. I would argue that even if we allow Harry, as a child, some culpability in his relationship with Snape, it doesn't excuse Snape (that is, whether we say Snape is all or mostly or partly at fault: he is still unquestionably at fault). Even if a child was annoying or arrogant or disrespectful, most adults wouldn't react the way Snape does. That, to me, says that Snape's behavior is being driven by his feelings for James which is a character weakness that has implications (like the occlumency lessons).

Again, we can have empathy for events in Snape's childhood and perhaps understand and relate to his feelings, but to me that doesn't cast his relationship with Harry into a new and selfless light. So I would argue that Snape's inability not to mistreat Harry (I'm not saying he has to be warm and fuzzy, just not cruel) exemplifies the limitations of working for DD just out of love for Lily. I feel his motivations had real life consequences and so they are relevant beyond an abstract deconstruction of why he was doing what he was doing. Phew, I hope that made some sense! :)

I think this comes through in his nasty treatment of Harry and his inability to teach Harry Occlumency.
I agree that Severus is nasty to Harry but I think that the canon showed that Harry did not want to learn occlumency and did not try or practice. Jo also said in an interview that Harry had no aptitude for occlumency and would have struggled to learn from anyone. As such I do not think that Severus was unable to teach Harry occlumency. Teaching is really about facilitaing learning and one cannot facilitate learning if the pupil does not wish to learn.

I do not understand this idea that Snape was impacting on the work of the order in a negative way. He wasn't particularly sociable but I don't see how that affects the agenda or work of the Order of the Phoenix. Other members had personality traits that caused friction within the Order as well - that is what happens when you get a group of people working together - they don't always agree. So I don't see that Snape affected the effectiveness of the Order anymore than any other character. The Order wasn't a social club and it bears repeating that the Order was set up by Dumbeldore in order to fight againt Voldemort.

Well, yes, I do think that the Order had a different agenda: they wanted to protect Harry and fight Voldemort. At a certain point, DD, with Snape, broke away from them because Harry had to be sacrificed and I don't think the Order would have understood that. Interestingly it is at this break off point that Snape's agenda (protecting Harry for Lily's sake) is different from Dumbledore's agenda. However as others have said Snape was intelligent and wise enough to see the bigger picture and give up his personal agenda in order to achieve the main goal - ie the defeat of Voldemort. The Order of the Phoenix is really Dumbledore's Army (as confusing as that may seem :lol: ) He is their leader and gives the orders, but he knew the limitations of the Order when it came to the tough decisions. Groups cannot and will not make tough decisions like those Dumbledore made. History shows that generally such decisions are made by one person - I am sure there are in depth psychological reasons for this - and it is the case here as well.

I am amazed that people are still questioning the danger Snape put himself in. Voldemort was an insane, powercrazed, extremely powerful wizard. He killed people because they were there and in the way. He made people suffer to engender fear into his minions as well as his enemies. He threatened to kill Lucius, Narcissa and Draco if Draco failed in his task, but he kept them alive because he enjoyed watching them suffer and Draco did show some potential as he managed to get DEs into Hogwarts. Voldemort didn't have friends. He used people and when they were no longer useful he discarded them. This is why Snape says to Bella about her stay in Azkaban that the gesture was fine but wasn't very useful (paraphrased) because that is what matters to Voldemort, and that is why Snape was allowed to live - because he was useful to Voldemort as a spy in Hogwarts. The moment however that he was no longer useful he became dispensable - so after killing Dumbledore he was on far more shakey ground because he was no longer useful as a spy, (which is why he had to give the information about the 7 Potters) but also he was more often in the Dark Lord's prescence and therefore more vulnerable to legilimency.

I've been away for a bit, and I'm scanning the thread when I have time. I'm not sure if I understand but it seems as though the argument is being posed that Snape's duty - to deliver Dumbledore's information about Voldemort's soul bit in Harry- is being posed as something contrary to Harry's safty or best interests, if so - I disagree.

IMO, This information and Snape's duty to give it to Harry is in now way a conflict with Snape's overall effort to protect the boy. Snape's duty for protecting Harry was sill in effect up until the moment he died. Snape gave him information but no advice on what to do with it- he simply delivered the final truth to Harry.

Snape delivered the information to the boy which allowed Harry to choose. This is important, IMO. Harry was not forced or coerced into anything. Harry chose to sacrifice himself out of love for others around him, that -like his mother- is what gave his sacrifice the power to protect those around him.

I would say that protecting Harry was just as high a priority for Snape after learning what he had to do, because Harry had to be in the right state of mind and health to make the proper decision on what to do with this bit of Soul inside of him.

I've been away for a bit, and I'm scanning the thread when I have time. I'm not sure if I understand but it seems as though the argument is being posed that Snape's duty - to deliver Dumbledore's information about Voldemort's soul bit in Harry- is being posed as something contrary to Harry's safty or best interests, if so - I disagree.

I respect your view, but I think that raises the question of if it was in Harry's best interests and safety to be given the message - or the wizard worlds? How is telling Harry that he has to die without a fight (and leaving the choice up to him) protecting him in anyway? Protecting him from what, from Snape's point of view?

I would say that protecting Harry was just as high a priority for Snape after learning what he had to do, because Harry had to be in the right state of mind and health to make the proper decision on what to do with this bit of Soul inside of him.

I respect your view, but how do you feel that Snape could help protect, or even know, what Harry's state of mind and health was at the time? The last time the trio pulled out the portrait was in the forest, which was the last Snape had heard or seen of Harry, imo. So I don't see how Snape would have any association with Harry months later when he arrived at Hogwarts.

Furthermore, the plan Snape agreed to was that Harry should be told at the last possible moment - or he'd not have the strength to do it (DH TPT). So Harry's state of mind was presumably supposed to be harried and worried and I am unsure that his health played into it as the result that both Dumbledore and Snape wished for was for Harry to die (figuratively in Dumbledore's case), imo, in order that Voldemort might finally be vanquished.

Well, I'm not sure the first part matters. I would argue that even if we allow Harry, as a child, some culpability in his relationship with Snape, it doesn't excuse Snape (that is, whether we say Snape is all or mostly or partly at fault: he is still unquestionably at fault).

I don’t argue the point that he holds responsibility for his actions simply that it is not the situation of one person being mean to a total innocent. I’m not looking to blame or absolve anyone – simply to understand characters. I believe that the dynamic between Severus & Harry is relevant and often misinterpreted to the reader through most of the story because of what fandom has referred to as the harry filter.

Even if a child was annoying or arrogant or disrespectful, most adults wouldn't react the way Snape does.

As a one off maybe (although I still know people that believe a clip round the ear is a good way to sort out kids misbehaving) but that’s not what we’re talk about – the situation between Severus & harry is a long and ingrained one of mutual hostility, at best. In this circumstance I don’t think we can fall back on the ‘a grown up wouldn’t treat a kid like that.’

Which brings us back to the Occlumency lessons – in this case I don’t believe that the issues that he has with James play a big unconscious part. I full admit he uses James and his opinion of James, but I think he does so in a rather aware manner to redirect Harry’s attention.

Furthermore, the plan Snape agreed to was that Harry should be told at the last possible moment - or he'd not have the strength to do it (DH TPT).

This implies that Dumbledore thought that Harry wouldn't have the strength to sacrifice himself if he knew earlier, but I think Dumbledore had much more faith in Harry than that. I think his reasoning for not telling Harry sooner was similar to the reasoning for not telling him about the prophecy sooner. Or, indeed for not making him a prefect.

OotP, The Lost Prophecy
'I must confess...that I rather thought...you had enough responsibility to be going on with.'

And Harry knew at the end of OotP that he would have to fight Voldemort basically alone at the end anyway. He knew he couldn't hide himself away, and that he needed to know the truth:

It was, he thought, the difference between being dragged into the arena to face a battle to the death and walking into the arena with your head held high. Some people, perhaps, would say that there was little to choose between the two ways, but Dumbledore knew - and so do I, thought Harry, with a rush of fierce pride, and so did my parents - that there was all the difference in the world.

In telling Harry to sacrifice himself, it's really just the same type of thing that Harry discussed with Dumbledore in HBP. And it's also reminscent of the way Snape died - not on his knees begging, but standing and facing Voldemort.

This implies that Dumbledore thought that Harry wouldn't have the strength to sacrifice himself if he knew earlier, but I think Dumbledore had much more faith in Harry than that. I think his reasoning for not telling Harry sooner was similar to the reasoning for not telling him about the prophecy sooner. Or, indeed for not making him a prefect.

OotP, The Lost Prophecy
'I must confess...that I rather thought...you had enough responsibility to be going on with.'

Perhaps, but that doesn't really serve to explain Snape's point of view, imo. Snape agreed to do it for the reason Dumbledore gave, iirc. My interpretation was that Snape agreed to wait until the last minute to deliver the message - when everything would be coming to a head (the last horcrux protected which Dumbledore could not say to Snape) and at that point, Snape was to drop the bomb and Harry would be inclined to follow through at that point. I feel that is what Snape was counting on.

Well, I'm not sure the first part matters. I would argue that even if we allow Harry, as a child, some culpability in his relationship with Snape, it doesn't excuse Snape (that is, whether we say Snape is all or mostly or partly at fault: he is still unquestionably at fault). Even if a child was annoying or arrogant or disrespectful, most adults wouldn't react the way Snape does. That, to me, says that Snape's behavior is being driven by his feelings for James which is a character weakness that has implications (like the occlumency lessons).

I'm with you on this, sweetsev. :cool:

I agree with other people that JKR uses a lot of red herrings and misdirection when it comes to Snape. And there is a Harry filter in the narrative, to some extent. I certainly think this is true of Harry later on.

But, in all honesty, much as I fangirl Snape ... he began the hostilities, not Harry. Harry is just a kid of eleven. He doesn't have an adult's perspective, neither should he be expected to.

After Snape's tragic and brutal death, and having viewed his memories, and also having vindicated him before Voldemort and the watching crowds -- stating to Voldemort, indeed taunting Voldemort that Snape was Dumbledore's man, just like Harry himself -- I believe that over time Harry came to a mature understanding of what Snape's life had been about, and the risks Snape had undertaken ...

so to me his final vindication of Snape does not ring hollow.

Again, we can have empathy for events in Snape's childhood and perhaps understand and relate to his feelings, but to me that doesn't cast his relationship with Harry into a new and selfless light. So I would argue that Snape's inability not to mistreat Harry (I'm not saying he has to be warm and fuzzy, just not cruel) exemplifies the limitations of working for DD just out of love for Lily. I feel his motivations had real life consequences and so they are relevant beyond an abstract deconstruction of why he was doing what he was doing. Phew, I hope that made some sense! :)

It does to me. :tu:

I would also add that he was prepared to take risks in his line of duty and to do that duty to the bitter end, even if it meant keeping up the pretence to the bitter end. And I think Harry realised that at last. Obviously, given that he names his son after him. :)

Perhaps, but that doesn't really serve to explain Snape's point of view, imo. Snape agreed to do it for the reason Dumbledore gave, iirc. My interpretation was that Snape agreed to wait until the last minute to deliver the message - when everything would be coming to a head (the last horcrux protected which Dumbledore could not say to Snape) and at that point, Snape was to drop the bomb and Harry would be inclined to follow through at that point. I feel that is what Snape was counting on.

I don't think Snape was counting on anything, he was just doing what he was asked to do by Dumbledore. Whatever Snape is I don't think he is stupid, and I am sure he knew Dumbledore well enough to know that he wouldn't ask him to do this unless there was no other way.

I don't think Snape was counting on anything, he was just doing what he was asked to do by Dumbledore. Whatever Snape is I don't think he is stupid, and I am sure he knew Dumbledore well enough to know that he wouldn't ask him to do this unless there was no other way.

Well I feel that was one of Snape's contradictory elements in the canon. Sometimes he appeared to do whatever Dumbledore told him to do, even when those things seemed iffy or wrongful, imo. Everything from killing Dumbledore, confunding Mundungus and divulging the plan to Voldemort; giving Harry a message he had to die; to posing as a spy at all costs, imo. But imo, Snape does show some autonomy in going against what Dumbledore wants, like stopping the Occlumency lessons, divulging that Lupin was a werewolf to his students (after trying to expose him throughout the year); attempting to convince the minister to have Sirius kissed after the fact, taking the vow with Narcissa, etc.

From a character analysis point of view, I feel that Snape did those things he agreed with and was therefore willing to do for Dumbledore - and that which he didn't personally agree with, he ultimately would not do - or stop doing, imo. I feel that when it came to Harry, Snape didn't care if the boy had to die, not in a good and evil sense, but in a 'gee it would be nice to have Harry on earth to be around' sense - so that is why I think he could count on Harry going through with Dumbledore's plan - because I do think he cared about Voldemort going down - personally, imo, and perhaps even in a good and evil sense.

In telling Harry to sacrifice himself, it's really just the same type of thing that Harry discussed with Dumbledore in HBP. And it's also reminscent of the way Snape died - not on his knees begging, but standing and facing Voldemort.
I don't think anyone told Harry to sacrifice himself. Snape certainly didn't - as Bscorp said Snape just gave Harry the information so Harry could decide for himself what to do. I think it's quite an important point because IMO for someone to have told Harry that he had to sacrifice himself would have taken away Harry's choice. Severus did not fully understand the information that Dumbledore had given him, and he knew that he did not have all the information necessary to fully understand, but Harry did. In a way this information is like a continuation of Harry's sessions with Dumbledore, when he receives the final piece of the puzzle.

What to me is more interesting is that Severus agrees to this plan without making any reference to Harry's shortcomings or suggesting that Harry could or would not do it. Given that Severus does not hold back from giving his opinion when it differes from Dumbledore's, this indicates to me that Severus thought that Harry was capable of doing this and would see it through, so he must have had quite a high opinion of Harry by then, and a far better understanding of his nature than he had when he was ranting on about Harry being a James clone in the early years.

But, in all honesty, much as I fangirl Snape ... he began the hostilities, not Harry. Harry is just a kid of eleven. He doesn't have an adult's perspective, neither should he be expected to.

After Snape's tragic and brutal death, and having viewed his memories, and also having vindicated him before Voldemort and the watching crowds -- stating to Voldemort, indeed taunting Voldemort that Snape was Dumbledore's man, just like Harry himself -- I believe that over time Harry came to a mature understanding of what Snape's life had been about, and the risks Snape had undertaken ...

so to me his final vindication of Snape does not ring hollow.


Yes, this is pretty much how I would sum up how I feel about Snape (and Harry's feeling about the two of them). :) I like that his big reveal doesn't automatically make him perfect in hindsight. And I'm glad that we can argue the distinctions between self punishment and true redemption...we all see these things differently and it's a complicated individual to bring up all these questions.

And I've never questioned Snape's bravery...whatever his motivations were and his other issues, he was certainly brave. I agree that there is no reason to diminish the personal risk he took on and ultimately died for.

I don't think anyone told Harry to sacrifice himself. Snape certainly didn't - as Bscorp said Snape just gave Harry the information so Harry could decide for himself what to do. I think it's quite an important point because IMO for someone to have told Harry that he had to sacrifice himself would have taken away Harry's choice. Severus did not fully understand the information that Dumbledore had given him, and he knew that he did not have all the information necessary to fully understand, but Harry did. In a way this information is like a continuation of Harry's sessions with Dumbledore, when he receives the final piece of the puzzle.

Point taken, Cathy. :agree: I was just responding to the language used by someone else to describe what Harry actually did, which was choosing to walk to his own death.

What to me is more interesting is that Severus agrees to this plan without making any reference to Harry's shortcomings or suggesting that Harry could or would not do it. Given that Severus does not hold back from giving his opinion when it differes from Dumbledore's, this indicates to me that Severus thought that Harry was capable of doing this and would see it through, so he must have had quite a high opinion of Harry by then, and a far better understanding of his nature than he had when he was ranting on about Harry being a James clone in the early years.
Also a good point. I believe Snape did have faith in Harry at the end.

I have been wondering when Snape told DD about Voldy's plan's of killing Lilly and her family. why he did not try to kill Voldy himself. his heart belongs to lilly and Snape was no coward.he was already a strong wizardand already did his best to p-rotect lilly so why he didn't try to defeat Voldy???

I have been wondering when Snape told DD about Voldy's plan's of killing Lilly and her family. why he did not try to kill Voldy himself. his heart belongs to lilly and Snape was no coward.he was already a strong wizardand already did his best to p-rotect lilly so why he didn't try to defeat Voldy???

I think Severus was smart enough to know that he couldn't do it. By then he knew how powerful Voldemort was, and that he would be dead on the spot if he challenged him, in my opinion.

I think Severus was smart enough to know that he couldn't do it. By then he knew how powerful Voldemort was, and that he would be dead on the spot if he challenged him, in my opinion.

I agree. I think he made sure to try to give Dumbledore the warning before he tried anything on his own beyond asking Voldemort to spare Lily, which was probably pretty risky in and of itself. By going to Dumbledore he would be making sure they were warned of the danger they were in. Then after that he turned spy for Dumbledore, no? If I'm remembering right then in essence he was working to bring down Voldemort.

I have been wondering when Snape told DD about Voldy's plan's of killing Lilly and her family. why he did not try to kill Voldy himself. his heart belongs to lilly and Snape was no coward.he was already a strong wizardand already did his best to p-rotect lilly so why he didn't try to defeat Voldy???

Analysing it in terms of Snape's character, I think Snape could be motivated to undertake certain types of brave acts, but I don't feel that was within his true nature when it came to seriously dangerous ventures, such as trying to take out a powerful Dark Lord like Voldemort. Snape actually had an in with Voldemort - he was on the inside and welcomed at Voldemort's side as a loyal Death Eater at the time (DH/HBP). I feel that in his position, he could have made a good college try of taking out the dark lord, but he decided to try and get either Voldemort or Dumbledore to spare Lily instead. I feel Snape made a decision in that instance that was not brave at all, although it did show cunning, imo, which can also be successful at times, but failed in this instance. Snape could not have succeeded in killing Voldy we know, because Voldy already had horcruxes - but he could have at least dusted him to some degree which would have helped, imo. Although, I would imagine that Snape could have killed him, and then again 6 more times until the horcruxes finally expired, that might have worked.

I have been wondering when Snape told DD about Voldy's plan's of killing Lilly and her family. why he did not try to kill Voldy himself. his heart belongs to lilly and Snape was no coward.he was already a strong wizardand already did his best to p-rotect lilly so why he didn't try to defeat Voldy???

Isn't there a part in OotP, during the Occlumency lessons where Snape yells at Harry for saying Voldemort's name? He essentially says that he knows he is not as strong a wizard as Voldemort. And at that time, Snape was, what, 20 years old? So, I agree, instead of risking a likely to fail physical attack, he used his Slytherin cunning and went to DD, who was considered stronger than Voldemort. I am sure we can argue on and on about whether that was brave or not, but it was probably the best odds decision, even if it didn't work out.

when Snape told DD of the plans of Voldy he did it knowing that he was declaring war to Voldy. he did'nt know that voldy had horcruxes.and he was not going to tell him that he was know his enemy he close his mind of those feelings in his presence so he could in a split second rise his wand against him and hope for the best.:cool:

Voldemort always had plans of who he was going to kill and attacked in surprised without warning. Snape was his only enemy that knew where to find him most of the times.I don't think that he was afraid of Voldemort . he was around 20's and already lying to Lord Voldemort,at that time there was not other wizard capable of doing that so I would say that he was strong enough to face him in battle

I think Snape and Harry were the only 2 wizards that Dumbledore really trust with his most difficult plans even after long death he knew that they would finish the job :cool: for Harry to take care of horcruxes and Voldemort . and for Snape to protect his students(for DD this was as important as horcruxes ):cool:

How is telling Harry that he has to die without a fight (and leaving the choice up to him) protecting him in anyway?

Telling Harry that he had a soul bit I think was very important not only to the war but to Harry as well. Harry would have never forgiven Dumbledore for concealing this from him, had he come to know later, and he would have felt responsible for all the deaths that took place because he was alive and kicking.

I think it was Dumbledore's duty to tell Harry that there was this thing inside him and since Dumbledore was dead, he used Snape, who he trusted implicitly to pass on that message for him.

He also gave a specific time to pass it on, because Harry had other concerns, important ones of locating and destroying the horcruxes and I think Dumbledore wanted Harry to be free of this knowledge as long as he could make it possible for Harry to concentrate on the horcruxes.

But there would come a time, according to Dumbledore when Harry would need to know and it was at that time he asked Snape to pass on the message. I think Snape understood exactly what Dumbledore meant in this situation and seeing no way out, he agreed.

He was protecting Harry in a way, both Snape and Dumbledore were because they withheld the information until they could not any longer; that was protecting him from a horrible nightmare of being aware that he had Voldemort's soul sitting inside him.

Protecting him from death; well I don't think they could and I'm sure Dumbledore would have tried and Snape after he knew would have researched everything he had and more to see if there was a way out.

And like others have said Snape only passed on the message. The choice to sacrifice his life was Harry's IMO.

Protecting him from what, from Snape's point of view?

Protecting him from the information that there was Voldemort inside Harry for as long as it was possible IMO.

I think this comes through in his nasty treatment of Harry and his inability to teach Harry Occlumency. Snape is so burdened by his hatred of James/Harry that he is not as helpful as he could be, which is damaging to the Order's agenda...I think that this can be interpreted as "selfish" because he is bowing to his own personal feelings rather than putting those feelings aside to more effectively deal with the bigger threat. Whether it is understandable or valid or simply human that he might act like this is a different issue altogether. I hope that makes sense!

I agree Snape hated James; I cannot see Snape handing over memories we saw to James, Sirius or Lupin. For them, I think he would have simply shown the memories of Dumbledore's conversation regarding the message and stopped right there.

To Harry he was giving an explanation as it were of his life and the choices he took. I cant see that Snape would hate Harry and still pass on such personal memories showing his humiliation, his vulnerability and his heart.

He was harsh to Harry; he had to be, but I don't think he hated Harry because he never humiliated Harry using information about him; I always think Snape used his very genuine hatred of James to distance himself from Harry; to make Harry dislike him, openly, so that Harry would be safe.

The no mocking of memories in the Occlumency lessons; no comment on Harry's use of the HBP Book in Potions to Slughorn, no detention even when Harry shouts at him to Shut Up in POA, I think are incidents to show that Snape's feelings were vastly different from his words and his sneer.

Analysing it in terms of Snape's character, I think Snape could be motivated to undertake certain types of brave acts, but I don't feel that was within his true nature when it came to seriously dangerous ventures, such as trying to take out a powerful Dark Lord like Voldemort.

I would think it very rash of Snape had he foolishly tried to take on Voldemort by himself. Even Dumbledore did not go about looking for confrontation in the First War, before the Prophecy.

Had Snape simply tried to kill Voldemort and died in the process, he would have been rash, not clever or particularly brave.

Snape on the other hand walked into Voldemort's den to spy on him, pretending to be one of the DE, knowing that death would be the punishment if he was found out, IMO was a very courageous thing to do. He helped Dumbledore plan the war, saved as many lives he could and brought down Voldemort from within.

He was protecting Harry in a way, both Snape and Dumbledore were because they withheld the information until they could not any longer; that was protecting him from a horrible nightmare of being aware that he had Voldemort's soul sitting inside him.

I respect your view, but I don't see that as protection; I see that as not disclosing the truth to Harry about a material life and death matter pertinent to his very survival. I feel like Snape had a duty to tell Harry about that because it wasn't merely withholding information, it was withholding it with a plan to tell him at a time when Harry would have no real choice in the matter due to the circumstances (imo).

He was harsh to Harry; he had to be, but I don't think he hated Harry because he never humiliated Harry using information about him; I always think Snape used his very genuine hatred of James to distance himself from Harry; to make Harry dislike him, openly, so that Harry would be safe.
The no mocking of memories in the Occlumency lessons; no comment on Harry's use of the HBP Book in Potions to Slughorn, no detention even when Harry shouts at him to Shut Up in POA, I think are incidents to show that Snape's feelings were vastly different from his words and his sneer.

I would respectfully disagree because I feel like Snape took the opportunity in Ps/SS and GoF to mock Harry publicly in the classroom, over "fame" that Harry was not responsible for, imo. I feel that with respect to the Occlumency lessons, Snape was fearful that Harry would reveal his secrets and that stopped him from revealing Harry's, imo. I feel that in HBP, Snape did not wish to reveal that the potions book had belonged to him because he'd then have to shoulder the responsibility of leaving a dangerous book in the school cabinet (due to the Sectumsempra spell being inside). In POA, I feel that Snape took his revenge against Harry immediately and did not feel a need to give further detention. So we would have to agree to disagree on this evidence serving to show Snape didn't loath Harry. I feel that he did.

I would think it very rash of Snape had he foolishly tried to take on Voldemort by himself. Even Dumbledore did not go about looking for confrontation in the First War, before the Prophecy.

I respect your view in this regard, but I think it is a rather traditional literary show of bravery (imo). In examples: Harry behaved in a rather rash and foolish manner, imo, when he took on Voldemort, being a much less skilled wizard, who was unsure whether or not the power of the Elder Wand was his and banking on 'love' which had only just recently become meaningful to him (imo). Anakin Skywalker was rash and foolish to take on Sidious and throw him down the core, when his arm was amputated and he was still encased in, and sustained by Darth Vader's short-circuiting suit barely able to function (imo). Angel and his gang of 4 were rash and foolish to go up against 50,000 beasts, creatures and demons in their final onscreen battle (imo). Batman was rash and foolish to take on the entire justice league and a slew of zombies alone (imo).

I think these examples help to show what I mean. The rash and foolish acts of the disadvantaged against a formidable foe is what I feel separates the heroes from the masses in these stories. So that is why I feel that Snape attempting to do this in terms of Voldemort would have been brave and heroic. Dumbledore knew his chances of defeating Voldemort at the MOM were zero to none (Voldy had the horcruxes and he knew it), but he fought him anyway (OOTP) - and so gauging one's chances is not as important, imo, as giving it your all if your cause is important enough to you. It could simply be that Snape's cause at the time, to save Lily, was not that important to him, but based on the way the canon was written, my interpretation was that Snape was not brave enough to attempt it (imo).

Had Snape simply tried to kill Voldemort and died in the process, he would have been rash, not clever or particularly brave.

I would respectfully disagree; I think it would have been very brave - although I agree it would also be foolish and rash - but that comes with the territory, imo.

Snape on the other hand walked into Voldemort's den to spy on him, pretending to be one of the DE, knowing that death would be the punishment if he was found out, IMO was a very courageous thing to do. He helped Dumbledore plan the war, saved as many lives he could and brought down Voldemort from within.

Well I think that it took bravery on Snape's part to rejoin Voldemort in GoF because he had no idea what the outcome would be. After that, we were not shown subsequent meetings between Snape and Voldemort until DH - and that was not one in which Snape appeared to be in any danger, imo. So in fairness, I cannot make a definitive judgment on the meetings I didn't see, but I believe I have shared my opinion on that recently just a couple of pages back. :)

I would think it very rash of Snape had he foolishly tried to take on Voldemort by himself. Even Dumbledore did not go about looking for confrontation in the First War, before the Prophecy.

Had Snape simply tried to kill Voldemort and died in the process, he would have been rash, not clever or particularly brave.



Indeed, and not very Slytherin! Gryffindors are the rash ones after all. :wink:

I respect your view, but I don't see that as protection; I see that as not disclosing the truth to Harry about a material life and death matter pertinent to his very survival. I feel like Snape had a duty to tell Harry about that because it wasn't merely withholding information, it was withholding it with a plan to tell him at a time when Harry would have no real choice in the matter due to the circumstances (imo).

That's war IMO. :shrug: :)

I feel that with respect to the Occlumency lessons, Snape was fearful that Harry would reveal his secrets and that stopped him from revealing Harry's, imo.

Revealing Snape's secret to whom; almost all students in Snape's year would have known and even assuming Harry told everyone in his year about Snape being hung upside down, the next question would have been by whom? And the answer to that was what shamed Harry and kept his quiet; he could not even tell Ron and Hermione, when they knew just about everything else IMO.

If it was about the Mudblood comment, then it would have made students from other Houses call Snape more types of git and it would made the DE kids in Slytherin more sure that Snape was on 'their' side.

So, IMO, Snape had nothing to lose by that memory; what he did have to lose, he lost it back a long time ago; Harry on the other hand had had his image of his father shattered and had the most uncomfortable feeling of sympathising with Snape, because he had faced the same situations time and again from his cousin, Dudley and Dudley's friends IMO.

I feel that in HBP, Snape did not wish to reveal that the potions book had belonged to him because he'd then have to shoulder the responsibility of leaving a dangerous book in the school cabinet (due to the Sectumsempra spell being inside).

The moment Snape became DADA teacher, that responsibility went to Slughorn, who needed to check the Books before he okayed it for the students to use IMO.

In POA, I feel that Snape took his revenge against Harry immediately and did not feel a need to give further detention. So we would have to agree to disagree on this evidence serving to show Snape didn't loath Harry. I feel that he did.

He took revenge against Harry? How?

I respect your view in this regard, but I think it is a rather traditional literary show of bravery (imo). In examples: Harry behaved in a rather rash and foolish manner, imo, when he took on Voldemort, being a much less skilled wizard, who was unsure whether or not the power of the Elder Wand was his and banking on 'love' which had only just recently become meaningful to him (imo).

Harry could get away behaving in a rash and foolish manner because Snape and Dumbledore had done all the leg work for him; Harry, when he faced Voldemort had all the ropes with him (that Snape and Dumbledore placed in his hands); he merely jerked them all and Voldemort fell IMO. That was not a duel of magical prowess or skill or strength; that was a duel to show the power of love which Harry had and Voldemort did not.

Anakin Skywalker was rash and foolish to take on Sidious and throw him down the core, when his arm was amputated and he was still encased in, and sustained by Darth Vader's short-circuiting suit barely able to function (imo). Angel and his gang of 4 were rash and foolish to go up against 50,000 beasts, creatures and demons in their final onscreen battle (imo). Batman was rash and foolish to take on the entire justice league and a slew of zombies alone (imo).

I cannot answer this; I have not read Star wars (I assume this is from there). :)

I think these examples help to show what I mean. The rash and foolish acts of the disadvantaged against a formidable foe is what I feel separates the heroes from the masses in these stories.

A hero is one who is terrified and yet goes on to face the terror, because it's the right thing to do; which is why I think Snape is brave and courageous; he was scared of Voldemort and yet faced him time and again, because it was the right thing to do.

Being without fear is not courage; I think fearlessness tends to make people commit mistakes because they tend to become overconfident; and those mistakes are usually fatal or which cost heavily. Sirius is an example of that, perhaps even James; Sirius in his fight with Bellatrix was fearless; he was also overconfident; as a result he lost his life; James was over confident about his friends even when there was a mention of a traitor; that lack of prudence led to their deaths and made Harry an orphan IMO.

Snape was scared of Voldemort's name; he knew what Voldemort was capable of; he had seen it first hand and yet he went back and fought against him, prudently, knowing his limitations and using his strengths.

Voldemort was never able to find out until Harry told him that Snape had been a traitor IMO.

I would respectfully disagree; I think it would have been very brave - although I agree it would also be foolish and rash - but that comes with the territory, imo.

When such braveness along with rashness does not yield anything, what would be the purpose of such a so called brave action. It only shows a lack of planning, cleverness and over confidence which makes for more failure than success IMO.

Well I think that it took bravery on Snape's part to rejoin Voldemort in GoF because he had no idea what the outcome would be. After that, we were not shown subsequent meetings between Snape and Voldemort until DH - and that was not one in which Snape appeared to be in any danger, imo.

I believe Dumbledore when he says that Snape went back to Voldemort a great personal risk and also in the TPT where he says he understands how difficult Snape's job is. :)

So, IMO, Snape had nothing to lose by that memory;

I feel that according to Snape, he had a lot to lose. He told Harry that he better not tell anyone what he'd seen after Harry viewed the memory (OOTP/SWM). So I would have to respectfully disagree that Snape felt he had nothing to lose.

Harry could get away behaving in a rash and foolish manner because Snape and Dumbledore had done all the leg work for him;

I would respectfully disagree because Snape wasn't responsible for Harry being the master of the Elder Wand, imo - that wasn't a part of Dumbledore's plan, imo. And I don't feel Snape had anything to do with Harry's ability to love either. I agree Dumbledore did the investigation which allowed for Harry to live, but Snape neither knew about that nor helped with any of the investigation in my judgment, he merely delivered Dumbledore's message (DH The Elder Wand). So I am unsure what leg work you are speaking of - unless you mean the general work that everyone did throughout the series, but I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to Harry making up his mind to fight a foe that had greater skill on faith alone, imo.

I cannot answer this; I have not read Star wars (I assume this is from there). :)

Well my point was that often a brave hero will risk their lives against great odds in order to achieve their goals in literature, imo. I was giving examples to show that Snape could have taken that road also if he had desired to do so.

A hero is one who is terrified and yet goes on to face the terror, because it's the right thing to do; which is why I think Snape is brave and courageous; he was scared of Voldemort and yet faced him time and again, because it was the right thing to do.

Well I was only referring to the time when Snape went to Voldemort and Dumbledore in an attempt to save Lily and indicating he did this rather than facing off against Voldemort himself. Canon does not indicate why Snape didn't take on Voldemort himself - so I was just giving my opinion as to why. I didn't mean to infer he never fought - I feel all of the DEs fought, but I was only referring to that particular situation. :)

Being without fear is not courage; I think fearlessness tends to make people commit mistakes because they tend to become overconfident; and those mistakes are usually fatal or which cost heavily. Sirius is an example of that, ...; Sirius in his fight with Bellatrix was fearless; he was also overconfident; as a result he lost his life;

I think Sirius is a good example here because he did decide to personally take on the DEs, despite the risk to himself, in order to try and protect Harry. The outcome is less important - some heroes die trying, others don't - but I feel it is brave to make the attempt, independent of how rash or foolish it may seem due to disadvantage or other risks.

I think Skullwolf55's raised a valid question though because it isn't explained in canon why Snape didn't make an attempt on Voldemort in order to take care of the matter himself - seeing as he was close to Voldemort and could get to him, imo. Thus, I can only speculate, imo.

When such braveness along with rashness does not yield anything, what would be the purpose of such a so called brave action. It only shows a lack of planning, cleverness and over confidence which makes for more failure than success IMO.

I disagree because in literature, it happens a lot to the heroes and authors often make these things both successful and fail within the same storyline (the examples I gave also have failure involved upon other heroes taking these risks). I think JKR followed suit with some characters. However, Snape didn't follow that track, imo, and when you consider all of the ways used to kill people in HP series, it would seem that Snape could have tried one of those methods against Voldemort - especially as he could have some advantage as an occlumens, imo. I am not sure why JKR didn't have him attempt it (apart from neither wishing for him to fail or be successful as Voldy couldn't die and Snape had to live to be in the story :lol:.) But I still think she could have had Snape attempt it, fail, but without Voldy's knowledge, i.e., poison that Voldy didn't end up being affected by or something, just to show that he would try based on the fact that he was closest to Voldy - being in the inner circle of the DEs. Perhaps this will be revealed in the Scottish book.

Indeed, and not very Slytherin! Gryffindors are the rash ones after all. :wink:
Indeed! And he would have been very dead, and I don't see how that would help Harry or Dumbledore in the future. ;)

Luckily, Snape was very much alive for all seven books, and he was never one for rash or reckless behavior. But in my opinion he was just as heroic as people who rushed into places without thinking about it.

He didn't try to kill Voldemort, because he assessed he had better chances going to Dumbledore. Smart assessment, if you ask me.

Also, even if he did kill him (though he did, that is), where's the proof Lily wouldn't still be murdered by some of Voldemort's followers?

I have been wondering when Snape told DD about Voldy's plan's of killing Lilly and her family. why he did not try to kill Voldy himself. his heart belongs to lilly and Snape was no coward.he was already a strong wizardand already did his best to p-rotect lilly so why he didn't try to defeat Voldy???


During the first war all the DE's knew Voldemort had been experimenting to gain immortality, Voldemort mentions this in his speech to his DE's after his re-birth (GoF).

GoF, The Death Eaters
' And I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against mortal death? They who had seen the proofs of the immensity of my power, in the times when I was mightier than any living wizard.'

So, Snape would have known that attempting to kill Voldemort was foolish and doomed to failure and so did the next best thing in his attempt to save Lily.


A hero is one who is terrified and yet goes on to face the terror, because it's the right thing to do; which is why I think Snape is brave and courageous; he was scared of Voldemort and yet faced him time and again, because it was the right thing to do.

Dumbledore certainly appreciated Snape's bravery and understood exactly how much danger he was putting himself in. And, Jo has said that if she wants us to know something, she gets either Dumbledore or Hermione to tell us.

DH, 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 always found the fact that he kept his secrets from Harry to be quite heroic...his hatred for Harry because of James reduces Snape to a childish state of mind, and it would have been so easy for him to put Harry in his place by telling him the truth. He probably withholds the truth for the same reason, but having that kind of secret from someone who has such a misplaced and biased opinion of you, it can be very tempting to reveal the truth just to knock the other person down.

Voldemort always had plans of who he was going to kill and attacked in surprised without warning.

I don’t think that there is any cannon proof of this, in fact the piece Annielogic quoted recently directly contradicts the idea that Voldemort always plans who he is going to kill.

I think JKR gave us a clear and vivid insight into what could happen if Voldemort's wrath was unleashed, during the chapter The Final Hiding Place.


The Elder Wand slashed through the air and green light erupted through the room, the kneeling goblin rolled over, dead, the watching wizards scattered before him, terrified: Bellatrix and Lucius Malfoy threw others behind them in their race for the door, and again and again his wand fell, and those who were left were slain, all of them, for bringing him this news, . . .


I don't think that he was afraid of Voldemort .

I can't agree because I think we see several examples of Severus being scared of Voldemort, he is terrified when he first meets Dumbledore, and I personally think part of that is because he is betraying Voldemort. He often reflexively holds his arm when it carries the dark mark, his reaction to anyone saying ‘Voldemort’, the way he goes paler when he is asked to go back to Voldemort, and Harry comments on his extreme paleness when he see’s him meeting Voldemort just before he is killed. All of these make me think Severus is scared of Voldemort.


But, in all honesty, much as I fangirl Snape ... he began the hostilities, not Harry.

Honestly I think they both have a right to that award.

Harry had made up his mind about Severus before the first potions class. He had decided he was the reason his scar hurt, and if the dream he had that night was anything to go by he seemed to have Snape melded with Voldemort in his mind - he certainly goes on to act as if this is an accurate representation of his opinion.

Then we see the first potions class where Snape actions are certainly tainted by his Harry/James conflict. Personally I don't have a big problem with the majority of the begging of the class - the 3 questions etc (the 'new celebrity' & 'fame isn't everything' comments aside - they are unwarranted) the thing that really bothers me is his reaction when Neville melts Seamus's cauldron.

But it seems to me they both arrive at damning opinions of each other for the wrong reasons; Severus because of his history with James, Lily & marauders &and Harry because of Voldemort’s interference during their first meeting. So I don't think who started it comes into it, they both prejudged the situation unfairly and neither of them tried to do anything to stop it.

I always found the fact that he kept his secrets from Harry to be quite heroic...his hatred for Harry because of James reduces Snape to a childish state of mind, and it would have been so easy for him to put Harry in his place by telling him the truth. He probably withholds the truth for the same reason, but having that kind of secret from someone who has such a misplaced and biased opinion of you, it can be very tempting to reveal the truth just to knock the other person down.

I hadn't thought of that before, I'm not sure I wold use the word 'heroic' here but I certainly think it shows his resolve in a positive light :)

instead of risking a likely to fail physical attack, he used his Slytherin cunning and went to DD, who was considered stronger than Voldemort. I am sure we can argue on and on about whether that was brave or not, but it was probably the best odds decision, even if it didn't work out.Completely agree! Sev was a Slytherin through and through and that means he would do whatever it took to achieve his end. His end was to save Lily and he figured that the surest way to achieve that aim was to go to Dumbledore and get him to protect Lily.

I would think it very rash of Snape had he foolishly tried to take on Voldemort by himself. Even Dumbledore did not go about looking for confrontation in the First War, before the Prophecy.

Indeed, and not very Slytherin! Gryffindors are the rash ones after all. ;)
:agree: IMO it is very much a Gryffindor thing to do meet Voldemort head on. Brave but extremely foolish and likely to accomplish nothing. Bravery is all well and good but unless it accompanied by intelligence and rationality it will achieve nothing but your own demise. I value bravery but I do not think it is above other virtues such as intelligence which is why I'm a Ravenclaw and not Gryffindor.

Luckily, Snape was very much alive for all seven books, and he was never one for rash or reckless behavior. But in my opinion he was just as heroic as people who rushed into places without thinking about it.
:agree: Just as heroic and far more useful!

That's war IMO. :tu: During WWII far worse decisions had to be made and far worse truths kept under wraps.

A hero is one who is terrified and yet goes on to face the terror, because it's the right thing to do; which is why I think Snape is brave and courageous; he was scared of Voldemort and yet faced him time and again, because it was the right thing to do.
Beautifully said!

Being without fear is not courage; I think fearlessness tends to make people commit mistakes because they tend to become overconfident; and those mistakes are usually fatal or which cost heavily. Sirius is an example of that, perhaps even James; Sirius in his fight with Bellatrix was fearless; he was also overconfident; as a result he lost his life; James was over confident about his friends even when there was a mention of a traitor; that lack of prudence led to their deaths and made Harry an orphan IMO.:agree: Precisely! When courage tips over into arrogance then defeat is inevitable. Pride comes before a fall as they say and in the HP series the arrogant characters all seem to end up dead. It is Harry who has humility who triumphs.

Snape was scared of Voldemort's name; he knew what Voldemort was capable of; he had seen it first hand and yet he went back and fought against him, prudently, knowing his limitations and using his strengths.:agree: That is true courage!

As I have said before courage is not the only virtue nor is it "the best" virtue. It is only one of many virtues. Snape had courage in spades, but he also had intelligence and cunning which made his courage far more productive. Charging into battle and getting yourself killed is not so much brave as extremely stupid IMO - especially when there are people who are relying on you and need you.

Yes, this is pretty much how I would sum up how I feel about Snape (and Harry's feeling about the two of them). :) I like that his big reveal doesn't automatically make him perfect in hindsight. And I'm glad that we can argue the distinctions between self punishment and true redemption...we all see these things differently and it's a complicated individual to bring up all these questions.

:agree:

And I've never questioned Snape's bravery...whatever his motivations were and his other issues, he was certainly brave. I agree that there is no reason to diminish the personal risk he took on and ultimately died for.

:tu:

But it seems to me they both arrive at damning opinions of each other for the wrong reasons; Severus because of his history with James, Lily & marauders &and Harry because of Voldemort’s interference during their first meeting. So I don't think who started it comes into it, they both prejudged the situation unfairly and neither of them tried to do anything to stop it.

Be that as it may, Harry is eleven. :huh: Severus is a grown man in his early 30s. Who is in the position of power here? To me there is no equivalence. :shrug: Not in this first encounter between them, anyway.

Later on in the troubled relationship between the two, Harry's behaviour certainly doesn't help, and seems to reinforce Snape's prejudice that Harry is just another James Mark Two (rather than being a person in his own right).

btw, on the notion that Snape could have tried to kill Voldemort back in 1981

No. Just no. That was no way to try to protect Lily, and Severus knew it. And as Cathy points out above, his modus operandi is Slytherin through and through. :cool:

This story needs both impulsive, reckless, look-before-you-leap Gryffindors and calculating, logical, cool-headed Slytherins. :) I for one appreciate the contrast between the two! :D :)

Be that as it may, Harry is eleven. :huh: Severus is a grown man in his early 30s. Who is in the position of power here?

I've always seen Snape as an emotionally stunted man. Adult behaviour obviously doesn't apply to his feelings about his past, so while he should have taken a mature approach, even Dumbledore realised too late that there are simply some hurts that can't be forgiven or forgotten...even when they should be.

I've always seen Snape as an emotionally stunted man.

I do too. I love the character no less for it, and he's certainly not the only emotionally stunted person in the Potterverse. ;) But ... yes, I do.

Adult behaviour obviously doesn't apply to his feelings about his past, so while he should have taken a mature approach, even Dumbledore realised too late that there are simply some hurts that can't be forgiven or forgotten...even when they should be.

Very true. Makes you wonder how many conversations Dumbledore and Snape had about this. :shrug: Maybe it was all far too painful an area for Dumbledore to broach with Snape. :sigh: But, hey, this is all speculation ...

But the 'Sometimes I think we Sort too early' remark, and Snape's stricken expression in response, does give pause for thought ...

Welcome to the forums, btw. :)

Be that as it may, Harry is eleven. :huh: Severus is a grown man in his early 30s. Who is in the position of power here? To me there is no equivalence. :shrug: Not in this first encounter between them, anyway. Later on in the troubled relationship between the two, Harry's behaviour certainly doesn't help, and seems to reinforce Snape's prejudice that Harry is just another James Mark Two (rather than being a person in his own right).


I agree, but I further feel that Harry was like his dad in many ways, but that was no reason for Snape to mistreat him, imo, because James shouldn't have been mistreated by any professor either, imo. In other words, I feel mistreating students for any reason is wrong. Harry and all students should be model students - but when mistreated, I feel that rule ceases to apply.

This story needs both impulsive, reckless, look-before-you-leap Gryffindors and calculating, logical, cool-headed Slytherins. :) I for one appreciate the contrast between the two! :D :)

Well to me it wasn't that clear cut; Bella was impulsive and reckless; Dumbledore cunning and calculating, imo. But I agree Snape embodied the Slytherin traits. Still, what would keep Snape from planning a calculating and cunning manner to kill Voldemort? That is a question I feel the canon does not answer. I don't feel that Snape had to race in and recklessly attempt to kill him, he could have come up with something very stealthy, imo.

However, I was considering this, and I recalled Dumbledore's words in the aftermath regarding Snape having placed his trust in Voldemort (DH TPT). So that would be a reason why Snape wouldn't have attempted to kill Voldemort; I feel he was banking on either Voldy or Dumbledore keeping her safe in the end and no matter which way it turned out, he'd be able to claim loyalty to the winner, imo.

No. Just no. That was no way to try to protect Lily, and Severus knew it.
I personally also have a problem with the morality of Severus murdering Voldemort at this stage, because if he went and attacked Voldemort and killed him (which we know is impossible) it would have been murder. Voldemort expressing an intent to kill Lily - or any one else - is no defence for Severus to kill him. I also don't believe it is morally acceptable for Voldemort to be killed on the basis of previous murders he has committed - I also think that Jo shared this view because Harry never tried to kill Voldemort. If someone has broken the law then the correct action, if nobody is in immediate danger, is to aprehend them and hold them for trial. IMO killing Voldemort would only be acceptable in self-defence or in defence of another. But of course this is all academic because Voldemort couldn't be murdered until all his horcruxes had been disposed of. As I said before, when Voldemort does become "killable" Harry does not attempt to kill him - it is once again Vodlemorts own spell backfiring that leads to his defeat.

So apart from being foolish and impossible Snape attempting to kill Voldemort in 1981 would have been morally wrong, so I really cannot even say that I think it would be a brave thing to do.

I've always seen Snape as an emotionally stunted man. Adult behaviour obviously doesn't apply to his feelings about his past, so while he should have taken a mature approach, even Dumbledore realised too late that there are simply some hurts that can't be forgiven or forgotten...even when they should be.

Welcome Lilahbelle!

Yes, I completely agree with Snape being emotionally stunted. I certainly do not think that his cruelty toward Harry was deliberately and consciously planned out with some greater goal in mind; he doesn't even really seem aware of it half of the time, it's like an instinctive reaction. Snape clearly had some personal issues that interfered with his ability to respond maturely to Harry (and, it would seem, to working with children in general). However, your point that he doesn't reveal other things to Harry is a good one; it indicates that he was able to maintain some level of restraint in the face of his irrational feelings toward Harry.

However, I was considering this, and I recalled Dumbledore's words in the aftermath regarding Snape having placed his trust in Voldemort (DH TPT). So that would be a reason why Snape wouldn't have attempted to kill Voldemort; I feel he was banking on either Voldy or Dumbledore keeping her safe in the end and no matter which way it turned out, he'd be able to claim loyalty to the winner, imo.

Yes, Snape attempts to cover all his bases by talking to both Voldemort and DD. Very very cunning. However I don't think he ever planned to claim loyalty to DD, no matter what happened. I think that was a consequence of Dumbledore asking and of Lily dying.

I feel that according to Snape, he had a lot to lose. He told Harry that he better not tell anyone what he'd seen after Harry viewed the memory (OOTP/SWM). So I would have to respectfully disagree that Snape felt he had nothing to lose.

Sure he told Harry not to tell anyone, because it was his worst memory, which still haunted him. But realistically how would he have stopped Harry from saying anything? Snape at that time was not someone Harry respected or understood; for me the fact Harry never told Ron and Hermione is telling and it shows it was Harry who was ashamed of his father, than it was Snape's threat that made him silent. If this shame was something he could not share with his best friends, Harry was hardly going to tell the world.

I would respectfully disagree because Snape wasn't responsible for Harry being the master of the Elder Wand, imo - that wasn't a part of Dumbledore's plan, imo. And I don't feel Snape had anything to do with Harry's ability to love either. I agree Dumbledore did the investigation which allowed for Harry to live, but Snape neither knew about that nor helped with any of the investigation in my judgment, he merely delivered Dumbledore's message (DH The Elder Wand). So I am unsure what leg work you are speaking of - unless you mean the general work that everyone did throughout the series, but I wasn't referring to that. I was referring to Harry making up his mind to fight a foe that had greater skill on faith alone, imo.

I meant that Snape and Dumbledore did all the hard work for Harry. In general, I was not talking about anything specific. Also the plot with the EW was that Voldemort thinks Snape to be the Master of it when he was not, and, to ensure Voldemort never became Master of it under any circumstances. I think both were accomplished.

Snape may not have anything to do with Harry's ability to love; but I think he sure had a lot to do with placing Harry in such a position that his love would get a chance to manifest itself. Like the Forest, for example and like showing his own love for Harry's mother, which enabled Harry to strike nails into Voldemort's coffin, making him unsure and ripping away his confidence in the Final Battle; apart from of course the other jobs Snape and Dumbledore did, in order to set it all up for Harry IMO.

Well my point was that often a brave hero will risk their lives against great odds in order to achieve their goals in literature, imo. I was giving examples to show that Snape could have taken that road also if he had desired to do so.

I think he would have failed. Voldemort was an organisation; realistically Snape could not have done it by attacking Voldemort in his den.

Instead Snape was a brave Hero, who chose to walk into the enemy's den, knowing that a single mistake would cost him his life, and the Order its spy, and, it was this job Snape did, for years and succeeded too.

Well I was only referring to the time when Snape went to Voldemort and Dumbledore in an attempt to save Lily and indicating he did this rather than facing off against Voldemort himself. Canon does not indicate why Snape didn't take on Voldemort himself - so I was just giving my opinion as to why. I didn't mean to infer he never fought - I feel all of the DEs fought, but I was only referring to that particular situation. :)

Same answer as above.

I think Sirius is a good example here because he did decide to personally take on the DEs, despite the risk to himself, in order to try and protect Harry. The outcome is less important - some heroes die trying, others don't - but I feel it is brave to make the attempt, independent of how rash or foolish it may seem due to disadvantage or other risks.

I think the outcome is always more important. How can it not be? For if the outcome is not important, then why do something to risk one's life. And if the outcome's not important, then surely a person would be careless and that would result in mistakes.

For Snape the outcome was very, very important; which was why he was careful all the time; he made sure that there would be nothing which would cast a suspicion on him. And he succeeded.

Had Snape thought that it was enough to go in and sparkle there, then I think it would have been less than a momentary sparkle, before his light would have extinguished forever. I really think one should not fight like Sirius or James (with regards to the SK switch). I think they should fight like Snape and Dumbledore.

Another most important point which tilts the odds in Snape's and Dumbledore's favour is that they succeeded. They won the war. :)

Still, what would keep Snape from planning a calculating and cunning manner to kill Voldemort? That is a question I feel the canon does not answer. I don't feel that Snape had to race in and recklessly attempt to kill him, he could have come up with something very stealthy, imo.

He would have still lost. It was not as if Snape was meeting Voldemort in some neutral place, where Snape could make arrangements to off him; Snape was always in Voldemort's den and we don't know if Snape had the time to draw his wand and cast an AK, or poison his food (assuming Voldemort ate food lol). Realistically I don't think such avenues were open to Snape.

I think the outcome is always more important. How can it not be? For if the outcome is not important, then why do something to risk one's life. And if the outcome's not important, then surely a person would be careless and that would result in mistakes.
And this is even more the case if you have dependents. I am not sure that Harry thought the outcome was not important given that his parents then his godfather died. I know that since becoming a mother I have been far more careful about my own personal safety because I have children who need me. So I think the risk has to be balanced against what can be gained by taking the risk.

So apart from being foolish and impossible Snape attempting to kill Voldemort in 1981 would have been morally wrong, so I really cannot even say that I think it would be a brave thing to do.

Great point! It's lucky that Voldemort never asked him to kill Lily, which would have been the sort of twisted thing he might have done. Instead, because of Severus, Voldemort gave her a chance to live, and that is what saved Harry.

Also, if killing Voldemort was such a brilliant idea, why didn't Dumbledore suggest that Snape plot his assassination? :huh: I think the answer is clear that Snape wasn't a murderer (or he wouldn't have shown up to plead for someone's life), and Snape wasn't powerful enough to destroy Voldemort (Dumbledore already knew the whole prophecy, too). Just my opinion.

I think he would have failed. Voldemort was an organisation; realistically Snape could not have done it by attacking Voldemort in his den.

Instead Snape was a brave Hero, who chose to walk into the enemy's den, knowing that a single mistake would cost him his life, and the Order its spy, and, it was this job Snape did, for years and succeeded too.

Well again, I was speaking about Snape's motive at the time which was to keep Lily safe and his efforts failed in that regard (DH TPT). But I wasn't saying that Snape should have gone after Voldemort himself because he was certain to be successful; rather I was wondering why he didn't try - that is, in terms of analysis, why JKR didn't feel his character would try under the circumstances.

I think the outcome is always more important. How can it not be? For if the outcome is not important, then why do something to risk one's life.

Because evil never ends, imo, with Voldemort gone, there will be another evil in his wake - perhaps one of his DEs or someone else altogether, imo. Just like Grindelwald was working under the same ideology as Voldemort, another would come along, imo. So Snape going after Voldemort would not be to definitively save Lily for all time, but rather just from Voldemort, and just at that time, imo. Snape's efforts, even if unsuccessful, could put a clog in Voldemort's machine and slow it down or put a temporary stop to it - like Regulus attempted to do - and show Voldemort himself that even with all of his power, Snape still had free will and could choose to refuse to be ruled by Voldemort, despite his strength - and Snape could choose to make a stand himself, instead of asking others to make it for him. This is what Sirius was talking about when he said some things are worth dying for, imo. And as I said above, Snape didn't have to rush in, rather use his cunning and stealth to personally see to Voldemort's death, rather than allowing his attack and trying to use others to stave off the danger, imo.

For Snape the outcome was very, very important; which was why he was careful all the time; he made sure that there would be nothing which would cast a suspicion on him. And he succeeded.

Well Snape didn't succeed in keeping Lily safe and that is the point I was discussing; no matter how careful you are or how much cunning and secret planning you do, you could still fail - as Snape failed to keep Lily safe which was his goal (DH TPT).

However, I do believe that Snape felt Voldemort might defeat Dumbledore and get to and kill the Potters - Voldemort had been defeating the Order left and right up to that point (PS/SS, GoF). In that case, I think Snape thought it was possible that Voldemort might keep his promise to Snape - or at least Dumbledore would and even if all else went wrong, Dumbledore might be able to keep Lily safe where Voldemort backed out on his promise - which I think Snape suspected he would do, which is why I feel he went to Dumbledore in the first place.

Had Snape thought that it was enough to go in and sparkle there, then I think it would have been less than a momentary sparkle, before his light would have extinguished forever.

Perhaps, but imo, it would have made a gigantic impact on Voldemort anyway as I feel all dents in the machine works always do. Nonetheless, we can agree to disagree on whether Snape should have tried or not. The question I was asking was why he didn't try based on his character, as opposed to if he should. I think there have been a number of interesting answers to that. :)

The question I was asking was why he didn't try based on his character, as opposed to if he should. I think there have been a number of interesting answers to that. :)

Well, according to Voldemort his DE's knew he had taken steps to achieve immortality, so under the circumstances what else was Severus to do? Make a pointless stand? I think he made an intelligent decision which at least stood a chance of achieving his aim to save Lily.

GoF, The Death Eaters
' And I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against mortal death? They who had seen the proofs of the immensity of my power, in the times when I was mightier than any living wizard.'

During the first war all the DE's knew Voldemort had been experimenting to gain immortality, Voldemort mentions this in his speech to his DE's after his re-birth (GoF).

GoF, The Death Eaters
' And I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against mortal death? They who had seen the proofs of the immensity of my power, in the times when I was mightier than any living wizard.'

So, Snape would have known that attempting to kill Voldemort was foolish and doomed to failure and so did the next best thing in his attempt to save Lily.


Exactly, Snape would have known this also, that Voldemort had taken steps toward or even gained a form of immortality. I think this is an indicator as to why Snape sought out Dumbledore, an incredibly powerful wizard and the only one Voldemort ever feared. Plus, Snape did not passively just sit back and allow others to take on the reponsibility alone. He went back to Voldemort and continued to spy, in order to pass on vital information to Dumbledore in order to try and stay ahead of Voldemort's attacks.

He did everything he could to keep them safe. He didn't know about Peter Pettigrew betrayal, he couldn't have prevented what he had no knowledge of.

Considering we never see Dumbledore question or suggest to Snape about potions or other methods to destroy Voldemort from within, it makes me wonder if it was likely to be futile due to something Dumbledore knew about Voldemort. Snape himself may have thought it unlikely to work at the time, due to the above quote or Voldemort's knowledge of potions, magic, etc.

Well, according to Voldemort his DE's knew he has taken steps to achieve immortality, so under the circumstances what else was Severus to do? Make a pointless stand? I think he made an intelligent decision which at least stood a chance of achieving his aim to save Lily.

GoF, The Death Eaters
' And I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against mortal death? They who had seen the proofs of the immensity of my power, in the times when I was mightier than any living wizard.'

I haven't heard many people describe Snape as a fool and that quote makes clear that he would have known better than to rush in alone and expect to successfully kill Voldemort. :)

Well, according to Voldemort his DE's knew he has taken steps to achieve immortality, so under the circumstances what else was Severus to do? Make a pointless stand? I think he made an intelligent decision which at least stood a chance of achieving his aim to save Lily.

GoF, The Death Eaters
' And I ask myself, but how could they have believed I would not rise again? They, who knew the steps I took, long ago, to guard myself against mortal death? They who had seen the proofs of the immensity of my power, in the times when I was mightier than any living wizard.'

Well as Voldemort said, many DEs didn't believe Voldemort would rise again, and I feel Snape was among that group based on his response to Dumbledore when initially asked to help protect Harry following the Potter's deaths - Snape said Harry didn't require protection because Voldemort was vanquished (DH TPT). I think Dumbledore reiterating what Voldemort had been bragging about caused Snape to place more belief in the idea. But at the time he was a DE and Lily was targeted, I don't feel he believed that. However, even if he had of, the point of making a stand over an issue that is most important to an individual (in Snape's case, to keep Lily safe), is to either succeed or make a point to the evil presence while trying, imo.

Nonetheless, the more I think about it, the more I agree with the idea that Snape wouldn't have attempted to confront Voldemort personally for a couple of reasons. One, he was placing trust in Voldemort making the attempt and possibly sparing Lily; two, he was banking on Dumbledore keeping Lily safe if Voldemort failed to do so - which was a possibility since Lily wasn't the main target and could be kept safe while Voldemort went after his main target, imo; and three, for Snape, I feel that his plan would be entirely ruined by his own death - which was a distinct possibility if he did make a personal stand. That is because to me, Snape's motive wasn't about Lily's safety in terms of Lily, but rather her safety in terms of himself (his future opportunities and peace of mind, imo).

Considering we never see Dumbledore question or suggest to Snape about potions or other methods to destroy Voldemort from within, it makes me wonder it was likely to be futile due to something Dumbledore knew about Voldemort. Snape himself may have thought it unlikely to work at the time, due to the above quote.

Well, as you say Dumbledore never suggested that Snape assassinate Voldemort, which makes me think he suspected he had gone some way to protect himself against death. Or maybe he just didn't want to ask Snape to become a killer? However we do know that Dumbledore expected Voldemort to return as he says so to Severus when he asks him to help him protect Harry.

EDIT: Of course like many of the DE's Snape believed Voldemort had gone forever after the events of Godric's Hollow. But then if the DE's thought he had taken steps to being immortal then they were not expecting Voldemort to vanish. Although, some were still looking for him, remember Bella and gang tortured the Longbottoms for infomation on Voldemort's whereabouts.

I haven't heard many people describe Snape as a fool and that quote makes clear that he would have known better than to rush in alone and expect to successfully kill Voldemort. :)

Yes I agree, Snape wanted to succeed in protecting Lily (then later the Potters). Simply rushing in and fighting Voldemort and getting killed would have accomplished nothing. The warning of danger, future spying and protection would basically have died with him. Imo.

There has been a mention about making a point to the evil presence. I don't think Voldemort would have cared, or even really understood what had motivated his follower to turn on him. The gesture would likely have no impact, it would have just been foolishness or something to him, imo. Going by the conversation between Voldemort and Harry in the Great Hall.

Well, as you say Dumbledore never suggested that Snape assassinate Voldemort, which makes me think he suspected he had gone some way to protect himself against death. Or maybe he just didn't want to ask Snape to become a killer? However we do know that Dumbledore expected Voldemort to return as he says so to Severus when he asks him to help him protect Harry.


Might have been something in the Prophecy, that indicated something to Dumbldore. Snape might have mentioned Voldemort's quest for immortality or Dumbledore had already suspected Voldemort was making Horcruxes, or using something Dark due to his change in appearance. Of the top of my head, I'm not sure of Dumbledore's timeline at that point for when he knew certain information.

There has been a mention about making a point to the evil presence. I don't think Voldemort would have cared, or even really understood what had motivated his follower to turn on him. The gesture would likely have no impact, it would have just been foolishness or something to him, imo. Going by the conversation between Voldemort and Harry in the Great Hall.

Well that is why Regulus left a note - Snape could have done the same. But I would agree that at the time, Snape wasn't against Voldemort, so he wasn't trying to drive that particular point home. Still, the point he would be driving home would be even more incredulous for the dark lord, imo. Not only were those who came to be dissuaded by the goals and/or means a threat to Voldemort, but also those whose personal interests did not coincide with Voldemort's and they would place them above him, despite agreeing with him on the main objectives and viewpoint of his overall scheme and despite wanting power and prestige for themselves. These little dents in the machine, these knocks of knowledge are what weaken a villain of Voldemort's magnitude - causing him to become paranoid over time, imo. Even if the individual's motive is not to do so, that is the upshot, imo, and why it would have been both brave and useful imo, for Snape to attempt to take him out from the inside. Note that it was demoralizing even in the final battle which is why Harry brought it up then, imo, even if Voldemort waived it off at the time as immaterial (which at that point it rather was, I agree because they were at the big final meeting) - still it was a dent in the machine then as it could have been earlier, imo.

I don't think Snape had to petition either Dumbledore or Voldemort and wait around to see what happened. I don't feel he would need to wait for Dumbledore's approval or command to assassinate Voldemort - my point was that he would have a go at Voldemort from the inside of his own accord - like Regulus did, imo. I've explained why I feel he didn't though, so my point is rather academic except to say that I think Snape had a valid and important opportunity there that was not within his character to take, imo.

Well that is why Regulus left a note - Snape could have done the same.

Which would have blown Snape chances to spy on Voldemort and to communicate information on to Dumbledore. For Dumbledore this is an advantage, to have someone on the inside of Voldemort's organisation that can deliver false information or keep ahead of Voldemort's plans. When Snape said "anything" he was basically giving himself over to Dumbledore's instruction, following his orders.

His dying in some grand gesture would have accomplished nothing. As I said before, his warning, spying, access to information and protection would have died with him.

Even Regulus did not directly attack Voldemort. Again it was done behind the scenes. He discovered a weakness and tried to tackle that, he accomplished something by removing the Horcrux from its hidding place. This knowledge did not simply die with him; Kreacher knew what had happened, Regulus had left him with instructions.

Note that it was demoralizing even in the final battle which is why Harry brought it up then, imo, even if Voldemort waived it off at the time as immaterial (which at that point it rather was, I agree because they were at the big final meeting) - still it was a dent in the machine then as it could have been earlier, imo.


In my opinion, I believe it was completely relevant. Love, being one of themes at the very heart of series. Something Voldemort completely fails to understand, hence why he waves it away to his destruction.

Which would have blown Snape chances to spy on Voldemort and to communicate information on to Dumbledore.

Right, but this wasn't a part of Snape's initial plan because he was surprised when Dumbledore asked what Snape would do for him in return (understandably, since Snape had just passed on information he felt was important to Dumbledore) - DH -TPT. Nonetheless, if Snape had struck out on his own, there would be no need for communicating with Dumbledore or spying on Voldemort because he would be doing so with the idea of killing him. If sneaky way #1 didn't work, Snape could try sneaky way #2 and so on - I don't think he had to whip out a sword at a meeting and overtly advise of his treachery to the dark lord. Rather I was thinking along the lines of means more cunning in nature, where Snape kept his deed under wraps (because too, Snape wouldn't want to face the wrath of the DEs in the aftermath).

In my opinion, I believe it was completely relevant. Love, being one of themes at the very heart of series. Something Voldemort completely fails to understand, hence why he waves it away to his destruction.

Well yeah, in my opinion too - but in Voldemort's opinion, it might not have been because that was all water under the bridge - but it would still be a mental blow, imo. My point was that Snape could have done this to Voldemort early on through his actions, imo, and that would be the benefit of Snape's failure at that time and it would have served as even more meaningful and relevant because Voldemort would still be in power at the time and not threatened by a final showdown (the benefit of success would of course be Voldemort's death).

If sneaky way #1 didn't work, Snape could try sneaky way #2 and so on - I don't think he had to whip out a sword at a meeting and overtly advise of his treachery to the dark lord. Rather I was thinking along the lines of means more cunning in nature, where Snape kept his deed under wraps (because too, Snape wouldn't want to face the wrath of the DEs in the aftermath).


I gotta say, if Voldemort got even a sniff of Snape undermining him or trying to kill him via a poition, for example, Snape wouldn't have survived long enough to try "sneaky way #2". Just my opinion, of course.

Plus, the Potter's would not have been warned about the danger they were in. The order would not have aquired the information to keep ahead of Voldemort's attacks. They might have got attacked before Snape carried out his plan, then he'd likely get the blame for not getting a warning to them -- which is what he chose to do by going to Dumbledore.

Snape, I believe, chose the method he thought would have the greater chance of success, as most characters do when trying to save someone they love - choose that which they believe is most likely to succeed.

Having just watched Valkyrie I can say that there are definite parallels to be drawn between an attempted assasination of Hitler and an attempted assasination of Voldemort. The German officers knew better than to attempt to assasinate Hitler on their own and in the same way Severus knew better than to attempt to assasinate Voldemort on his own.

ETA: Severus was smart enough to know that trying assasinate Voldemort was about as intelligent as walking out in front of a bus. Just because an action results in your death does not make it brave or noble - sometimes it is just stupid. Just my Opinion :)

Snape, I believe, chose the method he thought would have the greater chance of success, as most characters do when trying to save someone they love - choose that which they believe is most likely to succeed.

I agree! The reason it didn't succeed was due to factors out of Severus's control.

I gotta say, if Voldemort got even a sniff of Snape undermining him or trying to kill him via a poition, for example, Snape wouldn't have survived long enough to try "sneaky way #2". Just my opinion, of course.

Well as I said, I was addressing Skull's question with the assumption that Snape would come up with an intelligent plan, covering such contengencies. I feel his occlumens would be helpful in that regard as would a cunning plan that could not be traced back to him, imo. I agree that if he just lifted his wand and tried to shoot in a meeting it wouldn't likely work - but that would not be an intelligent or cunning plan, imo. :lol:. Hence, I think there were workable alternatives to try, and as a result, I think Snape was simply unwilling to try them, for the reasons I gave above, which fit with my interpretation of Snape's character.

To me this is all fun speculation, but a moot point because the horcruxes already existed during VoldieWar I.

Even if Snape had been able to poison Voldemort, it wouldn't have destroyed him forever. He still had the diary, the ring, the locket, and the cup. Actually Kreacher had the locket, but it hadn't been destroyed.

Also, if you think about the Cave scene, Voldemort knew his way around an evil potion full of poison. I just don't see any way that Snape could have tricked him into drinking something.

And if Bellatrix suspected anything, Snape would have been tortured and killed anyway. And the Dark Lord still wouldn't have been vanquished forever. And Harry, Lily, and James would still have been in danger forever, and Bella would have come after them. Eventually the Dark Lord would have returned.

Snape was very aware how powerful Voldy was, he ask him to spare lilly's life ,when he met DD to tell him about Voldy's plans he was scare to death but not for his life but for lilly's life, DD saw Snape's deepest fear. and I think that if snape would have looked into the mirror of erised he would have seen Lilly Evans. :cool:

...and I think that if snape would have looked into the mirror of erised he would have seen Lilly Evans. :cool:

I don't know about that...there are lots of possibilities here, but personally I believe Snape would have been similar to DD in terms of the Mirror...maybe he would see a different version of himself, determined by the choices he made as a younger man.

It's an interesting question, though. Maybe he would just see himself in James' place...:relax:

Well again, I was speaking about Snape's motive at the time which was to keep Lily safe and his efforts failed in that regard (DH TPT). But I wasn't saying that Snape should have gone after Voldemort himself because he was certain to be successful; rather I was wondering why he didn't try - that is, in terms of analysis, why JKR didn't feel his character would try under the circumstances.

I disagree. Snape's efforts to keep Lily did not fail because of him; but because of Sirius and James and Lily. I don't think Snape can be blamed for their inadequate means of keeping themselves safe. If anyone is to be blamed for the Potters deaths, I think it's the Potters and Sirius themselves.

Because evil never ends, imo, with Voldemort gone, there will be another evil in his wake - perhaps one of his DEs or someone else altogether, imo. Just like Grindelwald was working under the same ideology as Voldemort, another would come along, imo. So Snape going after Voldemort would not be to definitively save Lily for all time, but rather just from Voldemort, and just at that time, imo. Snape's efforts, even if unsuccessful, could put a clog in Voldemort's machine and slow it down or put a temporary stop to it - like Regulus attempted to do - and show Voldemort himself that even with all of his power, Snape still had free will and could choose to refuse to be ruled by Voldemort, despite his strength - and Snape could choose to make a stand himself, instead of asking others to make it for him

I completely disagree with this. Just because there will arise an evil in Voldemort's place, it's okay not to care about the outcome, but to simply rush in and die? I don't think so.

Then why should Harry fight against Voldemort at all, or Dumbledore against GG? For another evil would arise in his place.

Following the logic you have written of evil never ending and with Voldemort gone, there would arise another evil in his wake, it looks as if Dumbledore was wrong to defeat GG, because Voldemort rose after him. And that puts Dumbledore responsible for the growth of Voldemort, because he defeated GG.

I don't agree. I think Dumbledore was right to defeat GG and Harry, Voldemort. I also think it was wise of Harry for example to pretend to be dead in the Forest, waiting until he got to a place where he could fight.

Harry could have stood up in the Forest, after the soul bit was gone from him and tried to kill Voldemort. That may looked brave, but in reality it would have been very, very foolish; for Harry would have died after all the effort to help him survive.

I would also not call Harry a coward and neither would I wonder why Harry being so brave did not attack Voldemort in the Forest, because surely his father and Sirius would have done so.

I would not wonder because I know that Harry was not a coward for waiting to fight in a place that would be advantageous for him.

Likewise, I see Snape knowing his limitation, I see him not rushing in to scream Avada Kedavra, before he is killed from all sides, but instead he runs to the only opposition and the only wizard whom Voldemort fears and tells him what he knows and when Dumbledore asks him to help the Light, Snape agrees and then he works to bring Voldemort down, in which job he made a difference in the right way and succeeded to off Voldemort in the end.

This is what Sirius was talking about when he said some things are worth dying for, imo. And as I said above, Snape didn't have to rush in, rather use his cunning and stealth to personally see to Voldemort's death, rather than allowing his attack and trying to use others to stave off the danger, imo.

Some things are definitely worth dying for and I don't think Sirius meant that one should rush into danger without thought. If Sirius indeed meant that I totally disagree with him. I think he was very, very wrong.

Dumbledore died for a cause which he felt was worth dying for. He died to make a difference. Snape died for a cause that was worth dying for. His death made a difference. So did Lupin, Fred, Colin, Tonks and others.

But Sirius died without cause and reason, simply because he rushed into a danger he did not appreciate. James and Lilt died without cause and reason because they refused to take Dumbledore warning and offer seriously.

Sirius's death made no difference in the war, except to hurt Harry like hell and feel guilty for his Godfather's death, something I think Sirius should have tried to avoid. James and Lily died to make Harry an orphan. Had not Snape's pleading to Voldemort resulted in a choice for Lily, that day would have seen the death of Harry Potter as well.

I don't think thoughtless rushing into danger is a worthy quality and neither is thoughtless planning/trusting. Both I feel are useless and end only in disaster.

Well Snape didn't succeed in keeping Lily safe and that is the point I was discussing; no matter how careful you are or how much cunning and secret planning you do, you could still fail - as Snape failed to keep Lily safe which was his goal (DH TPT).

As I wrote in this post, Snape succeeded in giving information that should have resulted in the Potters protecting themselves securely. That they did not, was IMO not Snape's fault. How do you see the SK switch to be Snape's fault?

Hence, I think there were workable alternatives to try, and as a result, I think Snape was simply unwilling to try them, for the reasons I gave above, which fit with my interpretation of Snape's character.

Well, I am curious as to what workable alternatives you think he had? Remember of course that all the DE's knew Voldemort had done something to achieve immortality, but not exactly what. Regulus only worked it out after Kreacher told him what had happened in the cave, and even then he had no idea that Voldemort had made mulitple horcruxes. So, Snape also knows Voldemort has achieved immortality, but doesn't know exactly how, this doesn't give him any alternative in my book. It took Dumbledore years just to track down two horcruxes, so that would take too long, even if he knew about them, which we know he didn't.

EDIT:I think Severus showed intelligence and cunning in going to Dumbledore, rather than acting out a plan that would be doomed to failure due to the Horcuxes.


To me this is all fun speculation, but a moot point because the horcruxes already existed during VoldieWar I.

Exactly!

I disagree. Snape's efforts to keep Lily did not fail because of him; but because of Sirius and James and Lily. I don't think Snape can be blamed for their inadequate means of keeping themselves safe. If anyone is to be blamed for the Potters deaths, I think it's the Potters and Sirius themselves.

Indeed! After Severus had passed the information on to Dumbledore, it was out of his hands. The fact that the Potters were killed due to the betrayal of one of their friends and mistakes in judgements they made cannot be blamed on Severus.

Following the logic you have written of evil never ending and with Voldemort gone, there would arise another evil in his wake, it looks as if Dumbledore was wrong to defeat GG, because Voldemort rose after him. And that puts Dumbledore responsible for the growth of Voldemort, because he defeated GG.

I don't agree. I think Dumbledore was right to defeat GG and Harry, Voldemort. I also think it was wise of Harry for example to pretend to be dead in the Forest, waiting until he got to a place where he could fight.

Harry could have stood up in the Forest, after the soul bit was gone from him and tried to kill Voldemort. That may looked brave, but in reality it would have been very, very foolish; for Harry would have died after all the effort to help him survive.

I would also not call Harry a coward and neither would I wonder why Harry being so brave did not attack Voldemort in the Forest, because surely his father and Sirius would have done so.

I would not wonder because I know that Harry was not a coward for waiting to fight in a place that would be advantageous for him.

And there is a very important idea called "Passive Resistance" which means to fight evil without violence by merely standing your ground in the face of danger, like Gandhi or Martin Luther King. They weren't stealthy because everyone knew where they stood. They just didn't do "alot of foolish wand-waving" as Snape might say. :lol:

And Harry's death is a great example of knowing when to be passive so you can get an advantage over an opponent. Snape also knows when to be passive and when to act, and it suits the intelligence of his character, in my opinion.

I think it's probably wise to keep into consideration the fact that JKR wrote it this way so that her story could happen... I personally find this a relevant thing to have in mind when considering the "why's" of Snape's actions upon hearing of Voldemort's plans.

I disagree. Snape's efforts to keep Lily did not fail because of him; but because of Sirius and James and Lily. I don't think Snape can be blamed for their inadequate means of keeping themselves safe. If anyone is to be blamed for the Potters deaths, I think it's the Potters and Sirius themselves.

Sigh....., and again blame is laid on the victims rather that on the murderers, ie. Snape, Peter and of course the late, great, Lord Voldemort. Snape played his part in these murders. The Potters should never of had been put in the position that they were in. They were there in the first place because Snape told about the prophecy. That is canon. DD cannot be blamed for preventing Snape for passing on the prophecy, Snape shoould not have done it. Lily and James should not be blamed for their own murders, Snape should not have passed on information that could lead to an innocent's death. Snape IMO knew this in the books, hence his regret and self blame. Entirely warranted IMO.

Sigh....., and again blame is laid on the victims rather that on the murderers, ie. Snape, Peter and of course the late, great, Lord Voldemort. Snape played his part in these murders.

"Played a part" hardly warrants flat-out calling him a murderer. Because in fact Sirius did too, by maing the switch. But I wouldn't call him or even think of him as a murderer.

I disagree. Snape's efforts to keep Lily did not fail because of him; but because of Sirius and James and Lily. I don't think Snape can be blamed for their inadequate means of keeping themselves safe. If anyone is to be blamed for the Potters deaths, I think it's the Potters and Sirius themselves.

I would respectfully disagree. I feel that Snape felt insulted at the parchment because of the words that appeared on it directed toward him - that was prior to his discovering that it was a map of Hogwarts (POA). I feel that if he truly believed it to be dangerous, he would have alerted Dumbledore to its existence. It is possible that he did, but the canon doesn't reveal whether he did or not in POA, iirc.

Sigh....., and again blame is laid on the victims rather that on the murderers, ie. Snape, Peter and of course the late, great, Lord Voldemort. Snape played his part in these murders. The Potters should never of had been put in the position that they were in. They were there in the first place because Snape told about the prophecy. That is canon. DD cannot be blamed for preventing Snape for passing on the prophecy, Snape shoould not have done it. Lily and James should not be blamed for their own murders, Snape should not have passed on information that could lead to an innocent's death. Snape IMO knew this in the books, hence his regret and self blame. Entirely warranted IMO.

Well said, I agree. :tu:

"Played a part" hardly warrants flat-out calling him a murderer. Because in fact Sirius did too, by maing the switch. But I wouldn't call him or even think of him as a murderer.

I think the term would actually be 'accessory to murder'. Hardly blameless. I don't see the problem, Snape did repent and that usually means having something to repent. Sirius as far as I could see did not kill anyone and he did not act as an accessory in any death. How could he ever be judged as a murderer? Like I said Snape, Peter and LV were the conspiritors responsible for killing Harry's parents, no one else.

Sigh....., and again blame is laid on the victims rather that on the murderers, ie. Snape, Peter and of course the late, great, Lord Voldemort. Snape played his part in these murders. The Potters should never of had been put in the position that they were in. They were there in the first place because Snape told about the prophecy. That is canon. DD cannot be blamed for preventing Snape for passing on the prophecy, Snape shoould not have done it. Lily and James should not be blamed for their own murders, Snape should not have passed on information that could lead to an innocent's death. Snape IMO knew this in the books, hence his regret and self blame. Entirely warranted IMO.

I would like to ask a question here. But before that, :)

I completely agree Snape was culpable in handing over the prophecy that got a baby marked for death and a family probably killed in the process of defending the child.

Having said that, I would like to ask if the Potters and Sirius were completely blameless in the SK switch. If so, why and how? Perhaps we are going away from Snape, so if you are interested to answer you may do so in the Marauder's thread. :)

For me, Sirius, James and Lily were equally culpable as Snape in their own deaths. Snape was culpable because he was a DE and so working for the wrong side, which he found out to his cost.

Sirius, James and Lily were careless in a situation that demanded they pay attention. Were they not culpable of carelessness, of thoughtlessness, of not paying enough heed to Dumbledore's warning?

Sure they were the victims, but if they were victims of Voldemort because of Snape handing over the Prophecy, then IMO they were victims of their own carelessness too. Which makes them culpable as well in my opinion.

I would respectfully disagree. I feel that Snape felt insulted at the parchment because of the words that appeared on it directed toward him - that was prior to his discovering that it was a map of Hogwarts (POA). I feel that if he truly believed it to be dangerous, he would have alerted Dumbledore to its existence. It is possible that he did, but the canon doesn't reveal whether he did or not in POA, iirc.

I don't understand. I was talking about the SK switch, if you'll read my post. :)

I think the term would actually be 'accessory to murder'. Hardly blameless.

No, not blameless. But not a murderer either, which is what I objected to, and not to blaming him in general. Even Peter wasn't a murderer in this case, but an accomplice. I think Snape was even less, because he tried to prevent it before it had happened.

Sirius as far as I could see did not kill anyone and he did not act as an accessory in any death. How could he ever be judged as a murderer?

Well that's what I said, that he can't be. You used the phrase "played his part", which is very broad and can be applied to anyone in this situation, because everyone played a part in one way or another. But that is not a reason to call anyone a murderer, which was what I disagreed with.

Like I said Snape, Peter and LV were the conspiritors responsible for killing Harry's parents, no one else.

And yet even those three don't have the same status - especially Snape, who actually tried to prevent the murder. He triggered it all off by telling the prophecy, but he also was the one of those three who turned against it before it had occurred. Therefore I think he shouldn't be placed on the same level as Voldemort and Peter, and called a murderer.

Sigh....., and again blame is laid on the victims rather that on the murderers, ie. Snape, Peter and of course the late, great, Lord Voldemort. Snape played his part in these murders.

Indeed he did play a part, but that does not make him a murderer, that accusation can only be laid at the feet of Voldemort. By passing the prophecy on to Voldemort, Severus did indeed set up a chain of events. However, he aknowledged this mistake and tried to do all he could to break that chain, by going to Dumbledore.

No, not blameless. But not a murderer either, which is what I objected to, and not to blaming him in general. Even Peter wasn't a murderer in this case, but an accomplice. I think Snape was even less, because he tried to prevent it before it had happened.

Well that's what I said, that he can't be. You used the phrase "played his part", which is very broad and can be applied to anyone in this situation, because everyone played a part in one way or another. But that is not a reason to call anyone a murderer, which was what I disagreed with.

And yet even those three don't have the same status - especially Snape, who actually tried to prevent the murder. He triggered it all off by telling the prophecy, but he also was the one of those three who turned against it before it had occurred. Therefore I think he shouldn't be placed on the same level as Voldemort and Peter, and called a murderer.

I don't think that Snape gets any beanie points for trying to close the stable doors after the horses have well and truly bolted, but that's my opinion.
Sirius does not come into this argument in my mind because he did not play a part in the Potters' deaths. His action have no part in their murders except as someone who was on the sidelines and trying to prevent their deaths as hard as he could.
I have to say that I personally do not cut any slack to Snape and Peter because they did not cast the killing spells. Without the accessories the murders would not have taken place and they were DE's who believed and supported LV. Yes Snape was acting as DD's spy. Why? Because he passed on the prophecy and Lily got targeted. If Neville had been picked IMO, he would not have lifted a finger to save him or his parents. It's like evidence that is tainted, his motives are fruit of the poisened tree at this time. He does change, give him credit.

Well that's what I said, that he can't be. You used the phrase "played his part", which is very broad and can be applied to anyone in this situation, because everyone played a part in one way or another. But that is not a reason to call anyone a murderer, which was what I disagreed with.

I feel that is too broad because, for instance, if Lily's parents had never had her, she wouldn't have existed to die - so yeah, they played a part, but their intent in having Lily wasn't to ensure her death. Same with Sirius, whose intent was to try to save her from death (POA). Snape, Peter and Voldemort all acted with the intent to ensure that Voldemort's position of power would not be jeopardized, imo, and that is the distinction, imo. I agree Snape later tried to mitigate the damage, but his efforts failed to entirely do so and so his act still resulted in the death of others in the end (DH TPT). Hence, he would be culpable with the others who acted with an intent to forward Voldemort's rise to power, which meant killing the child in the prophecy and his family if necessary, imo. If the truth was known to all, Sirius would not go to prison, nor Lily's parents - but Snape, Peter and Voldemort would based on USA/UK law (MPC based on UK law) - with Snape receiving a reduction of his sentence for his attempt to mitigate the damage. However, the charge in all three cases would be murder in various degrees, imo, based on HP law which seemed to be in alignment with UK law in this regard.

I don't think that Snape gets any beanie points for trying to close the stable doors after the horses have well and truly bolted, but that's my opinion.

You don't feel this sets him apart from Voldemort and Peter in this case?

You don't feel this sets him apart from Voldemort and Peter in this case?

No, because as I said before, I doubt that Snape would have been on that hill for Alice Longbottom

No, because as I said before, I doubt that Snape would have been on that hill for Alice Longbottom

Ok then, thanks for clarifying that. :)

I see it this way. Snape was culpable in handing over the Prophecy, which enabled Voldemort to mark a child. The Potters and Sirius were equally culpable because of their carelessness in switching SK's. To say Snape is a murderer and to say that James, Sirius and Lily were doing the right thing, when they clearly were not, I don't agree.

The whole Potters death is IMO divided into 2 parts. One identifying them for murder. In which Snape played a role, in handing over the Prophecy. Voldemort identified Harry as the child.

The second part is protecting the Potters. For that the Potters would need to know they were being targeted specifically than generally. They were already in hiding because they were targets; but now with this information they were specific targets, because of Snape handing over the prophecy and Voldemort choosing them.

Snape when he came to know that Voldemort had chosen the Potters, hastened to Dumbledore and told him. Dumbledore in turn told the Potters and offered to be their SK.

Now this specific targeting was a danger caused by one man, Snape, by handing over the prophecy. He was horrified when he knew and he came in time to warn them.

They did not protect themselves. They did not take up on Dumbledore's offer; they did not check the 3 friends for the Imperius Curse and they did not check to see which of the 3 friends was a traitor. Instead James and Lily choose Sirius and then, on Sirius's advise choose Peter. They die.

Would I blame only Snape for what happened. No. I would blame Snape along with others including the Potters for their deaths.

I will say not that just because the Potters died, they are the victims and I wioll not say that I will not enquire into their carelessness because they were the victims, and instead blame others alone. In my opinion.

No, because as I said before, I doubt that Snape would have been on that hill for Alice Longbottom

We don't know that. The Books don't say that. JKR did and that's a whole lot different from the Books IMO.

No, because as I said before, I doubt that Snape would have been on that hill for Alice Longbottom
That may or may not be true, but the fact of the matter is that Severus did go to Dumbledore. He cannot be condemned for what he may or may not have done in different circumstances.

His efforts to save Lily only failed because of mistakes made by others. If the Potters had taken Dumbledore's advice to have him as their SK, then there is a very strong possibility that they would never have been killed and Snape's effort in going to Dumbledore would have succeeded.

It is interesting to think though that because of the chain of effects set in motion when Snape tells LV about the prophecy that one of the end results is the saving of Snape's soul. I do believe that Snape raised himself to the light but to do that he had raise himself from the depths of conspiracy, murder and crime. I admire that about him, his change.
But IMO he could have gone a lot further in that change. He could have forgiven the Marauders for being idiotic berks while they were at school, he could have forgiven himself for calling Lily a Mudblood. I read somewhere that forgivness is not for the person who has wronged you, it's for yourself, to get rid of the load of hate and resentment that a wrong against you can create.
The Marauders and the young Snape who acted so badly that day in Hogwarts grounds were gone, they no longer existed. The one who was left, Snape in the books was all that was left, and if he could have forgiven that would have meant so much in his life. To forgive and forget and go on from there. IMO the prime themes of the books are love, trust and forgiveness are the real magic.

I see it this way. Snape was culpable in handing over the Prophecy, which enabled Voldemort to mark a child. The Potters and Sirius were equally culpable because of their carelessness in switching SK's. To say Snape is a murderer and to say that James, Sirius and Lily were doing the right thing, when they clearly were not, I don't agree.

The whole Potters death is IMO divided into 2 parts. One identifying them for murder. In which Snape played a role, in handing over the Prophecy. Voldemort identified Harry as the child.

The second part is protecting the Potters. For that the Potters would need to know they were being targeted specifically than generally. They were already in hiding because they were targets; but now with this information they were specific targets, because of Snape handing over the prophecy and Voldemort choosing them.

Snape when he came to know that Voldemort had chosen the Potters, hastened to Dumbledore and told him. Dumbledore in turn told the Potters and offered to be their SK.

Now this specific targeting was a danger caused by one man, Snape, by handing over the prophecy. He was horrified when he knew and he came in time to warn them.

They did not protect themselves. They did not take up on Dumbledore's offer; they did not check the 3 friends for the Imperius Curse and they did not check to see which of the 3 friends was a traitor. Instead James and Lily choose Sirius and then, on Sirius's advise choose Peter. They die.

Would I blame only Snape for what happened. No. I would blame Snape along with others including the Potters for their deaths.

I will say not that just because the Potters died, they are the victims and I wioll not say that I will not enquire into their carelessness because they were the victims, and instead blame others alone. In my opinion.



We don't know that. The Books don't say that. JKR did and that's a whole lot different from the Books IMO.

TGW I'm sorry,but the Potter's did not paint a target on their foreheads and say 'Come and kill me.' And I dont care if they did do that, that was not against the law. They are not in any way to blame for their deaths. They did not go out and rob, loot or murder. They were a law abiding couple in their own home with their child and they were murdered in cold blood and the murderous conspiracy to kill them included Snape. Yes he did try to stop it but as I said before only because it was Lily, He said as much to DD who became disgusted with him. What I do not understand is what the Potter's actions or inactions has to do with Snape's actions. He passed on the prophecy and he repented. That was his actions, separate from everyone else.

But IMO he could have gone a lot further in that change. He could have forgiven the Marauders for being idiotic berks while they were at school, he could have forgiven himself for calling Lily a Mudblood.

I don't think he could forgive the Marauder's, because I think he was far too humiliated and defeated. Seeing the SWM, I feel interactions between Snape and the Marauder's were more than pranks; more than fun, in which Snape was defeated most if not all of the time. And I think such interactions will not help in forgiving those who instigated such pranks against him.

With Lily, I think he could not forgive himself because that word cost him his friendship.

I read somewhere that forgivness is not for the person who has wronged you, it's for yourself,

:agree: And this is what Snape could not do, when he was alive; I think he would have moved on had he lived after the war, while I don't think he would have been able to forgive himself, I think he would have been more accepting of himself. Sadly he died IMO.

The Marauders and the young Snape who acted so badly that day in Hogwarts grounds were gone, they no longer existed.

Sirius's feelings for Snape did not change and neither did Lupin's IMO. None of the Marauder's had really changed. There was too much hate between them and Snape for both parties to let go IMO.

TGW I'm sorry,but the Potter's did not paint a target on their foreheads and say 'Come and kill me.' And I dont care if they did do that, that was not against the law.

Killers like Voldemort don't follow the law IMO. If there is a warning that such a madman is coming after someone, I think it's prudent for those people to protect themselves and protect themselves well. The Potters were already in hiding because they realised Voldemort would not follow the law.

They also had a traitor within their ranks and if they still would not protect themselves cleverly against a killer, then I think they are at fault too. Sure Snape was culpable, and by saying the Potters were at fault, I'm not taking away anything from Snape's culpability. I'm only saying that it was not just Snape, Peter and Voldemort but also the Potters and Sirius who were responsible for the Potters deaths IMO.

What I do not understand is what the Potter's actions or inactions has to do with Snape's actions.

Because they are 2 different things. Snape's actions were to hand over the prophecy. The Potters died because they were inadequately protected. I feel the latter had nothing to do with the former.

Snape's action targeted the Potters; but they were not killed because of that ; they were killed because they did not protect themselves well. There is a lot of difference between the 2 IMO.

Sigh....., and again blame is laid on the victims rather that on the murderers, ie. Snape, Peter and of course the late, great, Lord Voldemort. Snape played his part in these murders. The Potters should never of had been put in the position that they were in. They were there in the first place because Snape told about the prophecy. That is canon. DD cannot be blamed for preventing Snape for passing on the prophecy, Snape shoould not have done it. Lily and James should not be blamed for their own murders, Snape should not have passed on information that could lead to an innocent's death. Snape IMO knew this in the books, hence his regret and self blame. Entirely warranted IMO.
Before I start talking about Snape, I want to add that this "blaming the victim" thinking is a bit unnerving and I don't agree with it either. Situations comparable to what happened to the Potters have happened in real life, and I find it a bit unfair to lay blame on the victims as much as the conspirators of their murder just because they didn't "plan" things out right. Who actually knows what to do in that kind of situation and do it flawlessly? Also, to put blame on the victim also takes off weight on blaming the murderer/attacker whether we intend to or not. This is why some criminals in real life end up getting a lighter sentencing than they deserve. "Why should they get a heavier sentence, it's not completely their fault, right?" :whistle:

As for Snape, I don't see anything wrong with saying Snape was guilty of being a part of this murder. SOME may use this fact to demonize his character, but I'm not, and I don't think it should! I think Snape knew very well that he was part to blame for Lily dying, and personally this is part of what moved me completely when reading "The Prince's Tale". Snape knew that had he not given the prophecy, none of this would have started. He loved Lily and he blamed himself for what happened. What moved me was that I could not even fathom anyone to have to live through that kind of guilt. But he did, and he repented. He made up for it the best way he could by doing the right things and leading the rest of his life to do the right things. This guilt, the knowledge that he is part of why Lily died is what made his redemption more powerful and necessary. If anyone is ever going to say his redemption mean nothing, it would only mean nothing if he didn't have THAT.

But if we insist on putting the blame on somebody, I pick Voldy. You know, the dude who's idea it was to kill the Potters and then did it? :relax:

And I guess I'll add Peter. I never liked sellouts. :cool:

:agree: And this is what Snape could not do, when he was alive; I think he would have moved on had he lived after the war, while I don't think he would have been able to forgive himself, I think he would have been more accepting of himself. Sadly he died

Snape's action targeted the Potters; but they were not killed because of that ; they were killed because they did not protect themselves well. There is a lot of difference between the 2 IMO.

All of this goes back to my main point and that is Personal Responsibllty.
Snape and only Snape is responsible for his actions. He is responsible for his imaturity in not forgiving the actions of the Maruaders, likewise they are responsible for their actions. How they feel and act, forgive or not forgive are not in Snape's remit. He is responsible for what he feels and what he does or does not do in this case. So if Sirius chooses to act in a childish manner does that mean Snape should respond in one?

How the Potter's reacted to the threat to their lives is their business, the point I would make is that there should not have been a threat in the first place and as the person who was responsible for giving the prophecy to a callous murderer Snape carries the can for his actions. Saying that the Potter's should have protected themselves better is moot IMO. It does not take away the fact that Snape did what he did and he only repented because Lily was targeted. That is made plain in canon. TPT. His actions on the hill when he asks DD to save Lily and then again when he shows the Patronus and say 'always'. To me at least that says very plainly he only acted for Lily.
Perhaps Lily and James were careless, I personally don't think so but that is niether here nor there. Perhaps they should not have married and had Harry, no marriage, no birth, no prophecy. Perhaps Snape should not have become a DE and acted as a spy for LV in the Hogs Head that night and that point is relevant. The Potter's were the victims in this scenario and what they did or did not do has nothing to do with Snape's actions.

Before I start talking about Snape, I want to add that this "blaming the victim" thinking is a bit unnerving and I don't agree with it either. Situations comparable to what happened to the Potters have happened in real life, and I find it a bit unfair to lay blame on the victims as much as the conspirators of their murder just because they didn't "plan" things out right. Who actually knows what to do in that kind of situation and do it flawlessly? Also, to put blame on the victim also takes off weight on blaming the murderer/attacker whether we intend to or not. This is why some criminals in real life end up getting a lighter sentencing than they deserve. "Why should they get a heavier sentence, it's not completely their fault, right?" :whistle:

As for Snape, I don't see anything wrong with saying Snape was guilty of being a part of this murder. SOME may use this fact to demonize his character, but I'm not, and I don't think it should! I think Snape knew very well that he was part to blame for Lily dying, and personally this is part of what moved me completely when reading "The Prince's Tale". Snape knew that had he not given the prophecy, none of this would have started. He loved Lily and he blamed himself for what happened. What moved me was that I could not even fathom anyone to have to live through that kind of guilt. But he did, and he repented. He made up for it the best way he could by doing the right things and leading the rest of his life to do the right things. This guilt, the knowledge that he is part of why Lily died is what made his redemption more powerful and necessary. If anyone is ever going to say his redemption mean nothing, it would only mean nothing if he didn't have THAT.

But if we insist on putting the blame on somebody, I pick Voldy. You know, the dude who's idea it was to kill the Potters and then did it? :relax:

And I guess I'll add Peter. I never liked sellouts. :cool:

Thanks.

How the Potter's reacted to the threat to their lives is their business, the point I would make is that there should not have been a threat in the first place and as the person who was responsible for giving the prophecy to a callous murderer Snape carries the can for his actions.

There was already a threat as far as the Potters are concerned. They were fighting a war and they were targets IMO.

It does not take away the fact that Snape did what he did

I agree.

His actions on the hill when he asks DD to save Lily and then again when he shows the Patronus and say 'always'. To me at least that says very plainly he only acted for Lily.

When he showed the Patronus, Lily was already dead for quite a while. But I agree Snape loved Lily and he turned at that time because his actions had made her a specific target.

Perhaps Lily and James were careless, I personally don't think so but that is niether here nor there.

Oh I think they were. Very much.

Perhaps they should not have married and had Harry, no marriage, no birth, no prophecy.

LOL!

The Potter's were the victims in this scenario and what they did or did not do has nothing to do with Snape's actions.

I firmly believe that that the Potters deaths occured because of a couple of things; Snape's culpability and the Potters irresponsibility, because that's how I see it.

I understand others see it differently, for me Snape's culpability (to hand over the Prophecy) is as much canon as the Potters irresponsibility (which I understand from POA).

I don't mix the 2. Snape is culpable, because he handed over the prophecy to Voldemort at that time uncaring that his action would result in the death of a baby and possibly its parents.

The Potters were culpable for not protecting themselves when they had information which told them it was imperative that they should.

I disagree, when Snape alone is blamed for the Potters deaths, when the Potters themselves are seen only as victims and hold the right not to protect themselves in a careful or sensible manner IMO.

I disagree, when Snape alone is blamed for the Potters deaths, when the Potters themselves are seen only as victims and hold the right not to protect themselves in a careful or sensible manner IMO.

Snape is responsible for giving over the prophecy and for being a DE and supporting LV actions up until the time he turned towards the light. I have never said differently. I simply don't blame others for his actions. Other people may have influenced his actions but in the end he did what he did of his own violition. This is something that I feel he felt very well. He may have hated the Marauders but he does not blame them for becoming a DE. He may have put his foot in it big time with Lily but he never says it was her fault. He may have done too little, too late to save her life but he does not blame her for being murdered and he doesn't blame James either. He put his trust in the wrong person, just like Lily and James.

As for Snape, I don't see anything wrong with saying Snape was guilty of being a part of this murder. SOME may use this fact to demonize his character, but I'm not, and I don't think it should! I think Snape knew very well that he was part to blame for Lily dying, and personally this is part of what moved me completely when reading "The Prince's Tale". Snape knew that had he not given the prophecy, none of this would have started. He loved Lily and he blamed himself for what happened. What moved me was that I could not even fathom anyone to have to live through that kind of guilt. But he did, and he repented. He made up for it the best way he could by doing the right things and leading the rest of his life to do the right things. This guilt, the knowledge that he is part of why Lily died is what made his redemption more powerful and necessary. If anyone is ever going to say his redemption mean nothing, it would only mean nothing if he didn't have THAT.

But if we insist on putting the blame on somebody, I pick Voldy. You know, the dude who's idea it was to kill the Potters and then did it? :relax:


I comletely agree with this!

I disagree, when Snape alone is blamed for the Potters deaths, when the Potters themselves are seen only as victims and hold the right not to protect themselves in a careful or sensible manner IMO.

I don't understand this reasoning. Because it is his thread, I'll use Snape as an example. After Voldemort made it clear to Snape that he was going to kill him, Voldy continued speaking for another page or so - yet all the while, Snape never attempted to protect himself from being killed - he lifted his wand near the end as if he was thinking about it, but he never issued a spell (DH, TEW). Is he responsible for his own death because he didn't make a reasonable attempt to try and protect himself, knowing Voldemort was going to kill him?

I have to agree with those who have said they don't feel blaming the victims is correct. Imo, people try what they can to survive, but when they fail and someone kills them, it is the murderer and his collegues at fault, not theirs, imo, regardless as to whether they try to protect themselves at all - or whether the protection they choose does not work out. The basic moral principle, imo, is that murder should not be planned or carried out against another, imo. I feel that is why there are laws against it, and it is not mitigated on the grounds that the victims' efforts to protect themselves were not good enough...

His efforts to save Lily only failed because of mistakes made by others. If the Potters had taken Dumbledore's advice to have him as their SK, then there is a very strong possibility that they would never have been killed and Snape's effort in going to Dumbledore would have succeeded.

I would disagree because that same strong possibility would exist if they went with Sirius, Lupin Kingsley, Moody, Alice, Frank and anyone else in the Order and they had that same faith in Peter, who was behaving like a friend and loyal Order member to the extent that Dumbledore didn't suspect him. So turning down Dumbledore wasn't the problem, imo, rather, choosing Peter was, but that choice was reasonable, imo. Snape delivered the prophecy and then left Lily's safety up to Voldemort and Dumbledore through his efforts to try and mitigate his deed, imo - that failed, imo, because neither was able or willing, as the case may be, to ensure Lily's safety beyond allowing the Potters to fend for themselves. By ensure I mean, Dumbledore didn't post Order members or place alerting spells to allow him to apparate in or anything, nor did he use his "in" with Snape to get to Voldemort before he attacked, imo. And Voldemort didn't stand trying to reason with Lily for hours to get her to stand aside or stun her or freeze her or anything else, he just killed her (DH). So I would disagree on that basis.

Snape is responsible for giving over the prophecy and for being a DE and supporting LV actions up until the time he turned towards the light. I have never said differently.

I agree.

I simply don't blame others for his actions.

I'm not either.

Other people may have influenced his actions but in the end he did what he did of his own violition.

I agree.

He may have hated the Marauders but he does not blame them for becoming a DE. He may have put his foot in it big time with Lily but he never says it was her fault.

I agree.

He may have done too little, too late to save her life but he does not blame her for being murdered and he doesn't blame James either.

I'm not too sure about this. I do think he blamed James and Sirius for not protecting themselves and Lily properly. Only, I think Lily also has a share in the SK switch.

He put his trust in the wrong person, just like Lily and James.

I disagree with this.

Snape did put his trust in the right person. Dumbledore. He may or may not have thought that Voldemort would spare Lily, but he certainly knew that Dumbledore would protect the Potters and securely too.
---------------

I think I'm not explaining this very well.

I see the Potters death as a combination of things. They were already in hiding and they were targets of Voldemort because they had defied him thrice. Snape by taking the prophecy to Voldemort, made the Potters specific targets. Snape IMO was culpable for the possible death of one child along with its parents. I agree he was culpable. He IMO also thought so.

The Potters knew beforehand there was a special threat; they knew before hand Voldemort was actively seeking them for a special reason; they also knew before hand that there was a traitor.

I realise you may not agree with my view, but this is how I see it and I place responsibility on the Potters for their inadequate protection and I feel that in no way takes away culpability from Snape.

When there is a known danger, I think there is an onus on every citizen to heed it, to be aware of it and if they would not heed it and fall prey to it, should they not be responsible for their carelessness.

Sure, that danger should not have arisen in the first place. Voldemort need not have arisen in the first place. He need not have gathered followers. But he did; he also gathered followers; those followers went about killing and torturing others. People were asked to be careful.

In this light, Snape a follower of Voldemort at that time caused a danger for Harry and because of Harry to his parents, by taking the prophecy to Voldemort.

Let me leave Snape outside for a moment and look at this from James and Lily's point of view alone. This Voldemort against whom they were already in hiding, now had through one follower (remember they never knew who it was) made them specific targets for a purpose.

Now was it or was it not their responsibility to protect themselves? Especially when there was a traitor from within and Dumbledore suspected one of the 3 Friends to be that man? I think it was.

I think they had a responsibility, just like Snape. Snape was culpable because his action harmed another. James and Lily and Sirius were culpable because their negligence harmed themselves and their child.

You know, Snape didn't blame others, he blamed himself endlessly until the day he died. But looking at the whole of his life, as portrayed by JKR, a reader may pick up on some reasons for what he did.

Severus Snape was born into an abusive home and whether the abuse physical or verbal, he was a frightened, wounded child who grew up without a sense of safety. Shallow people may point out the fact that he was not a handsome child and blame him for that. I don't think physical appearance matters, but to many people they do. His family also seems to have been poor, another strike against him.

Upon arriving at Hogwarts, this wounded child may have hoped to find a refuge, very much like Harry did. Unfortunately, he was targeted by bullies on the first train ride to school, and his hope for a refuge was all for naught. He undoubtedly asked himself why, and how many of us, hearing the words, "because he exists" would not give in to rage or despair?

So an emotionally wounded, brilliant young man who lives in a society heading for war, makes a disastrous decision, influenced by abuse he suffered at home and at school. He chose, hoping for respect, because young Snape wanted to be respected just like we all do. He chose badly, as many characters do in the HP world. But he has the sheer guts and integrity, when he might have shut down completely and given himself over to the DEs out of despair when he realized what he had done, to turn himself around. Remarkable! He gives over all his childish hopes for respect, safety and love, setting out on a journey of atonement that is unparalleled in the series, IMO

Isn't it missing the point to analyze Snape's character and throw all the blame on him for his actions without attempting to see him in the context of his life as described in canon? There was a lot going on behind the scary Potion Master facade that we didn't see until DH, but JKR laid it all out in DH so I think that for the reader, the context of his life is important. Even though Snape's character would see it as weak to make excuses for himself, I can make a case for him.

After Voldemort made it clear to Snape that he was going to kill him, Voldy continued speaking for another page or so - yet all the while, Snape never attempted to protect himself from being killed - he lifted his wand near the end as if he was thinking about it, but he never issued a spell (DH, TEW). Is he responsible for his own death because he didn't make a reasonable attempt to try and protect himself, knowing Voldemort was going to kill him?

Another page? I don't know how much time that is in minutes. I presume it must have been not more than a minute or two. But even assuming Snape should not have wasted that 1 minute, I would say in Snape's defence that he had a purpose to not defending himself. He wanted to seek out Harry and he did not want to fight with Voldemort + Nagini at that crucial time. The moment he realised Voldemort was planning to kill him, he lifted his wand, but was crushed almost instantaneously by Nagini. I really don't think this can be compared with the Potters situation, who had more than a week to set their defences.

Now was it or was it not their responsibility to protect themselves? Especially when there was a traitor from within and Dumbledore suspected one of the 3 Friends to be that man? I think it was.

They attempted to protect themselves (DH).

I think they had a responsibility, just like Snape. Snape was culpable because his action harmed another. James and Lily and Sirius were culpable because their negligence harmed themselves and their child.

The Potters being negligent is not canon, but your opinion. I don't feel they were negligent, which is another reason I would disagree. But I would disagree on principle anyway because victims are never responsible, imo, when a murder is conspired and enacted against them. I agree that Snape act together with Peter and Voldemort's ended in the murder of the Potters, but there the responsibility ends, imo. For my part, I would have to agree to disagree with you on this.

Isn't it missing the point to analyze Snape's character and throw all the blame on him for his actions without attempting to see him in the context of his life as described in canon? There was a lot going on behind the scary Potion Master facade that we didn't see until DH, but JKR laid it all out in DH so I think that for the reader, the context of his life is important. Even though Snape's character would see it as weak to make excuses for himself, I can make a case for him.

Absolutely! :agree: I think this is why JKR wrote a whole chapter devoted to his story, in order that we as readers can better understand Snape in the context of his background and experiences. It is what makes him such a facinating and compelling character.

I think I'm not explaining this very well.

I see the Potters death as a combination of things. They were already in hiding and they were targets of Voldemort because they had defied him thrice. Snape by taking the prophecy to Voldemort, made the Potters specific targets. Snape IMO was culpable for the possible death of one child along with its parents. I agree he was culpable. He IMO also thought so.

The Potters knew beforehand there was a special threat; they knew before hand Voldemort was actively seeking them for a special reason; they also knew before hand that there was a traitor.

I realise you may not agree with my view, but this is how I see it and I place responsibility on the Potters for their inadequate protection and I feel that in no way takes away culpability from Snape.

When there is a known danger, I think there is an onus on every citizen to heed it, to be aware of it and if they would not heed it and fall prey to it, should they not be responsible for their carelessness.

Sure, that danger should not have arisen in the first place. Voldemort need not have arisen in the first place. He need not have gathered followers. But he did; he also gathered followers; those followers went about killing and torturing others. People were asked to be careful.

In this light, Snape a follower of Voldemort at that time caused a danger for Harry and because of Harry to his parents, by taking the prophecy to Voldemort.

Let me leave Snape outside for a moment and look at this from James and Lily's point of view alone. This Voldemort against whom they were already in hiding, now had through one follower (remember they never knew who it was) made them specific targets for a purpose.

Now was it or was it not their responsibility to protect themselves? Especially when there was a traitor from within and Dumbledore suspected one of the 3 Friends to be that man? I think it was.

I think they had a responsibility, just like Snape. Snape was culpable because his action harmed another. James and Lily and Sirius were culpable because their negligence harmed themselves and their child.

I think we may be veering off topic so I will keep this short. IMO, my very strong opinion Lily and James were not to blame in any shape, way or form for their own murder. The key word in this is murder, not deaths. If I go in the car and do not fasten my seatbelt and die in an accident, then I would be to blame for negligence in my safety. If a known murderer wants to murder me and is willing to go to any lengths to do so, then I would be foolish not to take steps to protect myself. I think the Potters did take steps but it would be foolish to think that they should live imprisoned in their home indefinately, so they understandably sought a means to end the situation and live a normal life.
If they had a target drawn around them by an informant (Snape) and then were betrayed by their friend to this murderer then the informant and the betrayer bear responsibility for the murders along with the murderer, but this has nothing to do with the motives and charactor of the informant. He is what he is. He may feel guilt for my death, he may have tried to mitigate his act or he could have struck a bargain so that my life would be spared, but he is still responsible for what he did. The Potters' murder was the result of the actions of other people, not them. They neither sought to be killed or pretended that it would never happen.

Eliza: In The Prince's Tale, when Dumbledore says the Potters "trusted the wrong people," who do you think he is talking about?

And notice it is plural - "people" - as in both Sirius and Peter. Sirius blamed himself the whole time he was in Azkaban because the Secret Keeper switch was his idea. Peter was the traitor, and there could be no other traitor.

Peter was the only living person with the power to tell the Dark Lord their location because he was the Secret Keeper.

Snape was never their Secret Keeper. Snape also never wanted them to be found, and he was devastated at the death of Lily. He was not a conspirator in her death, according to The Prince's Tale.

And when Voldemort returned, it was Peter who brought him back, not Snape. Snape was on Voldie's short list to be killed because he was the one thought to have left the Death Eaters "forever." Yet he bravely returned to the fold in GoF in spite of his death sentence. Why? Because he still felt remorse over the deaths of the Potters and wanted to return as a spy to help Harry.

So to me, Peter is still the traitor in GoF, while Snape was still on the correct path to redemption, even though they both ended up back with Voldemort. Peter really wanted to be there or he wouldn't have brought Babymort to life. He hadn't changed at all, and still didn't care if Harry lived or died, while Snape wanted Harry to live.

I think that Severus did have a part in Lily and James' deaths (for which he no don't constantly chastises himself), but I agree with Yoana that he does not hold same the amount of blame as Voldemort or Peter, who did nothing after betraying the Potters to prevent their deaths. The state of his motives is, IMHO, somewhat irrelevant. The fact is, he attempted to fix what he had done, which is far more than the others can say.


Sly_Lady: :clap: Love your post. There were hints to Snape's past and motives in previous books, but DH really adds a lot of new information to be considered. I too think it's good to look at TPT and then go back and see how it all connects to what Harry noticed before and what light these revelations throw on his character as a whole. :agree:


Observations about the SK switch on the James thread

I don't think it's off-topic to simply say about the Potter's deaths:

Peter/Voldemort > Snape

That's not blaming the Potters for anything. But when they died Snape was on their side. He thought they were safe, and they also thought they were safe. But when we know from PoA who the traitor was, we can't really blame Snape for that.

We don't know whether Snape wanted to be a father but maybe part of the reason he hates Harry is because he sees Harry as someone who could/ought to be his own son.

The Potters were victims of Peter's betrayal and Voldemort's murder. To that extent they are not culpable. They were also specifically targeted because of Snape handing over the prophecy. They are also not culpable for that.

But IMO they are culpable for not protecting themselves properly, when they should have.

Eliza, I'll answer your post in the James thread. :)

We don't know whether Snape wanted to be a father but maybe part of the reason he hates Harry is because he sees Harry as someone who could/ought to be his own son.
I've often thought the same thing. :agree:

I've often thought the same thing. :agree:

I've thought so too. I think a whole lot went through is mind when he looked at Harry, which is why I often consider him to be conflicted when it comes to how he feels about Harry.

I've often thought the same thing. :agree:

Me too! In fact when Severus sees Harry for the first time at the feast he looks straight into Harry's eyes. I often wonder what must have been going though his mind to see Lily's eyes looking back at him out of a boy who looked just like James.

I've thought so too. I think a whole lot went through is mind when he looked at Harry, which is why I often consider him to be conflicted when it comes to how he feels about Harry.
Exactly! :agree:

In OotP, when Harry gets to Grimmauld Place, Ron tells him that Snape has been there and "you should see the way he looks at us." I think I mentioned this before, but what does Snape see when he looks at the Weasley children? They all have red hair! That's what he sees, in my opinion - the family he and Lily could have had if Snape had been as lucky as Arthur. So in Ron's case, it's not the eyes, it's the hair.

Exactly! :agree:
In OotP, when Harry gets to Grimmauld Place, Ron tells him that Snape has been there and "you should see the way he looks at us." I think I mentioned this before, but what does Snape see when he looks at the Weasley children? They all have red hair! That's what he sees, in my opinion - the family he and Lily could have had if Snape had been as lucky as Arthur. So in Ron's case, it's not the eyes, it's the hair.

I never thought of that. It could be…

I never thought of that. It could be…

The reason I think that might be true is because of Slughorn. He likes Ginny Weasley because she reminds him of Lily, which is also why he likes Harry. Ginny has the red hair, Harry has the eyes. Slughorn, a sentimental Slytherin, is supposed to be the foreshadowing for the Prince's Tale, in my opinion.

Exactly! :agree:

In OotP, when Harry gets to Grimmauld Place, Ron tells him that Snape has been there and "you should see the way he looks at us." I think I mentioned this before, but what does Snape see when he looks at the Weasley children? They all have red hair! That's what he sees, in my opinion - the family he and Lily could have had if Snape had been as lucky as Arthur. So in Ron's case, it's not the eyes, it's the hair.

Could be, SIP! I often wondered if Snape was reminded of James and Lily as an item when he saw Harry and Ginny together. Maybe that is why he gave Harry so many detentions in HBP. Didn't Dumbledore remark that soon Harry would have spent more time in detention than out?

Me too! In fact when Severus sees Harry for the first time at the feast he looks straight into Harry's eyes. I often wonder what must have been going though his mind to see Lily's eyes looking back at him out of a boy who looked just like James.

A lot of bitterness, longing, guilt, jealousy, curiosity; pretty conflicting emotions generally IMO. He must have hurt a lot that day I think.

Could be, SIP! I often wondered if Snape was reminded of James and Lily as an item when he saw Harry and Ginny together. Maybe that is why he gave Harry so many detentions in HBP. Didn't Dumbledore remark that soon Harry would have spent more time in detention than out?

It's possible, but I think he more wanted to keep an eye on Harry so that he didn't get mixed up into anything else that could be disastrous for Harry himself, Draco, or Snape, or the plan Snape has with Dumbledore.

Could be, SIP! I often wondered if Snape was reminded of James and Lily as an item when he saw Harry and Ginny together. Maybe that is why he gave Harry so many detentions in HBP. Didn't Dumbledore remark that soon Harry would have spent more time in detention than out?

It's possible, but I think he more wanted to keep an eye on Harry so that he didn't get mixed up into anything else that could be disastrous for Harry himself, Draco, or Snape, or the plan Snape has with Dumbledore.

Perhaps it was both?

Perhaps it was both?
That's what I think. Also Ginny was supposed to take her OWL tests, because Harry says that between detentions, Quidditch, and studying for her OWLs, he and Ginny didn't have much time together.

I think Snape was trying to keep Harry out of trouble, in alot of ways. :)

That's what I think. Also Ginny was supposed to take her OWL tests, because Harry says that between detentions, Quidditch, and studying for her OWLs, he and Ginny didn't have much time together.

I think Snape was trying to keep Harry out of trouble, in alot of ways. :)

:lol:

Perhaps it was both?

Perhaps it was. :) I do think he was reminded of James and Lily when he saw Harry and Ginny together. I'd be surprised if he wasn't. I just felt the greater motivation for the detentions themselves was more to do with those other plot elements, and of course so that Harry could face some sort of consequence for what he did to Draco. :)

That's what I think. Also Ginny was supposed to take her OWL tests, because Harry says that between detentions, Quidditch, and studying for her OWLs, he and Ginny didn't have much time together.

I think Snape was trying to keep Harry out of trouble, in alot of ways. :)

:lol: Maybe. :lol:

The Potters were victims of Peter's betrayal and Voldemort's murder. To that extent they are not culpable. They were also specifically targeted because of Snape handing over the prophecy. They are also not culpable for that.

But IMO they are culpable for not protecting themselves properly, when they should have.

Eliza, I'll answer your post in the James thread. :)

I've just got back from the doctor's. Not feeling the greatest. I'll answer tomorrow. And my name is Liz.

Truly brilliant ideas about the Weasleys, SIP! :clap: I never considered the red hair as reminding Snape of Lily! I do think he was doing what he reasonably could to keep Harry out of trouble that year! :agree:

I've just got back from the doctor's. Not feeling the greatest. I'll answer tomorrow. And my name is Liz.

Get well soon. :)

Could be, SIP! I often wondered if Snape was reminded of James and Lily as an item when he saw Harry and Ginny together. Maybe that is why he gave Harry so many detentions in HBP. Didn't Dumbledore remark that soon Harry would have spent more time in detention than out?

I think Snape did - I felt that was an underlying reason Snape taunted Harry about it being a nice day to be outdoors when he was doing the detention inside (HBP). I would also agree that it added fuel to his negative emotions toward Harry throughout HBP and gave the numerous detentions. However, I agree with the other poster who indicated there were other reasons - but I think the other reasons were that Harry began getting up to a bit of pranking and hexing in his free time that year, trying out the book and such, and that would add more to the Potter dynamic in Snape's mind, imo. And another factor was that it might have helped give Slytherin an edge in Quidditch if some of those detentions were during practice - we know his final ones were given during the actual games (HBP).

And another factor was that it might have helped give Slytherin an edge in Quidditch if some of those detentions were during practice - we know his final ones were given during the actual games (HBP).

I've never thought that Snape's mind was really on Quidditch that year, considering the Unbreakable Vow and his promise to kill Dumbledore, not to mention all the deaths happening in society. Harry's mind is certainly on Quidditch during detention, but as an adult, I think Snape had more serious topics on his mind.

I've never thought that Snape's mind was really on Quidditch that year, considering the Unbreakable Vow and his promise to kill Dumbledore, not to mention all the deaths happening in society. Harry's mind is certainly on Quidditch during detention, but as an adult, I think Snape had more serious topics on his mind.


I would disagree. I feel that all of the heads of houses, including Snape, were very much into their house teams winning. I feel that Snape considered many things during HBP, he was not shown to behave in a distracted manner, imo. I feel that if Snape saw an advantage to Slytherin in being able to hand out detentions, he would take it. I think the other head of houses might also - they appeared to have quite a rivalry, iirc.

I've never thought that Snape's mind was really on Quidditch that year, considering the Unbreakable Vow and his promise to kill Dumbledore, not to mention all the deaths happening in society. Harry's mind is certainly on Quidditch during detention, but as an adult, I think Snape had more serious topics on his mind.

I have to agree. Those other things being foremost on his mind is plausible to me.

I've never thought that Snape's mind was really on Quidditch that year, considering the Unbreakable Vow and his promise to kill Dumbledore, not to mention all the deaths happening in society. Harry's mind is certainly on Quidditch during detention, but as an adult, I think Snape had more serious topics on his mind.

I agree, there were more important things for Snape to be worrying about than Quidditch. As well as what you mentioned, SIP, he was also keeping his eye on Draco too, particulary after the bodged attempts on Dumbledore's life. But even Harry's mind wasn't on Quidditch much that year, he was too interested to discover what Malfoy was up to.

HBP, Elf Tales

Harry, however had never been less interested in Quidditch; he was rapidly becoming obsessed with Draco malfoy. Still checking the Maraurder's Map whenever he got the chance.

EDIT:The Quidditch match that takes place during the detention is between Ravenclaw and Griffindor and was the last of the season. It was the first detention Harry was given after the Sectumsempra incident. As detentions are meant as punishment, I think that Severus decided for it to take place then to punish Harry, as he knew it would be important to Harry to be at the match.

I would disagree. I feel that all of the heads of houses, including Snape, were very much into their house teams winning. I feel that Snape considered many things during HBP, he was not shown to behave in a distracted manner, imo. I feel that if Snape saw an advantage to Slytherin in being able to hand out detentions, he would take it. I think the other head of houses might also - they appeared to have quite a rivalry, iirc.
Yes, that might have been true in Harry's first year or second year, but the whole world had changed by the time of HBP.

I was just wondering if Quidditch was really one of Snape's priorities that year. I don't think it was, in my opinion. On any given day, Harry, Draco, Dumbledore, or himself could have all been killed.

Yes, that might have been true in Harry's first year or second year, but the whole world had changed by the time of HBP.

I was just wondering if Quidditch was really one of Snape's priorities that year. I don't think it was, in my opinion. On any given day, Harry, Draco, Dumbledore, or himself could have all been killed.

Life in the Wizarding world was grim that year and Snape knew it better than anyone. People were being killed and disappearing on a pretty regular basis. Snape was going back and forth spying and he was deeply concerned about Dumbldore and the progress of Dumbledore's plan. He was busy patching up Malfoy after Sectumsempra and helped deal with Katie Bell's near death experience… I think it's extremely unlikely that any of the staff cared much about Quidditch.

Harry got detention for almost killing a student. That is what his detention was for. I don't recall there being anything to gain for Slytherin house. Harry's first detention was on the day of the last game of the season. He couldn't play. Ginny played seeker. They won and they won the Quidditch cup. The match was against Ravenclaw. The one who brings up Quidditch is Harry, and Snape makes a comment about Gryffindor ending up in fourth place if they lose. To me it's more about making Harry feel bad about missing the game, and making the punishment have more meaning, than it is about Slytherin having some sort of edge.

What I found interesting was that Snape oversaw the detention(s) himself, and that is what I based most of my comments on earlier.

Harry got detention for almost killing a student. That is what his detention was for.

I agree - Harry should have been suspended or expelled, imo. However, Snape couldn't do that under the circumstances, I know.

To me it's more about making Harry feel bad about missing the game, and making the punishment have more meaning, than it is about Slytherin having some sort of edge. What I found interesting was that Snape oversaw the detention(s) himself, and that is what I based most of my comments on earlier.

I agree with this also, but I disagree it was to make the punishment have more meaning in the sense that Harry actually learn something from it. In my view, it was Snape exhibiting his normal negative treatment of Harry and sticking around to watch the young man's pain. In my judgment, Snape enjoyed inflicting emotional pain on the children and viewing the results of his antics. In my view the series stressed that point by noting Snape's sneers and malicious tone and grins while he was partaking in this behavior. That is why I made the comment about Quidditch earlier - I do feel Snape took joy in taunting Harry about Gryffindor coming in 4th place. I don't feel this way in order to turn Snape into a whipping post - this was what was described in canon, imo (specifically HBP, but all prior books in the series as well). JKR said she wanted to create a cruel and bullying professor (a cummulation of all of the bullying professor's she'd had) and I think she did a good job at that, but I don't find that type of character likeable.

You know, Snape didn't blame others, he blamed himself endlessly until the day he died. But looking at the whole of his life, as portrayed by JKR, a reader may pick up on some reasons for what he did.

Severus Snape was born into an abusive home and whether the abuse physical or verbal, he was a frightened, wounded child who grew up without a sense of safety. Shallow people may point out the fact that he was not a handsome child and blame him for that. I don't think physical appearance matters, but to many people they do. His family also seems to have been poor, another strike against him.

Upon arriving at Hogwarts, this wounded child may have hoped to find a refuge, very much like Harry did. Unfortunately, he was targeted by bullies on the first train ride to school, and his hope for a refuge was all for naught. He undoubtedly asked himself why, and how many of us, hearing the words, "because he exists" would not give in to rage or despair?

So an emotionally wounded, brilliant young man who lives in a society heading for war, makes a disastrous decision, influenced by abuse he suffered at home and at school. He chose, hoping for respect, because young Snape wanted to be respected just like we all do. He chose badly, as many characters do in the HP world. But he has the sheer guts and integrity, when he might have shut down completely and given himself over to the DEs out of despair when he realized what he had done, to turn himself around. Remarkable! He gives over all his childish hopes for respect, safety and love, setting out on a journey of atonement that is unparalleled in the series, IMO

Isn't it missing the point to analyze Snape's character and throw all the blame on him for his actions without attempting to see him in the context of his life as described in canon? There was a lot going on behind the scary Potion Master facade that we didn't see until DH, but JKR laid it all out in DH so I think that for the reader, the context of his life is important. Even though Snape's character would see it as weak to make excuses for himself, I can make a case for him.

Context is absolutely important. I think that is why Snape is such an intriguing character; we're supposed to understand him on a deeper level, to question how domestic violence, bullying, social awkwardness, sorting, peer pressure, etc have impacted his life. But understanding does not re-write history and it does not absolve personal responsibility. It can help to remind us how treating others kindly is important and push us to do so in our own lives; to stand up for those who are vulnerable and to be a role model for those who are struggling.

But Snape made horrible choices and no amount of understanding or sympathy will change that fact. And barring some kind of temporary psychosis or unknown duress, he is personally responsible for those choices. (In a court of law, his personal circumstances might be taken into consideration for sentencing, but not for judgment itself.) I think it does him a disservice to try and whitewash his sins; that is pity, not empathy, and denies him free will. It reduces the meaning of his personal redemption, which is the beauty of his story.

I agree with the assertion that the "blame the victim" approach toward the Potters is unnerving. Especially when Voldemort's regime is so culturally oppressive, the implications of blame are a road I don't think any of us want to go down. Whether the Potters made the best choices in their given situation is a separate issue and the actions of Snape/Voldemort/Pettigrew should not be compared to the Potters at all, imo.

sorry alwaysme, I edited to remove the reference!

Context is absolutely important. I think that is why Snape is such an intriguing character; we're supposed to understand him on a deeper level, to question how domestic violence, bullying, social awkwardness, sorting, peer pressure, etc have impacted his life. But understanding does not re-write history and it does not absolve personal responsibility. It can help to remind us how treating others kindly is important and push us to do so in our own lives; to stand up for those who are vulnerable and to be a role model for those who are struggling.

I agree that the context is important - and I agree that all you wrote are important factors to take in consideration. But I think that JKR gave us more than just Snape's poor choices to weigh that context against. She also gave us examples of his viewpoint, his acts and his behavior from young to old, imo, and those things also have to be accounted for in terms of context, imo. Snape didn't just make a lot of bad decisions based on context and then make good ones not based on that same context, imo. So in otherwords, if domestic violence was responsible in part for some of his poor choices, why wouldn't it be equally responsible for some of his good ones?

In addition, importantly, Snape's context also includes things like his acceptance in Slytherin house (I feel shown by the loud cheering when he was sorted and Lucius patting him on the shoulder - as well as his making friends in the house, two of whom were named in canon, imo). And also by his friendship with Lily, his joy of evaluating potions and his fascination with the dark arts. What I am trying to say is that there was a lot of circumstance included, not all of it negative nor positive, imo. There was also a good amount of behavior introduced - positive and negative, imo. All of it has to be considered, from his rejection of evil to his creating a dark curse for his enemies - and his negative treatment by his enemies and his negative treatment toward his enemies - and his friendship with Lily and his friendship with Mulciber - and his desire to be in Slytherin house and his desire to betray Voldemort's trust and go to Dumbledore - and his mistreatment of the children - and his better treatment of Draco - and his behavior toward Narcissa and his behavior toward Tonks....and so on, imo.

Its all in the canon and I don't think parsing it to see all the negative things one feels occurred to him when young can be separated from all the positive things that happened to him when he was young (from his point of view) - likewise, I don't think his good and bad behavior, acts, views, etc., can be separated from one another either - and finally his good and bad choices cannot be separated, imo, because if I do so, I feel I will end up with a very jaundiced viewpoint of the character. To me, Snape was very give and take - and sure he made some bad choices, but good ones too - in the balance I might not find him good and another might find him great, but I think basing it on all factors gives a more well rounded analysis of his character. :)

I agree that the context is important - and I agree that all you wrote are important factors to take in consideration. But I think that JKR gave us more than just Snape's poor choices to weigh that context against. She also gave us examples of his viewpoint, his acts and his behavior from young to old, imo, and those things also have to be accounted for in terms of context, imo. Snape didn't just make a lot of bad decisions based on context and then make good ones not based on that same context, imo. So in otherwords, if domestic violence was responsible in part for some of his poor choices, why wouldn't it be equally responsible for some of his good ones?

In addition, importantly, Snape's context also includes things like his acceptance in Slytherin house (I feel shown by the loud cheering when he was sorted and Lucius patting him on the shoulder - as well as his making friends in the house, two of whom were named in canon, imo). And also by his friendship with Lily, his joy of evaluating potions and his fascination with the dark arts. What I am trying to say is that there was a lot of circumstance included, not all of it negative nor positive, imo. There was also a good amount of behavior introduced - positive and negative, imo. All of it has to be considered, from his rejection of evil to his creating a dark curse for his enemies - and his negative treatment by his enemies and his negative treatment toward his enemies - and his friendship with Lily and his friendship with Mulciber - and his desire to be in Slytherin house and his desire to betray Voldemort's trust and go to Dumbledore - and his mistreatment of the children - and his better treatment of Draco - and his behavior toward Narcissa and his behavior toward Tonks....and so on, imo.

Its all in the canon and I don't think parsing it to see all the negative things one feels occurred to him when young can be separated from all the positive things that happened to him when he was young (from his point of view) - likewise, I don't think his good and bad behavior, acts, views, etc., can be separated from one another either - and finally his good and bad choices cannot be separated, imo, because if I do so, I feel I will end up with a very jaundiced viewpoint of the character. To me, Snape was very give and take - and sure he made some bad choices, but good ones too - in the balance I might not find him good and another might find him great, but I think basing it on all factors gives a more well rounded analysis of his character. :)

Oh no, I don't disagree with you at all....I was merely responding to what I took as an insinuation that feeling sorry for someone = minimizing their poor choices. I also don't think his good acts should be minimized because of dislike for his past actions; his actions, good and bad, need to stand on their own merit.

However, it is up to us, the reader, to interpret what we can from his personal history and context: I think that there are some of us (myself included) who find a great deal to empathize with. Others may interpret TPT very differently, not relate to his character as vulnerable, and come away with different feelings about the arc of his story. For those of us who do tend toward empathizing with Snape's childhood, my point is that those feelings should not cloud reality; it does not help someone to change if one makes excuses for them; that's enabling. For real change to occur, one has to understand one's mistakes and move on from there: that's what Snape's story is about, imo and to push blame for his mistakes onto others does him no favors. I hope that makes sense!

Guys lets keep comparisons to Nazis out of this thread. Please.

Continue on with the discussion

But Snape made horrible choices and no amount of understanding or sympathy will change that fact.

I believe the story arc of remorse and redemption is not there to make us forget all the bad choices, but to show that no one is beyond redemption. I believe JKR meant it to be a hopeful view based in the Christian tradition that no sinner is beyond help. Otherwise, why would Harry offer Voldemort a chance to feel remorse, knowing about all his crimes even against his own parents? Dumbledore is famous for giving people second chances no matter what bad choices they made in the past.

And that is one of the things that makes Harry special - his ability to forgive. And therefore many readers, including myself, are not trying to be "Snape Apologists" but to say that whatever Snape did or didn't do in his past was mitigated by his later actions. He atoned and he changed, and while Harry didn't always like him or understand him, he forgave him in the end, and even honored him. At least that is how I read the Epilogue of Deathly Hallows.

That doesn't mean that Snape was perfect, and who would like him if he was? No, it means that he had a better side we could hardly see in the books because it is all from Harry's point of view. Snape has his dark side, but the love for Lily was always in him from Book One, and since we can't read his mind in the books, we have to weigh his actions instead, in my opinion.

And barring some kind of temporary psychosis or unknown duress, he is personally responsible for those choices. (In a court of law, his personal circumstances might be taken into consideration for sentencing, but not for judgment itself.) I think it does him a disservice to try and whitewash his sins; that is pity, not empathy, and denies him free will. It reduces the meaning of his personal redemption, which is the beauty of his story.
We do see Snape put on trial for his past actions in the books - in GoF. And the Wizarding World didn't lock him up for what he did because Dumbledore had already given him a second chance to prove his worth.

I'm of the opinion that Dumbledore made Snape confess what he had done as a Death Eater before he would let him teach at the school. And he knew that Snape was not a murderer or torturer like Bellatrix, and she says as much herself in HBP.

I disagree with the premise that knowing Snape's whole story "reduces the meaning of his redemption." Far from it, in my opinion - we know that he was never a sociopath like Voldemort, and that he had good qualities in him such as the ability to love and the creativity that is shown in the Half-Blood Prince book that Harry finds so compelling. Snape had a Dark side, but I don't believe he was anymore of a bad guy at heart than Draco - and at the end of the book, Draco is still walking free and putting his child on the train.

(Sorry, AlwaysMe, I wrote this before I saw the warning! I edited my post.)

I agree with this also, but I disagree it was to make the punishment have more meaning in the sense that Harry actually learn something from it.

What I meant was that it made it a more severe consequence for Harry, because Quidditch was important to him and he was going to miss it.


In my view, it was Snape exhibiting his normal negative treatment of Harry and sticking around to watch the young man's pain.

A moment ago you said that Harry deserved to be suspended or expelled. He got to sort out cards, and rewrite them. Yes, it was emotional for him to see Sirius and James's names, but he could do that by opening up a photo album. He was more than happy to suggest that the Prince's book may have been his father's. Did that cause him pain? I can't remember. What Snape was trying to do is to deter Harry from behaving the way Sirius and James did, IMHO.

And how interesting it is that Snape stayed quiet for the whole detention except for the beginning. No taunting or sneering or what have you. And he ended it with a simple dismissal.

In my judgment, Snape enjoyed inflicting emotional pain on the children and viewing the results of his antics. In my view the series stressed that point by noting Snape's sneers and malicious tone and grins while he was partaking in this behavior.

And we also should take into account that we are not privy to his thoughts the majority of the time and that we are observing him from the POV of a character who does not like him. In this instance he was punishing Harry for what was a severe offense... and Harry got off lightly. I don't see the problem.

That is why I made the comment about Quidditch earlier - I do feel Snape took joy in taunting Harry about Gryffindor coming in 4th place.

That is not what you were talking about earlier. You were talking about him thinking that he'd give Slytherin an edge by keeping Harry out of practicing. He was trying to make Harry feel bad about missing Quidditch and letting down his team, yes. It was a consequence of his actions. It's the Snape version of a guilt trip.

I don't feel this way in order to turn Snape into a whipping post - this was what was described in canon, imo (specifically HBP, but all prior books in the series as well). JKR said she wanted to create a cruel and bullying professor (a cummulation of all of the bullying professor's she'd had) and I think she did a good job at that, but I don't find that type of character likeable.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. And I'm quite happy to disagree with you. I'm also quite happy to appreciate this character and all the complexity that I feel he brings with him.

What I meant was that it made it a more severe consequence for Harry, because Quidditch was important to him and he was going to miss it.

Ah, I agree from that standpoint.

A moment ago you said that Harry deserved to be suspended or expelled. He got to sort out cards, and rewrite them. Yes, it was emotional for him to see Sirius and James's names, but he could do that by opening up a photo album.

Harry did deserve to be suspended or expelled - but not treated cruelly - I never said he deserved that. How would Snape have felt sorting through cards that continuously named Lily's petty misdeeds when she was young, a couple of months after he'd been in Dumbledore's office moaning with despair like a wounded animal - and Snape being unable to refuse to do it? That would have been beyond cruel to Snape, imo - even though his intial participation was something that deserved stricture, imo, because people had died as a result of his action; and hence, I see his behavior here toward Harry as beyond cruel too. Harry could read about his dad - he'd had years to adjust to the fact he was dead, but Sirius had just passed away. Snape spoke about Sirius with the same general disrespect for the dead he'd showed toward James, imo, as he assigned the sorting job to Harry. In my view, this scene was written so as to indicate that Snape had zero sympathy for Harry's plight, and took advantage of an opportunity where detention was warranted to behave in a cruel manner toward him. The normal professorial rules of detention should apply - or suspension or expulsion - but Snape did not have the right to re-write the norms in the case of Harry, and include cruelty, imo. In further proof of my thoughts on this scene, JKR specifically wrote that Harry felt a pang in his heart everytime he read the names (HBP), so in my opinion this was indicative that Harry was still grieving very deeply. And imo, Snape, of all people, understood very well what it was to grieve deeply and how enduring that pain could be.

Harry could open a photo album if he wanted and feel the same, I agree; but that is altogether different than being forced to open one against his will, wholly unprepared. That is what I feel this was an example of. I would reach the same conclusion if Dumbledore had shoved a bunch of photos of Lily in Snape's lap as he sat moaning in the office - that would have been entirely cruel - but if Snape elected to look at her photo in a year book or whatever, and prepared himself to do so, that would be a different matter, imo.

He was more than happy to suggest that the Prince's book may have been his father's. Did that cause him pain? I can't remember.

That was James, not Sirius. All of his reflections on Sirius were still laced in grieving throughout HBP iirc. Even just having the positive thought that Tonks may have been in love with Sirius made his reflections turn inward to his own sadness for a moment (HBP), so this was an open, festering wound that Snape was putting salt in, imo.

What Snape was trying to do is to deter Harry from behaving the way Sirius and James did, IMHO.

But Harry hadn't been engaged in petty infractions - he almost killed someone. Nothing he read off was in any way similar to that - that wasn't a learning experience, imo, that was a means of inflicting pain on Harry, imo.

In my view, this was Snape's normal behavior with the kids - he didn't have reasonable justification for his actions, imo. For example, in my judgment, he wasn't trying to dissuade Hermione from becoming a dentist like her parents when he commented upon her teeth; or Neville from becomming a frog when he threatened to feed it potion that Neville considered liken to poison. Snape's MO was the same in these cases, imo, and that was to inflict pain and trauma on the students - in line with JKR's indicating she was writing a character representing a professor who bullied his students, imo.

You are entitled to your opinion of course. And I'm quite happy to disagree with you. I'm also quite happy to appreciate this character and all the complexity that I feel he brings with him.

That's cool - we can agree to disagree if you like. :)

In every situation there are numerous actions that affect the outcome. The death of James and Lily is one of these. But, in the end, the blame for their death lies with one person: Voldemort. No matter what the other circumstances were, he was the one who made the final decision to kill James, Lily, and Harry (of course not knowing his attempt on Harry's life would be his downfall). The others were at fault for making it easier for him. At least Snape felt remorse.

Should Lily and James have taken more precautions? Probably. But, we don't always do what we should, do we? I'm surprised that Dumbledore didn't assign Moody or some of the other Aurors to keep an eye on them since he knew the Prophecy. Once again, hindsight.

I'd like to have had a little more background on what Sirius, Remus, Snape, and some of the others were doing at the time Voldemort was hunting down and killing Lily and James and trying to kill Harry.

Ah, I agree from that standpoint.

OK.

About the rest... I'm not going to argue at length over whether Snape was a horrible human being or not with you. I feel like I'm being drawn into an argument that I am not interested in.

IMHO he was trying to teach Harry a lesson with that detention. I don't think he was being excessively cruel, and Harry reacted that way about James (who was long dead) and Sirius both. As I said before, Harry was happy to be talking about James and wondering if the book was his earlier. I don't think he was devastated at the mere thought of his father. Also, in terms of Sirius... it had been almost a year, and Harry's every waking thought did not revolve around Sirius. He was moving on with his life to a good extent and transferred most of his grief and blame towards being angry with Snape, which also colored his perception. Is no one ever to mention James or Sirius around Harry again because it might cause him a pang of grief?

Now arguing about whether Snape was cruel or not wasn't why I entered the discussion. I entered it over the Quidditch stuff, which didn't make much sense to me considering the facts of the Quidditch race that year. So my comments on that stand. I don't think Snape was looking to give some sort of edge to Slytherin by giving Harry detention.

That's cool - we can agree to disagree if you like. :)

Well we are just going to have to do that, because we aren't going to agree. ;)

About the rest... I'm not going to argue at length over whether Snape was a horrible human being or not with you. I feel like I'm being drawn into an argument that I am not interested in.

IMHO he was trying to teach Harry a lesson with that detention. I don't think he was being excessively cruel, and Harry reacted that way about James (who was long dead) and Sirius both. As I said before, Harry was happy to be talking about James and wondering if the book was his earlier. I don't think he was devastated at the mere thought of his father. Also, in terms of Sirius... it had been almost a year, and Harry's every waking thought did not revolve around Sirius. He was moving on with his life to a good extent and transferred most of his grief and blame towards being angry with Snape, which also colored his perception. Is no one ever to mention James or Sirius around Harry again because it might cause him a pang of grief?

Now arguing about whether Snape was cruel or not wasn't why I entered the discussion. I entered it over the Quidditch stuff, which didn't make much sense to me considering the facts of the Quidditch race that year. So my comments on that stand. I don't think Snape was looking to give some sort of edge to Slytherin by giving Harry detention.

Well we are just going to have to do that, because we aren't going to agree. ;)

:agree:

I think you make excellent points boushh! :tu:

OK.

About the rest... I'm not going to argue at length over whether Snape was a horrible human being or not with you. I feel like I'm being drawn into an argument that I am not interested in.

IMHO he was trying to teach Harry a lesson with that detention. I don't think he was being excessively cruel, and Harry reacted that way about James (who was long dead) and Sirius both. As I said before, Harry was happy to be talking about James and wondering if the book was his earlier. I don't think he was devastated at the mere thought of his father. Also, in terms of Sirius... it had been almost a year, and Harry's every waking thought did not revolve around Sirius. He was moving on with his life to a good extent and transferred most of his grief and blame towards being angry with Snape, which also colored his perception. Is no one ever to mention James or Sirius around Harry again because it might cause him a pang of grief?

Now arguing about whether Snape was cruel or not wasn't why I entered the discussion. I entered it over the Quidditch stuff, which didn't make much sense to me considering the facts of the Quidditch race that year. So my comments on that stand. I don't think Snape was looking to give some sort of edge to Slytherin by giving Harry detention.



Well we are just going to have to do that, because we aren't going to agree. ;)

Okay, but just to clarify, my point wasn't to discuss whether or not Snape was cruel, but rather to determine if in this particular scene, Snape was motivated by a good heart to set Harry upon this task. I am the first to agree that acting with a good heart does not always mean happy shiny behavior; but JKR wrote that Snape set Harry to write these cards out with a "malicious smile on his lips", then indicated Harry's father and godfather were among them - reading one, after which he "sneered" and said, "such a comfort to think that, though they are gone, a record of their great achievements remains..."

The highlighted parts are directly from the book (emphasis mine); so I don't think my interpretaion is off the mark based on a plain reading of the text. I only wished to clarify that point so you don't feel I am simply imputing things to the canon in order to accuse Snape in an unwarranted fashion. :) I would add that in DH when we saw the scene where Lily and Snape were talking, and things got heated during their conversation, or when Snape spoke to Dumbledore in those memories and found out about his machiavellian behavior; Snape was never described by Harry (or the Harry "filter") as "sneering" or looking "malicious" - so to me, Snape didn't convey/depict those things/expressions all of the time to Harry (his seeing an expression and misreading it as sneering for example) and I feel they were written to indicate to us Snape's intent. I feel that in this scene, the actual words he speaks re-affirm his intent.

The highlighted parts are directly from the book; so I don't think my interpretaion is off the mark based on a plain reading of the text. I only wished to clarify that point so you don't feel I am simply imputing things to the canon in order to accuse Snape in an unwarranted fashion. :)

Yes, I read the scene earlier. It also goes on to state that Snape said nothing else during the detention and simply dismissed Harry. He didn't take the opportunity to sit there savoring every bit of emotion that flickered on Harry's face, for example. I think Snape's point is that James and Sirius did behave poorly and wants Harry to know it so that he does not repeat the pattern of behavior, as Snape sees it.

And just because you think that what you state is warranted, it does not mean that I share your interpretation of the scene and agree that it is warranted. I see the scene a bit differently and I see the entire character differently, and I can also say that my POV is warranted too. :) You are using canon. Great. So am I. :)

As for the "Harry Filter" in the memories... Memories are more objective, but aside from that I feel that by that time Harry's feelings about Snape have already started to change. I feel they started to change before he even went into that pensieve, but that's a different topic.

And in either case, this all still has nothing to do with me trying to provide facts about the Quidditch game and the intentions you thought Snape may have had, which is what made me initially enter this discussion. :)

Also, Thanks TGW. :D

Okay, but just to clarify, my point wasn't to discuss whether or not Snape was cruel, but rather to determine if in this particular scene, Snape was motivated by a good heart to set Harry upon this task.

I think Snape was motivated by a good heart. His intention was to keep Harry off Draco's back and he made a few comments to keep his public face on IMO. The war was still not over; it was in fact reaching a peak and he could hardly simle in a friendly fashion at Harry IMO.

You are welcome boushh! :) Your latest is a fab post too! :agree:

I think Snape was motivated by a good heart. His intention was to keep Harry off Draco's back

I respect your view, however, we would have to agree to disagree on this.

and he made a few comments to keep his pubic face on IMO.

I agree with what you wrote, but I believe this was a result of Snape's true feelings - assuming your comment includes a typo.

The war was still not over; it was in fact reaching a peak and he could hardly simle in a friendly fashion at Harry IMO.

Well I feel that Snape was in the perfect position to be able to smile at Harry if he wanted - if you are referring to Voldemort's view of his behavior. I feel that Voldemort would want him to appear the perfect spy - and not an antagonist to the child Voldy was planning to kill. So we would have to agree to disagree on this.

I believe the story arc of remorse and redemption is not there to make us forget all the bad choices, but to show that no one is beyond redemption. I believe JKR meant it to be a hopeful view based in the Christian tradition that no sinner is beyond help. Otherwise, why would Harry offer Voldemort a chance to feel remorse, knowing about all his crimes even against his own parents? Dumbledore is famous for giving people second chances no matter what bad choices they made in the past.


I agree...I never meant to imply differently. However, if we suddenly look at Snape's past and say "oh how sad, I guess delivering the prophecy to Voldmeort wasn't that bad." then his whole story doesn't make any sense. Delivering the prophecy was horrible. And the fact that his life was sad and one feels badly for him does not change that fact. We have more insight into his motivations and can maybe understand how he came to make his decisions, but it doesn't change his actions.

That doesn't mean that Snape was perfect, and who would like him if he was? No, it means that he had a better side we could hardly see in the books because it is all from Harry's point of view. Snape has his dark side, but the love for Lily was always in him from Book One, and since we can't read his mind in the books, we have to weigh his actions instead, in my opinion.


Yes, I completely agree. So why compare his delivering the prophecy to the Potters failing to protect themselves to take some of the blame off of Snape? He did what he did and he worked to redeem himself. I understand that some people will try and make Snape the center of blame for things he did not do, but the reverse is just as illogical to me.



We do see Snape put on trial for his past actions in the books - in GoF. And the Wizarding World didn't lock him up for what he did because Dumbledore had already given him a second chance to prove his worth.

I'm of the opinion that Dumbledore made Snape confess what he had done as a Death Eater before he would let him teach at the school. And he knew that Snape was not a murderer or torturer like Bellatrix, and she says as much herself in HBP.

I disagree with the premise that knowing Snape's whole story "reduces the meaning of his redemption." Far from it, in my opinion - we know that he was never a sociopath like Voldemort, and that he had good qualities in him such as the ability to love and the creativity that is shown in the Half-Blood Prince book that Harry finds so compelling. Snape had a Dark side, but I don't believe he was anymore of a bad guy at heart than Draco - and at the end of the book, Draco is still walking free and putting his child on the train.

(Sorry, AlwaysMe, I wrote this before I saw the warning! I edited my post.)

It's not "knowing" his past that reduce his story: it's that using pity to reduce him to a pathetic heartsick wretch who really had good intentions when he did some kind of bad things or was otherwise so tormented and angst ridden that he had no choices but bad ones ruins the character, for me. Like WWB pointed out, Snape is a full person (I almost said "real", yikes!) with good and bad points about him; he has free will, he has strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes and he engages in actions both good and bad.

My point would be that we should neither attempt to lessen the badness of his bad actions, nor the goodness of his good ones just because we like or dislike Snape. Again, for the record,I like Snape, I just think there is a difference between "understanding" and "making excuses."

okay, that typo is too funny...it happens to the best of us, TGW.

I agree...I never meant to imply differently. However, if we suddenly look at Snape's past and say "oh how sad, I guess delivering the prophecy to Voldmeort wasn't that bad." then his whole story doesn't make any sense. Delivering the prophecy was horrible. And the fact that his life was sad and one feels badly for him does not change that fact. We have more insight into his motivations and can maybe understand how he came to make his decisions, but it doesn't change his actions.
I don't believe anyone here believes that Snape delivering the prophecy to Voldemort was not a terrible thing.


Yes, I completely agree. So why compare his delivering the prophecy to the Potters failing to protect themselves to take some of the blame off of Snape? He did what he did and he worked to redeem himself. I understand that some people will try and make Snape the center of blame for things he did not do, but the reverse is just as illogical to me. I don't believe that mentioning the Potters inadequate measures to defend themselves after Snape warned Dumbledore that they were targeted lessens Snape's responsibility for delivering the prophecy. It's not black and white, there were errors on all sides. This is not the thread to focus on the Potters' errors in judgement, of course, but it seems grievous errors were committed by people on all sides. In the case of Snape, he repented as soon as he realized how the prophecy was interpreted by Voldemort, and went immediately to Dumbledore. That is remarkable.


It's not "knowing" his past that reduce his story: it's that using pity to reduce him to a pathetic heartsick wretch who really had good intentions when he did some kind of bad things or was otherwise so tormented and angst ridden that he had no choices but bad ones ruins the character, for me. Like WWB pointed out, Snape is a full person (I almost said "real", yikes!) with good and bad points about him; he has free will, he has strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes and he engages in actions both good and bad.

My point would be that we should neither attempt to lessen the badness of his bad actions, nor the goodness of his good ones just because we like or dislike Snape. Again, for the record,I like Snape, I just think there is a difference between "understanding" and "making excuses."

I don't believe I am making excuses for Snape. Snape's character certainly would not make excuses for his sins and that's something I like about him. But he certainly was tormented and angst-ridden, in the classic tradition of a Gothic hero. He had choices, he made a disastrous one and then he made courageous, honorable choices in his effort to atone. Given the revelations in TPT, we may understand why he may have made those choices, the good and the bad. One may pity the sad and lonely child we see there. I certainly do. One may feel outrage at the abuse he suffered at the hands of bullies when he was in school. We see that he was capable of love and loyalty when he was shown friendship and kindness. We see his anger and bitterness too. Life was unfair to that kid, wasn't it? But in really understanding what his character was up against throughout his life as portrayed in canon, we may be better able to appreciate what a remarkable, three dimensional character JKR created.

Well said, Sly Lady. :) I especially agree with that last paragraph.

I agree...I never meant to imply differently. However, if we suddenly look at Snape's past and say "oh how sad, I guess delivering the prophecy to Voldmeort wasn't that bad."
Like Sly Lady, I can't recall ever saying or thinking such a thing. Delivering the Prophecy was the great tragedy and regret of Snape's whole life, so how can that be good?

What I would say is that Snape had no more control over what Voldemort did with the Prophecy than Dumbledore did.

Yes, I completely agree. So why compare his delivering the prophecy to the Potters failing to protect themselves to take some of the blame off of Snape?
I think that was covered on the James thread yesterday. Whatever the Potters did, they didn't ask Snape's opinion. Whatever they did was by their own choice, and Harry was actually their responsibility, so why try to blame Snape for their deaths?

Snape wasn't part of the Potters' Secret Keeper Committee. ;)

It's not "knowing" his past that reduce his story: it's that using pity to reduce him to a pathetic heartsick wretch who really had good intentions when he did some kind of bad things or was otherwise so tormented and angst ridden that he had no choices but bad ones ruins the character, for me. Like WWB pointed out, Snape is a full person (I almost said "real", yikes!) with good and bad points about him; he has free will, he has strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes and he engages in actions both good and bad.

If I choose to pity Snape, and that is my honest reaction to the character, I don't see why that would bother anyone. I don't usually take other readers into account as I'm reading, which is a solitary activity for me.

My point would be that we should neither attempt to lessen the badness of his bad actions, nor the goodness of his good ones just because we like or dislike Snape. Again, for the record, I like Snape, I just think there is a difference between "understanding" and "making excuses."

I don't believe there are rules about interpreting a character, or at least we each follow our own rules. No one would tell someone not to sympathize with Harry or Hermione, so I don't quite understand why Snape is in a different category by himself? The Prince's Tale is written in a sympathetic way that definitely causes Harry to pity the boy he sees. Why should our reaction be surprising since it is nearly the same as Harry's? No one is suprised that many readers followed Harry's reactions to Snape in the first six books when he was the hated Potions Master.

If some readers can hate Snape based on what Harry thinks, then I feel no guilt over empathizing with Snape when Harry pities him.

Some readers prefer Harry's opinion before he sees The Prince's Tale and understands Snape more completely. I prefer Harry's opinion in the Epilogue, after he's grown up and has some perspective on Snape's life. That doesn't excuse all the bad things Snape did, but it certainly shows that Harry believed Snape's good points outweighed the bad, and it certainly shows an ability to forgive that I also find quite satisfying given the sacrifices Snape made for Harry so he could have a life. Just my opinion.

Yes, I completely agree. So why compare his delivering the prophecy to the Potters failing to protect themselves to take some of the blame off of Snape? He did what he did and he worked to redeem himself. I understand that some people will try and make Snape the center of blame for things he did not do, but the reverse is just as illogical to me.

I'm afraid I'm responsible. :) I believe Snape delivering the prophecy did not make him the murderer. It is a very thin line, and I'm sorry, but I see it that way, which started off all those posts yesterday.

Snape would be guilty of murder had he not come to warn the Potters about his action, which led to they being targeted specifically. But while Snape did not go to the Potters, probably because he knew they would never believe him, he went to the next possible person, who was in a position to protect them. Dumbledore.

This was well in advance. The Books say (POA I think) one week after the Fidelus was cast the Potters were killed. So not only Dumbledore, but the Potters knew in advance that they were now specific targets.

And in the magical world they had the means to protect themselves. They were already in hiding for quite sometime and successfully too (the letter by Lily to Sirius) and this would make them very, very safe.

Does this mean Snape was not responsible. Of course he was, to the extent he did not, at the time he handed over the prophecy care for a baby's life and its parents lives as well. That was the horror and guilt I believe he could never come out of all his life. I am not saying that Snape's culpability was any less.

I think he would be a murderer, if he had not told Dumbledore about the plan Voldemort had made for the Potters. But he did. So in a way, while he created a problem, he also before the problem could actually become too big to be solved, came and also offered the solution in the way of information.

I think there are 2 sides to this; 2 ways to see it. I see it one way. I don't believe Snape is a murderer, simply because he came to Dumbledore with the information. He made amends; he tried to solve the problem, he also accepted his guilt.

Then the Potters protected themselves and I believe there were a lot of holes in it, and then they died.

I don't think Snape was guilty of murder, because he was not. He was guilty of being uncaring of human lives when he went with the prophecy. He had committed a grave mistake, but he also realised that mistake and warned the Potters beforehand.

So, whose fault was the actual murder? Snape's, for handing the prophecy and then coming back to warn Dumbledore, the Potters for their method of protection which got them killed by Voldemort, because they did not close the door on the betrayal and the traitor which Dumbledore told them there was?

The main question for me is does Snape's information to Dumbledore in any way, ever so slightly, lessen his guilt and his crime of handing over the prophecy? (not what he felt; not from his soul, the guilt never vanished even when he died in the end, but the actual guilt).

I believe it does. :)

okay, that typo is too funny...it happens to the best of us, TGW.

:blush: :blush: :lol: I was so mortified!

I was just wondering if Quidditch was really one of Snape's priorities that year. I don't think it was, in my opinion. On any given day, Harry, Draco, Dumbledore, or himself could have all been killed.
Very true! I am not even sure that quidditch was that high a priority for Harry either that year. Didn't he nearly miss a match following Draco? So if Harry was able to see that there were more important things than quidditch I'm pretty sure that Snape could too!

What I found interesting was that Snape oversaw the detention(s) himself, and that is what I based most of my comments on earlier.
Me too! Given the situation Snape was in - that he knew he would soon have to kill Dumbledore and so leave normal wizarding society and become a deep undercover spy pretending to be a loyal Death Eater - you would have though he would hhave wanted to partake of some of the pleasures that the normal wizarding world offers and would be denied him as a spy in Voldemort's inner circle. It is very telling to me that Snaoe chose to spend this time in Harry's company. He wanted to be near him yet it was bitter sweet for him to do so. It's one of the reasons why I think that Snape didn't just loathe Harry - he cared for him as well

I believe the story arc of remorse and redemption is not there to make us forget all the bad choices, but to show that no one is beyond redemption. I believe JKR meant it to be a hopeful view based in the Christian tradition that no sinner is beyond help. Otherwise, why would Harry offer Voldemort a chance to feel remorse, knowing about all his crimes even against his own parents? Dumbledore is famous for giving people second chances no matter what bad choices they made in the past.

And that is one of the things that makes Harry special - his ability to forgive. And therefore many readers, including myself, are not trying to be "Snape Apologists" but to say that whatever Snape did or didn't do in his past was mitigated by his later actions. He atoned and he changed, and while Harry didn't always like him or understand him, he forgave him in the end, and even honored him. At least that is how I read the Epilogue of Deathly Hallows.

That doesn't mean that Snape was perfect, and who would like him if he was? No, it means that he had a better side we could hardly see in the books because it is all from Harry's point of view. Snape has his dark side, but the love for Lily was always in him from Book One, and since we can't read his mind in the books, we have to weigh his actions instead, in my opinion.
WORD!! :tu:


In every situation there are numerous actions that affect the outcome. The death of James and Lily is one of these. But, in the end, the blame for their death lies with one person: Voldemort. No matter what the other circumstances were, he was the one who made the final decision to kill James, Lily, and Harry (of course not knowing his attempt on Harry's life would be his downfall). The others were at fault for making it easier for him. At least Snape felt remorse.
Completely agree! :tu:
I actually find it quite unnerving that people seem to forget that Voldemort was the one that actually murdered them!!

I don't believe I am making excuses for Snape. Snape's character certainly would not make excuses for his sins and that's something I like about him. But he certainly was tormented and angst-ridden, in the classic tradition of a Gothic hero. He had choices, he made a disastrous one and then he made courageous, honorable choices in his effort to atone. Given the revelations in TPT, we may understand why he may have made those choices, the good and the bad. One may pity the sad and lonely child we see there. I certainly do. One may feel outrage at the abuse he suffered at the hands of bullies when he was in school. We see that he was capable of love and loyalty when he was shown friendship and kindness. We see his anger and bitterness too. Life was unfair to that kid, wasn't it? But in really understanding what his character was up against throughout his life as portrayed in canon, we may be better able to appreciate what a remarkable, three dimensional character JKR created. :clap: Brilliant! I completely agree. The description of Sev in the playground brought tears to my eyes. My heart completely went out to that lonely boy in his inappropriate clothes!

I don't believe that mentioning the Potters inadequate measures to defend themselves after Snape warned Dumbledore that they were targeted lessens Snape's responsibility for delivering the prophecy. It's not black and white, there were errors on all sides. This is not the thread to focus on the Potters' errors in judgement, of course, but it seems grievous errors were committed by people on all sides.
What is pertinent to thios thread though is that Severus knew the Potters had made errors of judgement and was extremely frustrated by them. I can't blame him for that because he had risked his life to protect them and they had made errors which led to them being killed anyway. Just to be clear i am not blaming James and Lily. The errors they made were errors of trusting too much, which in its own way is not a bad error to make.

I cannot begin to imagine how Severus must have felt believing that Sirius Black had betrayed the Potters. Bearing in mind the way Sirius treated Severus at school and that this treatment was allegedly based on a hatred for the Dark Arts to then discover that he had apparently done a complete U-turn - I think we see a glimmer of how Snape feels about this when he says to Harry in the shack "You would have been well served if he had killed you like he did your father" (paraphrased) Severus had had 12 years to contemplate the situation - that he had risked everything to save Potter only to find that he had apparently been betrayed by Potter's best friend and "partner in crime". This muist have tortured him for all those years.

The main question for me is does Snape's information to Dumbledore in any way, ever so slightly, lessen his guilt and his crime of handing over the prophecy? (not what he felt; not from his soul, the guilt never vanished even when he died in the end, but the actual guilt).

I believe it does.So do I :)
He tried to prevent the bad consequences of his actions. He went to someone who was very far from sympathetic to himself, believing that he might even be killed on sight. He was not afraid of the judgement of Dumbledore as many might have been. His concern was only for Lily. I think that counts for an awful lot. IMO he did what was right and not waht was easy when he went to Dumbledore.

I don't believe Snape is a murderer, simply because he came to Dumbledore with the information. He made amends; he tried to solve the problem, he also accepted his guilt.My feelings exactly!


I have been thinking about the poll onthis thread and two thoughts have surfaced (yes two whole thoughts!)

Firstly Why is Severus Snape's love for Lily on the poll as a possible weakness? This makes absolutely no sense to me. The entire series is about the power of love. Severus away from evil because of his love for Lily, so how could it ever be a bad thing? Just wondering...

Secondly the thing I regard as Sev's biggest weakness isn't on the list.
His Ambition. It is his ambition gets him sorted into Slytherin house; it is ambition that makes him think he can have it all; it is ambition that drives the wedge between him and Lily; it is his ambition that makes him aspire to become and eventually become a Death Eater; it is ambition that makes him deliver the prophecy to Voldemort - and it is only when he lets go of his ambition that he starts to become a better person. I am not saying that ambition is a bad thing - just that in Sev's case it was too great a force in his life which lead himn to make some terrible mistakes. Any thoughts?...

Firstly Why is Severus Snape's love for Lily on the poll as a possible weakness? This makes absolutely no sense to me. The entire series is about the power of love. Severus away from evil because of his love for Lily, so how could it ever be a bad thing? Just wondering...

Yeah, I don't agree with it being a weakness either for the reasons you mentioned.

Secondly the thing I regard as Sev's biggest weakness isn't on the list.
His Ambition. It is his ambition gets him sorted into Slytherin house; it is ambition that makes him think he can have it all; it is ambition that drives the wedge between him and Lily; it is his ambition that makes him aspire to become and eventually become a Death Eater; it is ambition that makes him deliver the prophecy to Voldemort - and it is only when he lets go of his ambition that he starts to become a better person. I am not saying that ambition is a bad thing - just that in Sev's case it was too great a force in his life which lead himn to make some terrible mistakes. Any thoughts?...

You make a good argument for ambition. I hadn't thought of that one actually. The only thing that makes me not want to choose it is that I think his ambition was possibly born out of his insecurities, going as far back as his childhood--not wanting to be perceived as being weak and powerless.

Firstly Why is Severus Snape's love for Lily on the poll as a possible weakness? This makes absolutely no sense to me. The entire series is about the power of love. Severus away from evil because of his love for Lily, so how could it ever be a bad thing? Just wondering...

I agree, Cathy, love shouldn't be seen as a weakness. It is Severus's love that lifts him from being a DE to someone who we see in DH saving those he can. When he delivered the prophecy he cared nothing for who it would affect or how.

Secondly the thing I regard as Sev's biggest weakness isn't on the list.
His Ambition. It is his ambition gets him sorted into Slytherin house; it is ambition that makes him think he can have it all; it is ambition that drives the wedge between him and Lily; it is his ambition that makes him aspire to become and eventually become a Death Eater; it is ambition that makes him deliver the prophecy to Voldemort - and it is only when he lets go of his ambition that he starts to become a better person. I am not saying that ambition is a bad thing - just that in Sev's case it was too great a force in his life which lead himn to make some terrible mistakes. Any thoughts?..

I was only thinking yesterday how it was his ambition that drove Severus to deliver the prophecy to Voldemort. I think he was so driven by this ambition to be powerfull, that he never gave a moments thought to the consequences of delivering the prophecy, and that he just saw it as a way to impress Voldemort. I think, that like the young Dumbledore that it was his desire to be powerfull that was the driving force behing his ambition. And, like Dumbledore it took the death of a loved one to make him realise that power wasn't that important. I think that it why Dumbledore knew he could trust Severus as he empathised with him.

I'm afraid I'm responsible. :) I believe Snape delivering the prophecy did not make him the murderer. It is a very thin line, and I'm sorry, but I see it that way, which started off all those posts yesterday.

Well I respect your view, but people did die as a result of his action of delivering the prophecy - and at the time of delivery of the prophecy regarding a child that posed a threat to Voldemort, Snape understood the ramifications of his delivery would be an attempt to murder the child (and its family would likely suffer a like consequence) - the only thing Snape didn't know was who it would be and when he found out, then the situation changed for him, but not before, imo.

Snape would be guilty of murder had he not come to warn the Potters about his action, which led to they being targeted specifically. But while Snape did not go to the Potters, probably because he knew they would never believe him, he went to the next possible person, who was in a position to protect them. Dumbledore.

The point I raised to this argument is that his warning was not adequate to save the Potters. Why it wasn't adequate doesn't matter, imo - it didn't matter because death still resulted. The idea at law is that if a person aids in setting up a murder or facilitates a murder in any way - then goes to the police, the mayor, the president/prime minister or even onto world wide television and tells the whole world about the plan in an attempt to ensure the murder doesn't happen - and it still happens, he is still guilty. The reason is because the individual should not have aided or facilitated a murder in the first place - that is the legal angle which one can agree with or not - but to me it makes sense.

And in the magical world they had the means to protect themselves. They were already in hiding for quite sometime and successfully too (the letter by Lily to Sirius) and this would make them very, very safe.

And they tried.

Does this mean Snape was not responsible. Of course he was, to the extent he did not, at the time he handed over the prophecy care for a baby's life and its parents lives as well. That was the horror and guilt I believe he could never come out of all his life...

I am not saying that Snape's culpability was any less.

Okay, but then you said this:

The main question for me is does Snape's information to Dumbledore in any way, ever so slightly, lessen his guilt and his crime of handing over the prophecy? (not what he felt; not from his soul, the guilt never vanished even when he died in the end, but the actual guilt).

I believe it does. :)

So are you saying it doesn't or it does lessen Snape's culpability for his crime?

I don't think Snape was guilty of murder, because he was not. He was guilty of being uncaring of human lives when he went with the prophecy. He had committed a grave mistake, but he also realised that mistake and warned the Potters beforehand.

Well a reckless disregard for human life that results in murder = first degree murder and the individual is a murderer at law. I think that is correct and I feel Snape saw that and took responsibility for it in terms of Lily - although I respect that you may see it distinctly.

So, whose fault was the actual murder? Snape's, for handing the prophecy and then coming back to warn Dumbledore,

Well first he went to Voldemort afterward and asked him to spare Lily. When he went to Dumbledore, he was compelled by Dumbledore to include the rest of the family in his request, imo, after only asking for Lily's safety. Based on this aspect, I cannot say that his attempt to undo his deed was even adequate in terms of his personal viewpoint (imo). But Snape does get credited with the ultimate murder because of his original act and the fact that his later efforts were not adequate to stop murder associated with his act from occuring, imo. But that does not discount Snape's realization of the consequences of his act in terms of Lily - that he sought to save her from what he'd started was admirable, imo, whatever his personal reasons for doing so were.

In any case, in my view, Snape's actions (together with Peter and Voldemort's) resulted in the death of the Potters and as such, they are all three culpable for murder (but note I feel Peter's sentence would be longer, and Voldemort's longer yet - but that is in no way based on their degree of culpability for their deeds, but rather their actions, prior to and during the murders that allows for mitigation or aggrevation of the charge in terms of sentencing only). We can agree to disagree if you like.

I was only thinking yesterday how it was his ambition that drove Severus to deliver the prophecy to Voldemort. I think he was so driven by this ambition to be powerfull, that he never gave a moments thought to the consequences of delivering the prophecy, and that he just saw it as a way to impress Voldemort.

I don't really understand how he could not have thought about the consequences. The consequences (some child could defeat Voldemort) are what made him believe Voldemort would be interested in the prophecy, no? Giving Voldemort advance warning was done precisely so the dark lord could do something about it, imo. All of that is entirely necessary thought to the understanding that the prophecy would be valuable to Voldemort, imo, and Snape's delivery of it serve as something that would forward his goals relative to his ambition, imo. In other words, Snape had to have assessed the prophecy for its relative worth to Voldemort, imo. If the prophecy had said that a cure for headaches was going to be discovered in 500 years by a wizard, then Snape may not have been so eager to deliver it in terms of advancing his goals relative to ambition - because the prophecy would have no value to Voldemort and hence, he would not reward Snape in terms of his ambition, imo.

I think that was covered on the James thread yesterday. Whatever the Potters did, they didn't ask Snape's opinion. Whatever they did was by their own choice, and Harry was actually their responsibility, so why try to blame Snape for their deaths?

Snape wasn't part of the Potters' Secret Keeper Committee. ;)


My point was that Snape delivered the prophecy in cold blood and was prepared to be a party to infanticide. That is dark. There should not be any comparison to the Potters attempts to save their own lives at all. Those are two different discussions.

If I choose to pity Snape, and that is my honest reaction to the character, I don't see why that would bother anyone. I don't usually take other readers into account as I'm reading, which is a solitary activity for me.

I don't take other readers into account either. I was referring to this discussion which came out of the issue with the Prophecy and the subsequent claim that the Potters were just as guilty as Snape in their own deaths.



I don't believe there are rules about interpreting a character, or at least we each follow our own rules. No one would tell someone not to sympathize with Harry or Hermione, so I don't quite understand why Snape is in a different category by himself? The Prince's Tale is written in a sympathetic way that definitely causes Harry to pity the boy he sees. Why should our reaction be surprising since it is nearly the same as Harry's? No one is suprised that many readers followed Harry's reactions to Snape in the first six books when he was the hated Potions Master.

If some readers can hate Snape based on what Harry thinks, then I feel no guilt over empathizing with Snape when Harry pities him.


Oh I never meant to imply that anyone should not have their own personal interpretation of the character and the books. I'm sorry if it sounded like that is what i was saying. As I've pointed out numerous times, I have a great deal of empathy for Snape's position and some of his earlier experiences. (I do not, however, pity him...nor do I think Harry did, but I think that perhaps the word is being used interchangeably with "empathy," which is different.) I think the character is wonderfully rich and complex.

However, in the context of this discussion, I am reacting to what I interpret as pity for Snape being used as a means to minimize his complicity in the Potter's death as well as somehow blaming them at the same time. That bothers me in the same way as when people try to minimize what the Marauders did to Snape because Snape was weird, liked Dark Arts or had other character flaws; none of that changes what they did. Those facts contextualize the incident, but they do not change it.

I cannot begin to imagine how Severus must have felt believing that Sirius Black had betrayed the Potters. Bearing in mind the way Sirius treated Severus at school and that this treatment was allegedly based on a hatred for the Dark Arts to then discover that he had apparently done a complete U-turn - I think we see a glimmer of how Snape feels about this when he says to Harry in the shack "You would have been well served if he had killed you like he did your father" (paraphrased) Severus had had 12 years to contemplate the situation - that he had risked everything to save Potter only to find that he had apparently been betrayed by Potter's best friend and "partner in crime". This muist have tortured him for all those years.

I was just thinking about this today. After reading about Snape's reaction to the death and his simple question about why Lily wasn't safe, I think Snape would have made Dumbledore explain it to him more than once. I can imagine him asking once again just why James used Sirius as a Secret Keeper, and why he hadn't put more charms around the house.

I thought of that last question comes from re-reading "Dark Lord Ascending," when Snape says to Voldemort:

“Where are they going to hide the boy next?”

“At the home of one of the Order,” said Snape. “The place,
according to the source, has been given every protection that the
Order and Ministry together could provide. I think that there is
little chance of taking him once he is there, my Lord . . .

I can imagine that it would drive Snape crazy that they didn't put more defenses around the house instead of just depending on the Secret Keeper. I bet Dumbledore had to tell him to stop trying to second guess it all more than once.

I can imagine that it would drive Snape crazy that they didn't put more defenses around the house instead of just depending on the Secret Keeper. I bet Dumbledore had to tell him to stop trying to second guess it all more than once.
:agree: IMO Snape is not a forgiving person and he tends to dwell on past mistakes so I can easily imagine him going over and over it in his mind while pacing the corridors of Hogwarts at night. I think it would have really eaten away at him to produce the rather bitter, harsh man who looks into Harry's eyes across a crowded Great Hall.

However, in the context of this discussion, I am reacting to what I interpret as pity for Snape being used as a means to minimize his complicity in the Potter's death as well as somehow blaming them at the same time. That bothers me in the same way as when people try to minimize what the Marauders did to Snape because Snape was weird, liked Dark Arts or had other character flaws; none of that changes what they did. Those facts contextualize the incident, but they do not change it.
Thank you!! :rockon:

I had the same reaction to the discussion as well. Giving the prophecy knowing it was a way to help Voldy vanguish whoever was going to defeat him (because that was what the prophecy was stating and I don't see how Voldy would have reacted any other way) was a bad thing to do considering who Snape was helping. At the same time, I don't see how anyone can use the fact that he gave the prophecy to Voldemort as a way to defame his character any more than it needs to. It's just somethign that happened in canon that starts the order of events for the story. It's there, done. And at the same time, it because of this dark deed, the deed that started to put Lily's family in danger is part of what makes his redemption needed. Snape's character needed forgiveness and redemption, but that forgiveness and redemption had to be there for a reason.

Point is, this dark deed that he did should not be treated as evidence to demonize his character anymore than he deserves, NOR should it be downplayed or be treated as any less than the bad choice it was. Both, IMO, take away the meaning of how/why this character came to be.

If not seeing Severus as culpable as Voldemort or Peter then I guess I'll be guilty of downplaying his actions in the eyes of some here. I don't feel I'm downplaying it because I do feel he was partially responsible, and that is part of what his redemption was for, but if the opinion of others is that this point of view is downplaying it then so be it.

I don't feel the laws of real life should be used to judge Snape, because not everyone comes from the same country or culture or religion and everyone's POV is going to be different because of that. So if one's law books say that he would be just as guilty of murder, then calling him a murderer may not go along with someone else's POV... Never mind the fact that not everyone here has law books stashed in the corner... and again whose laws are we to go by?

He is not put in the same league as Peter or Voldemort in the books, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't put him in the same league either, even if he did let on to Voldemort what he overheard. I found him to be a very damaged human being at the age of 21, and that was the reason he did not understand the value of human life. To me that is sad and not evil.

I do not see the Potters as being blamed much at all beyond their own bad choices in determining how to keep themselves safe, which are quite evident but minimal in comparison to what Voldemort did.
This definitely has a bearing in how Snape views the situation; in PoA, it is suggested that he blames James in part for what occurred, thinking that James was too arrogant to think he could have been wrong about Sirius.

As for the prophecy, I see Snape's delivery of it to Voldemort as a very telling indication of what sort of man he was at 20. However, I don't see it as altogether important in viewing Snape as a whole at 38, except to show how much he changed from a man who callously cared nothing about an endangered baby to someone who would save those he could from Voldemort's clutches.

:agree: IMO Snape is not a forgiving person and he tends to dwell on past mistakes

Do you mean only of others or including his own?

so I can easily imagine him going over and over it in his mind while pacing the corridors of Hogwarts at night. I think it would have really eaten away at him to produce the rather bitter, harsh man who looks into Harry's eyes across a crowded Great Hall.

Well depending on your meaning above, I would say that this was the least of what occupied Snape's mind, imo. He seemed a lot more focused on his emotions for Lily and the resultant jealousy/dislike for her husband and son, than other people, friend or foe, imo. I think at the same time he realized his actions had jeopardized his own ambition in the service of Voldemort and he was coming to realize that he didn't have that same opportunity in Dumbledore's regime in any regard, imo. I think those things were more embittering and drove him to seek ambition in the smaller ways that were at hand. I also think he felt remorse about Lily a lot - and it is possible that he began feeling remorse for his other past deeds in that regard as well, although canon does not reveal whether that is true or not. I also think he began contemplating the "here and now" because some of his later statements and agreements to statements by others seem to indicate he'd changed his view on certain ideas in relation to good and evil, imo.

But Snape I feel saw the glass as half empty because he was a free man rather than an occupant of Azkaban - and while he may not have liked being chained to the school as a professor, that was still both better than being locked in a 4x4 prison cell with dementors torturing you to insanity or death, imo. And it availed him of some free time to do as he wished, including summers as Hogwarts didn't have summer school. Life was still flourishing around him - but I don't think Snape ever took advantage of that and dwelled on those things that kept his view focused on the half empty glass, imo. The last year and a half of his life before Dumbldore died, he had to attend meetings and carry out who knows what for Voldemort, which would have been repugnant to him since he wanted Voldemort taken out, imo, but those were intermitent and I don't feel that had to interfere with his personal growth. Snape lucked out in the short time after Dumbledore's death in that he only had to be in Voldemort's presence for a short while - which surely was even more repugnant - but he was able to free himself of that burden by acting as Headmaster - where things were not actually much more pleasant and his hands were pretty tied in as far as helping the kids from being abused, imo.

Yet, Snape still had a lot to be thankful for and for 16 years or so, he had ample opportunity to take advantage of freedom and life to a certain extent, but I don't feel that he was able to get past his grudges, jealousy and such and participate in the life around him.

This definitely has a bearing in how Snape views the situation; in PoA, it is suggested that he blames James in part for what occurred, thinking that James was too arrogant to think he could have been wrong about Sirius.

To me, Snape was behaving in an irrational manner when he said this in POA - basically talking nonsense - even if he believed it, imo.

I mean, if James was well served to die because he arrogantly trusted in Sirius (Peter) and got killed, what was Snape well served by for placing his trust in Voldemort and Dumbledore and Lily and James ending up killed? Forget the delivery of the prophecy - let's talk protective efforts.

Did Snape arrogantly believe that Voldemort would heed his plea or that Dumbledore, who was losing against Voldemort at the time could actually keep Lily safe? Why didn't he do something else like try to kill Voldemort or blow up the headquarters or go to the Potters and suggest some protection he thought up? Why didn't he alert the media or rally massive troops to surround Lily to protect her? Why not go with justice league tatics and send her a spell proof body suit or arm her with a triple decked nuclear rocket launcher?

If you think my above statements sound a bit loopy, I agree - that is because I don't feel that attempts to blame people because the efforts they made were ineffectual is right or makes any sense. One can always say the dead could have done things distinctly and not died - if Fred only had worn a protective hard hat; if Lupin had just stayed home; if the Potters had just stuck with Sirius; if Colin had just remained with the underaged kids; and so on. It is the same for those trying to help protect - Snape tried, and it may be fun to analyse why he didn't try any of the stuff I suggested above, which may have worked, but to then blame him for not doing so goes too far to me. Course no one is blaming Snape - or anyone else - for thier failure, that is reserved for the Potters (and occassionally Sirius) - the victims - which is ridiculous, imo.

If not seeing Severus as culpable as Voldemort or Peter then I guess I'll be guilty of downplaying his actions in the eyes of some here. I don't feel I'm downplaying it because I do feel he was partially responsible, and that is part of what his redemption was for, but if the opinion of others is that this point of view is downplaying it then so be it.

I don't feel the laws of real life should be used to judge Snape, because not everyone comes from the same country or culture or religion and everyone's POV is going to be different because of that. So if one's law books say that he would be just as guilty of murder, then calling him a murderer may not go along with someone else's POV... Never mind the fact that not everyone here has law books stashed in the corner... and again whose laws are we to go by?

He is not put in the same league as Peter or Voldemort in the books, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't put him in the same league either, even if he did let on to Voldemort what he overheard. I found him to be a very damaged human being at the age of 21, and that was the reason he did not understand the value of human life. To me that is sad and not evil.
Point taken, and I do agree. In defense of my reply though, I was trying to show my reaction the current discussion, as it seemed to me that putting the blame on the Potters for their mistake in protecting themselves was trying to downplay Snape's role in the whole thing. For the record, I do not put responsiblity on Snape as much as I do with Peter and Voldy. Snape gave the prophecy not knowing who it was about, while Peter and Voldy knew exactly who was involved.

BUT, I do think Snape bears more responsibilty than the Potters. The Potters made a mistake, but I said in a past post, who does know how to react and plan flawlessly in that kind of situation during a war of all times? But that is another topic, and SweetSev said as well, Snape's responsibilty and the Potters should be two different discussions.

Again, my post was a reaction to the currently being discussed.

If not seeing Severus as culpable as Voldemort or Peter then I guess I'll be guilty of downplaying his actions in the eyes of some here. I don't feel I'm downplaying it because I do feel he was partially responsible, and that is part of what his redemption was for, but if the opinion of others is that this point of view is downplaying it then so be it.

I don't feel the laws of real life should be used to judge Snape, because not everyone comes from the same country or culture or religion and everyone's POV is going to be different because of that. So if one's law books say that he would be just as guilty of murder, then calling him a murderer may not go along with someone else's POV... Never mind the fact that not everyone here has law books stashed in the corner... and again whose laws are we to go by?

Agreed, but if someone comes from a country with alternate beliefs - then they can state them and explain why Snape's actions would be construed distinctly and labeled as something else, imo. Or simply state their own beliefs which is equally valid, imo. But for those whose laws consider his acts as falling under the category of murder, that is what it would be if they agree, imo. I happen to agree with the law I know, and I do construe Snape's act as murder - and Peter and Voldemort's also because that is what resulted from their combined acts: the death of two individuals, DH TPT.

He is not put in the same league as Peter or Voldemort in the books, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't put him in the same league either, even if he did let on to Voldemort what he overheard. I found him to be a very damaged human being at the age of 21, and that was the reason he did not understand the value of human life. To me that is sad and not evil.

I respect your view, however, to me, it moves beyond sad and to the greatest levels of evil because his not having regard for human life (or understanding its value) appears disproven in his regard for Lily's life - so to me, he had that regard and understanding for some life and simply not for all (imo). Further, in my judgment, Snape didn't just hold this view, he acted on it in delivering the prophecy to the murderous dark lord of the age, knowing the probable consequences, imo, and that is where his behavior moved from sad and unfortunate into the realm evil, imo. Again, I respect your view and my words are not meant to change or belittle your opinion, but only to give mine in dissent.

I too feel that the Potters made mistakes and those mistakes were contributing factors to their deaths. I don't necessarily blame them either, nor do I think that their mistakes fix the error in judgement that Snape made in putting his faith in the wrong person and delivering the prophecy. Incidentally, I think that line by Dumbledore, "They put their faith in the wrong person, much like you Severus." was deliberately drawing a parallel between the characters. At least I'm pretty sure that's how the line goes. If I'm wrong then scratch that. :)

Point taken, and I do agree. In defense of my reply though, I was trying to show my reaction the current discussion, as it seemed to me that putting the blame on the Potters for their mistake in protecting themselves was trying to downplay Snape's role in the whole thing. I don't recall anyone downplaying Snape's role in the Potters' deaths. Really, denying or downplaying Snape's role would detract from his true and heartfelt atonement.

He is not put in the same league as Peter or Voldemort in the books, as far as I'm concerned, and I don't put him in the same league either, even if he did let on to Voldemort what he overheard. I found him to be a very damaged human being at the age of 21, and that was the reason he did not understand the value of human life. To me that is sad and not evil.

Well, I agree that he is not in the same league as Peter and Voldemort, but only because of his actions after the prophecy. That actual action of delivering the prophecy was evil, imo. I also agree that Snape was damaged, but the same could certainly be said for Peter and Voldemort as well; there were reasons that they did not value human life. The difference is that they never veered off that path; Snape did. So to me, it's not that his actions weren't as bad, it's that he went on to change and pay for those actions.

I'm going along with Ignisia here that whatever we think or whatever bothers us about this discussion isn't quite the point.

The point is that Snape's character in the book blamed James for choosing the wrong Secret Keeper, and at the time he thought it was Sirius. Later of course he knew it was Peter, and that probably seemed even stranger to him and made him more angry because Peter could never have protected Lily and Harry, and of course he didn't.

Snape isn't the only one in the book who believes that James was misguided in his trust of his friends. In PoA, Cornelius Fudge, Minerva, Hagrid, and Professor Flitwick say the same thing. Minerva lays it right at James's door, so to speak, when she says that James wouldn't hear one bad word against Sirius from Dumbledore, and that's what led to their deaths. In DH, we hear Dumbledore say it to Snape.

So this isn't just an attitude towards Snape or an opinion of James, it's canon from PoA and DH, and just a fact. So in my opinion, there's really nothing to debate about it. I can quote it all here if you want me to, but I don't think that's necessary.

Well, I agree that he is not in the same league as Peter and Voldemort, but only because of his actions after the prophecy. That actual action of delivering the prophecy was evil, imo. I also agree that Snape was damaged, but the same could certainly be said for Peter and Voldemort as well; there were reasons that they did not value human life. The difference is that they never veered off that path; Snape did. So to me, it's not that his actions weren't as bad, it's that he went on to change and pay for those actions.

I view their actions as much more deliberate than Snape's. All he did was tell Voldemort what he overheard. As far as we know he didn't recommend any course of action. He didn't assist him. He worked against him soon after. His intent in delivering the prophecy wasn't to cause harm, but to gain him favor with his boss. Peter and Voldemort's actions were more in line with being evil than Snape's, IMHO. It doesn't make Snape's redemption any less powerful if I don't see him as an evil person at the age of 20-21. If he were truly evil, then he would not have gone against Voldemort at risk to his own life to help someone else. The true sociopath and murderer in this story is Voldemort, and he was aided by Peter Pettigrew, who deliberately betrayed his friends.

I'm going along with Ignisia here that whatever we think or whatever bothers us about this discussion isn't quite the point.

The point is that Snape's character in the book blamed James for choosing the wrong Secret Keeper, and at the time he thought it was Sirius. Later of course he knew it was Peter, and that probably seemed even stranger to him and made him more angry because Peter could never have protected Lily and Harry, and of course he didn't.

Respecting your view, it was never the plan that Peter would have to protect them - the plan was to give it to a person who would not be faced with that challenge - the person that Voldemort would least likely approach, imo. Snape may not have known the plan, but he also didn't know about the switch. So He was simply mistaken with regard to the facts, and thus, his conclusion was wrong as well, imo. If he had known the whole truth and the whole plan - he might have agreed it was a good one.

Snape isn't the only one in the book who believes that James was misguided in his trust of his friends. In PoA, Cornelius Fudge, Minerva, Hagrid, and Professor Flitwick say the same thing. Minerva lays it right at James's door, so to speak, when she says that James wouldn't hear one bad word against Sirius from Dumbledore, and that's what led to their deaths. In DH, we hear Dumbledore say it to Snape.

I disagree - only Dumbledore and Minerva said this, the others were listening and I don't recall Hagrid saying this either, to my recollection, he only stated what happened and didn't address the issue of trust. And those who did say it were wrong - placing trust in Sirius was not the problem - Peter was the problem. Further, Snape was the only one to speak of arrogant trust, iirc. Dumbledore merely said they trusted the wrong person and Minerva merely said that she could not believe Sirius would do such a thing as close as he was to the Potters, iirc.

So this isn't just an attitude towards Snape or an opinion of James, it's canon from PoA and DH, and just a fact.

I disagree - it is not canon, imo. All of the people you cited were wrong (POA). Sirius was innocent (POA). They neither knew Peter had been the SK or the reason why he had been chosen for the switch (POA). I felt if they had, they wouldn't have spoken as they did, imo. No one called 7 Potters a bad plan due to their chosing the weakest link of the drivers to carry Harry - they called it bad because of the betrayal factor, imo. The Potter's plan was great, imo, Snape didn't know the plan or the reason for it, so his statement is based on lack of knowledge - and in my judgment, an irrational deduction in attempting to say that arrogant trust was invovled, imo.

I also disagree that it isn't just an attitude toward Snape or an opinion of James and rather fact. I feel it is wholly based in opinion and attitude, imo, because as readers we do know the plan and have the right to decide, in our opinion, whether the plan was a good one to go with the weakest link or not - and whether we feel the Potters and Sirius had a basis for trusting Peter or not, imo. The facts were unknown by all of the parties speaking in your examples, so their opinions cannot possibly weigh in on that decision, imo.

His intent in delivering the prophecy wasn't to cause harm, but to gain him favor with his boss.

How?

So to me, it's not that his actions weren't as bad, it's that he went on to change and pay for those actions.
:tu: This pretty much sums up why I like his character so much. :rockon:

The point is that Snape's character in the book blamed James for choosing the wrong Secret Keeper, and at the time he thought it was Sirius. Later of course he knew it was Peter, and that probably seemed even stranger to him and made him more angry because Peter could never have protected Lily and Harry, and of course he didn't.
I do think Snape's reaction and feelings toward James and Sirius at this point were very understandable. It's the same reaction I would have had if James and Lily had been my family or close friends of mine. "You are so stupid! How could you do that when there were better ways to protect yourselves?!" However, James and Lily aren't people close to me, so I am analyzing this from an outside POV (even being fictional is just beside the point). Looking at it from my standpoint, I think blaming James and Sirius is a bit pointless, only because it isn't their fault they were put in that position. It is not their fault that they ended up having to make these choices. And I know full well that even if I were to direct my anger at my loved one for making such a stupid choice, the heart of why I'm angry wouldn't be because I think they did something stupid but from the fact that that my loved one is gone and I wish there was something done for them to stay here. My blame would fully go their murderer, as it should. But that is my interpretation of Snape's reaction as how I understand it.

And I have to say, Snape already had a whole lot of resentment for James and Sirius because of their past (a resentment that is justified yes, but that's not the point), so there's no way he wasn't going to get mad at the both of them for Lily dying. When one already hates someone, more than likely they are not going to look at them with an unbiased view. This happens with everyone.

I view their actions as much more deliberate than Snape's. All he did was tell Voldemort what he overheard. As far as we know he didn't recommend any course of action. He didn't assist him. He worked against him soon after. His intent in delivering the prophecy wasn't to cause harm, but to gain him favor with his boss. Peter and Voldemort's actions were more in line with being evil than Snape's, IMHO. It doesn't make Snape's redemption any less powerful if I don't see him as an evil person at the age of 20-21. If he were truly evil, then he would not have gone against Voldemort at risk to his own life to help someone else. The true sociopath and murderer in this story is Voldemort, and he was aided by Peter Pettigrew, who deliberately betrayed his friends.

Snape deliberately betrayed humanity. He knew that a child would defeat Voldemort. He told his boss as much and he expected his boss to do what? Let the child live? Hardly likely. A child. An innocent child who didn't ask to be the chosen one. It's like throwing a baby into a small room with a pit viper. You can say that you didn't know the baby would get bit, but you can hardly deny the peril you put the baby in and have no way of claiming that the danger was unlikely. Further you can't say that just because you didn't shove the fangs in the baby that you didn't assist the viper in it's action. (And by you I mean the general you not the you in specific.)

And then we are back to square one.

1. Snape knowingly put a child (two as it turned out) at risk by deliberately giving Voldemort the Prophecy.
2. Upon finding out the target Snape implores his master first. And Dumbledore calls him on that. It is also implied that if it had been Frank, Alice, and Neville Snape would not have switched sides at all.
3. Further in his conversations with Dumbledore he ignores the safety of James and Harry in an effort to have Lily spared. Only when Dumbledore says he is disgusted that Snape sees his chance slipping away and agrees to help Harry and James. Note here that Dumbledore played Snape beautifully here. There was no way that Dumbledore would have let harm come to the Potters if he could help it. But he couldn't have Snape's hatred of James and Harry get in the way of any plan he put together. He had to make Snape think that his help was contingent on Snape's word to to protect all of them. What does that say about Snape that he believed that all people, even Dumbledore, were in some way treacherous or evil.

In comparison Voldemort is a cold blooded murderer and, yes, a hypocrite of the highest order. But every character has their role to play. There was never any doubt about what Voldemort would do upon hearing the prophecy. None. Voldemort was who he was and nothing would change that. In other words you can't reasonably expect a pit viper not to bite.

Peter was a betrayer of the highest caliber in that he betrayed the very people who trusted him. But he was no more than a pawn between two powerful forces and he was weak. Also in a sense his hand was forced. While none of his friends ever expected for his life to be in jeopardy it really was. His very life was on the line to protect them. It is one thing to keep the secrets of your friends it's another thing totally to give your life for theirs. The instinct to save one's own life is not one so easily erased and requires a specific kind of courage. A courage that not many people have. And we know nothing about Peter. What of his family? Did Voldemort threaten his family? Or maybe He threatened Sirius and Remus as well? Perhaps he threatened torture? His decision I'm sure was not an easy one.

At the time of the prophecy Snape may have been Voldemort's pawn but he was there out of his own accord. He wasn't bullied or pressured in the same way that Peter was. He wasn't weak like Peter was. He had a slew of choices open to him in a way that was never open to Peter. And his loyalties were not conflicted in the same way that Peter's was.

I disagree - only Dumbledore and Minerva said this, the others were listening and I don't recall Hagrid saying this either, to my recollection, he only stated what happened and didn't address the issue of trust. And those who did say it were wrong - placing trust in Sirius was not the problem - Peter was the problem. Further, Snape was the only one to speak of arrogant trust, iirc. Dumbledore merely said they trusted the wrong person and Minerva merely said that she could not believe Sirius would do such a thing as close as he was to the Potters, iirc.

No one could believe it, and I'm sure Snape had trouble believing it, too.

But I beg to differ about Hagrid, and if you insist I will post the quote. He says:

"I met him!" growled Hagrid. "I musta bin the last ter see him before he killed all them people! It was me what rescued Harry from Lily an' James's house after they was killed! jus' got him outta the ruins, poor little thing, with a great slash across his forehead, an' his parents dead... an' Sirius Black turns up, on that flyin' motorbike he used ter ride. Never occurred ter me what he was doin' there. I didn' know he'd bin Lily an' James's Secret-Keeper. Thought he'd jus' heard the news o' You-Know-Who's attack an' come ter see what he could do. White an' shakin', he was. An' yeh know what I did? I COMFORTED THE MURDERIN' TRAITOR!" Hagrid roared.

"Hagrid, please!" said Professor McGonagall. "Keep your voice down!"

So to go back to my original point about facts versus opinions or feelings, Snape was not the only one who was angry about the way things turned out for the Potters. Obviously it was more personal for him because he had loved Lily, but his view of Sirius was shared by many more characters in the text, and that's a fact not an opinion.

No one could believe it, and I'm sure Snape had trouble believing it, too.

But I beg to differ about Hagrid, and if you insist I will post the quote. He says:

"I met him!" growled Hagrid. "I musta bin the last ter see him before he killed all them people! It was me what rescued Harry from Lily an' James's house after they was killed! jus' got him outta the ruins, poor little thing, with a great slash across his forehead, an' his parents dead... an' Sirius Black turns up, on that flyin' motorbike he used ter ride. Never occurred ter me what he was doin' there. I didn' know he'd bin Lily an' James's Secret-Keeper. Thought he'd jus' heard the news o' You-Know-Who's attack an' come ter see what he could do. White an' shakin', he was. An' yeh know what I did? I COMFORTED THE MURDERIN' TRAITOR!" Hagrid roared.

"Hagrid, please!" said Professor McGonagall. "Keep your voice down!"

So to go back to my original point about facts versus opinions or feelings, Snape was not the only one who was angry about the way things turned out for the Potters. Obviously it was more personal for him because he had loved Lily, but his view of Sirius was shared by many more characters in the text, and that's a fact not an opinion.

I agree - everyone in the wizard world believed that Sirius was a murderous traitor - including Snape.

However, that is not what I believed we were discussing. You said:

Snape isn't the only one in the book who believes that James was misguided in his trust of his friends. In PoA, Cornelius Fudge, Minerva, Hagrid, and Professor Flitwick say the same thing. Minerva lays it right at James's door, so to speak, when she says that James wouldn't hear one bad word against Sirius from Dumbledore, and that's what led to their deaths. In DH, we hear Dumbledore say it to Snape. So this isn't just an attitude towards Snape or an opinion of James, it's canon from PoA and DH, and just a fact.

That I assumed was based on Snape's statement regarding the Potters trusting Sirius and James arrogantly so. Nobody said that at all except Snape, iirc. Nobody raised the issue of trust except Snape, Lupin and Dumbledore - the latter two with respect to having too much trust in others which I feel was an opinion throttled by later canon - but Snape was the only one who attempted to supply a reason: 'arrogance' iirc - and the only one to say that James was well served to die (as Harry would be) for his arrogant trust in his friend. Snape was wrong, imo, and I acknowledged that he didn't know the facts - neither that the real culprit was Peter nor that Peter being chosen was part of a plan Snape didn't know about. So imo, Snape was wrong and his supplied reason was wrong also, imo. In my view, the Potters were both scared witless - even the most arrogant villain loses his arrogance in the thrawl of terror - see Lex Luthor... so that "reason" doesn't work for me for fundamental reasons. I also feel the Potter's trust was well placed under the circumstances. But I happen to consider the Potters as mature adults at the time and so I am certain that they would place the safety of their family before any other consideration.

I understand why Snape might say otherwise, aside from not knowing the facts, he was bearing a grudge, imo. But he was wrong and speaking and behaving irrationally in the conditions in the shack, imo (based on POA).

Snape deliberately betrayed humanity.

The entire human race? I guess you must mean that he gave the edge to Voldemort by giving him that piece of information.

He knew that a child would defeat Voldemort.

First half of the prophecy doesn't state that the child will be born... just that the person was born at the end of the seventh month and that he "approaches"... That could mean something entirely different too.

He told his boss as much and he expected his boss to do what? Let the child live? Hardly likely. A child. An innocent child who didn't ask to be the chosen one. It's like throwing a baby into a small room with a pit viper. You can say that you didn't know the baby would get bit, but you can hardly deny the peril you put the baby in and have no way of claiming that the danger was unlikely. Further you can't say that just because you didn't shove the fangs in the baby that you didn't assist the viper in it's action. (And by you I mean the general you not the you in specific.)

I don't think he told Voldemort anything beyond what he heard, and as I said earlier I don't think what he did was a good thing or that he is not at fault. He also realized what he did and spent the rest of his life working against Voldemort and protecting the child that was initially placed in danger.

1. Snape knowingly put a child (two as it turned out) at risk by deliberately giving Voldemort the Prophecy.

Didn't know it was a child, as far as I'm concerned, but yes he did deliberately tell him what he heard. Still not as bad as what Peter and Voldemort did in my eyes.

2. Upon finding out the target Snape implores his master first. And Dumbledore calls him on that. It is also implied that if it had been Frank, Alice, and Neville Snape would not have switched sides at all.

I agree, but his history is such that he does not understand the value of human life at this point. I said as much before. He changes. Oh and by asking Voldemort and Dumbledore he is covering all the bases that he can to try and keep Lily safe, and no he didn't do the same for Harry and James at first, but at this point in his life he does not have the same respect for the lives of others that he does later on. IMHO. This is what starts his change and his redemption.

3. Further in his conversations with Dumbledore he ignores the safety of James and Harry in an effort to have Lily spared. Only when Dumbledore says he is disgusted that Snape sees his chance slipping away and agrees to help Harry and James. Note here that Dumbledore played Snape beautifully here. There was no way that Dumbledore would have let harm come to the Potters if he could help it. But he couldn't have Snape's hatred of James and Harry get in the way of any plan he put together. He had to make Snape think that his help was contingent on Snape's word to to protect all of them. What does that say about Snape that he believed that all people, even Dumbledore, were in some way treacherous or evil.

It says that he hasn't had reason to trust many people in his life, that's what it says to me. And all of this above is not news to me. It isn't like I've forgotten it or something. (ETA though some of it I don't think is quite right if I'm understand it correctly. Snape didn't have to give him word to protect all of them. He asked Dumbledore to protect all of them before Dumbledore asked for anything in return. He also warned him that Voldemort was going to kill them all without any prompting from Dumbledore) The man did change, and he is still not as culpable as Peter and Voldemort because his actions were not as severe... He did not actually throw a kid into the viper pit... He told his boss what he overheard. Once he realized what he had done he tried to fix the situation, even if it was for the kid's mother initially. That is more than Peter or Voldemort would have done.

In comparison Voldemort is a cold blooded murderer and, yes, a hypocrite of the highest order. But every character has their role to play. There was never any doubt about what Voldemort would do upon hearing the prophecy. None. Voldemort was who he was and nothing would change that. In other words you can't reasonably expect a pit viper not to bite.

And who is to say that young Snape actually understood this and saw the consequences of his actions before he took action? He messed up horribly. I'm sure he would be the first to say so. It does not elevate him to Voldemort status of villainy in my book.

Peter was a betrayer of the highest caliber in that he betrayed the very people who trusted him. But he was no more than a pawn between two powerful forces and he was weak. Also in a sense his hand was forced. While none of his friends ever expected for his life to be in jeopardy it really was. His very life was on the line to protect them. It is one thing to keep the secrets of your friends it's another thing totally to give your life for theirs. The instinct to save one's own life is not one so easily erased and requires a specific kind of courage. A courage that not many people have. And we know nothing about Peter. What of his family? Did Voldemort threaten his family? Or maybe He threatened Sirius and Remus as well? Perhaps he threatened torture? His decision I'm sure was not an easy one.

I'm not so quick to excuse Peter, who is also a mass murderer, got his friend thrown in jail, and later on returned to Voldemort, committed more murder, and helped him return to power. I don't think that saving one's own skin is courageous in this situation.

At the time of the prophecy Snape may have been Voldemort's pawn but he was there out of his own accord. He wasn't bullied or pressured in the same way that Peter was. He wasn't weak like Peter was. He had a slew of choices open to him in a way that was never open to Peter. And his loyalties were not conflicted in the same way that Peter's was.

I actually do think that young Snape was very vulnerable, and that is a big part of the reason he was lured towards the Death Eaters in the first place.

First half of the prophecy doesn't state that the child will be born... just that the person was born at the end of the seventh month and that he "approaches"... That could mean something entirely different too.

Just a small canon correction - it didn't say "was" born, it said "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord "will" be born as the seventh month dies" and it also said the child would be born to those who have thrice defied him. That is why Dumbledore and Voldemort knew it would be born in the future; those meeting the criteria were narrowed down to the Longbottoms and the Potters.

Just a small canon correction - it didn't say "was" born, it said "the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord "will" be born as the seventh month dies" and it also said the child would be born to those who have thrice defied him. That is why Dumbledore and Voldemort knew it would be born in the future; those meeting the criteria were narrowed down to the Longbottoms and the Potters.

The "will be born" is in the second part of the prophecy which Snape did not overhear. One could think that the person was born at the end of July, was approaching (physically nearing closer) and was born to people who defied Voldemort. Voldemort was actively wreaking havoc for quite a while before this, so at this point without hearing the rest of the prophecy, one could make a different conjecture about it, and think these are people from Voldemort's past and not his present or future.

So that's how I was looking at it.

Firstly Why is Severus Snape's love for Lily on the poll as a possible weakness? This makes absolutely no sense to me. The entire series is about the power of love. Severus away from evil because of his love for Lily, so how could it ever be a bad thing? Just wondering...

:agree: I think the love he was capable of, was one of Snape's enormous strengths.

Secondly the thing I regard as Sev's biggest weakness isn't on the list.
His Ambition. It is his ambition gets him sorted into Slytherin house; it is ambition that makes him think he can have it all; it is ambition that drives the wedge between him and Lily; it is his ambition that makes him aspire to become and eventually become a Death Eater; it is ambition that makes him deliver the prophecy to Voldemort - and it is only when he lets go of his ambition that he starts to become a better person. I am not saying that ambition is a bad thing - just that in Sev's case it was too great a force in his life which lead him to make some terrible mistakes. Any thoughts?...

More than his ambition, I think it was his desire to be something. He belonged to a House that was all Pureblood and old family, with most of them moneyed and belonging to a social class that Snape had no clue about.

While I don't think he was ashamed of his background, I think he did want to be someone. Seeing most of the Purebloods including Lucius and Regulus (old, old money and name) signing up, I think Snape was deluded into thinking that this organisation would give him the chance to be someone, with which he could impress Lily as much as James was doing.

That was where I think he slipped, because he never enquired into what that organisation was capable of; he knew of course they were against muggleborns, but then most of the Old families were against muggleborns and that would not have surprised Snape, who I believe did not share those views (because he had Lily as his friend and everyone knew that), and the fact he would be welcomed, must have also made him feel that hatred of muggleborns was not a prerequisite.

That was the mistake he made, the weakness he had; to want to be someone, someone special in Lily's eyes. But it all boomeranged on him.*is sad*

Well I respect your view, but people did die as a result of his action of delivering the prophecy -

I disagree. People died because they failed to flush out the traitor and before casting the Fidelus charm IMO. Assuming the Potters accepted Dumbledore's offer, then the Potters would have been alive. Assuming the Potters flushed out the spy, then too they would not have died.

Both instances, it was not Snape who stopped them from using Dumbledore and from flushing out the traitor. They failed to protect themselves properly, which was why they died IMO, for otherwise even with Snape's handing over of the prophecy, they would have lived, because Snape came back with enough information to protect them.

The point I raised to this argument is that his warning was not adequate to save the Potters. Why it wasn't adequate doesn't matter, imo - it didn't matter because death still resulted.

Snape cannot be faulted for that. If the police warn people about a bomb planted in a park and a couple of people don't take it seriously because they are busy snogging and think this to be a false alarm, then is the police at fault?

The Potters made a mistake, just like Snape did. Because they died, victim of their own carelessness, should Snape be called a murderer. Not in my opinion.

The idea at law is that if a person aids in setting up a murder or facilitates a murder in any way - then goes to the police, the mayor, the president/prime minister or even onto world wide television and tells the whole world about the plan in an attempt to ensure the murder doesn't happen - and it still happens, he is still guilty. The reason is because the individual should not have aided or facilitated a murder in the first place - that is the legal angle which one can agree with or not - but to me it makes sense.

I do not know the Wizarding law that is in place and I am not very sure about muggle law, except to say that Snape by coming back and accepting his guilt and offering valuable information and offering to spy, would not even be charged under any law.

And they tried.

Maybe. But they failed. Why is that failure Snape's fault?

So are you saying it doesn't or it does lessen Snape's culpability for his crime?

What crime? The deaths of the Potters? Definitely not IMO. Snape for me was culpable whe he took a message to Voldemort knowing that it would result in a family's death. For him, it proved disastrous when that family was Lily's. The Potters are culpable because they failed to protect their baby properly.

I can't blame Snape for the actual deaths of the Potters, simply because, Snape came back and warned them.

Well a reckless disregard for human life that results in murder = first degree murder and the individual is a murderer at law. I think that is correct and I feel Snape saw that and took responsibility for it in terms of Lily - although I respect that you may see it distinctly.

Snape took the responsibility and felt guilty because of what he had done first. Handed over the prophecy knowing it would cause death. That was what I think tormented him, because the death it caused was Lily's. He had not cared about the lives this would cost when he took the prophecy to Voldemort; another thing I believe would have tormented him, that his conscience did not work at that time; had it done so, Lily would have been saved. So, he felt responsible for Lily's death, because of his own thoughtless and conscienceless actions.

Snape's conscience also never allowed him to feel he had done enough to soothe his guilt over his actions. But that does not mean he is really culpable or guilty of killing Lily. I think there is a difference, a subtle one. :shrug:

Well first he went to Voldemort afterward and asked him to spare Lily. When he went to Dumbledore, he was compelled by Dumbledore to include the rest of the family in his request, imo, after only asking for Lily's safety.

Even if he said, 'don't save James and Harry' to Dumbledore, there would be no effect IMO. Dumbledore was going to save all of them, anyway.

The point is not what Snape was compelled to ask or deny in Dumbledore's presence. The point was that he came to Dumbledore of his own accord. By that action, he included James and Harry, whether he said it or not is immaterial IMO.

Based on this aspect, I cannot say that his attempt to undo his deed was even adequate in terms of his personal viewpoint (imo). But Snape does get credited with the ultimate murder because of his original act and the fact that his later efforts were not adequate to stop murder associated with his act from occurring, imo. But that does not discount Snape's realization of the consequences of his act in terms of Lily - that he sought to save her from what he'd started was admirable, imo, whatever his personal reasons for doing so were.

His later efforts? I don't understand. What were they and how did they not stop the Potters deaths?

My point was that Snape delivered the prophecy in cold blood and was prepared to be a party to infanticide. That is dark. There should not be any comparison to the Potters attempts to save their own lives at all. Those are two different discussions.

I think the comparison arises, because Snape is held responsible for the Potters actual deaths. Which I don't agree with. Snape pointed out the danger to the Potters; they did not take Dumbledore's warnings and offer seriously enough IMO. They suffered for it.

Snape was culpable; that runs in a completely different line from the Potters deaths.

1) Snape at the time of the prophecy did know one family that would suffer because of his act. To that extent alone he is culpable IMO.

2) having come to Dumbledore with the information to save the Potters, Snape IMO removed himself from the Potters deaths IMO.

I disagree when the two are mixed. :)

I don't take other readers into account either. I was referring to this discussion which came out of the issue with the Prophecy and the subsequent claim that the Potters were just as guilty as Snape in their own deaths.

The Potters were guilty IMO; how can they not be, when it is clear from canon they did not take steps to flush out the traitor?

Only, I think that is different from Snape's culpability. Both are serious actions which in the end affected Harry; the former's could have been more deadly, with the death of Harry if not for Snape's request; the latter's actions led to their deaths and making Harry an orphan whose life was rather unhappy.

Snape deliberately betrayed humanity.

I thought that title would go to Voldemort or Bellatrix, or other DEs who betrayed their world for all the wrong reasons.

I don't understand how it applies to Snape. :hmm:

He knew that a child would defeat Voldemort. He told his boss as much and he expected his boss to do what? Let the child live? Hardly likely.

He expected his boss to do whatever his boss liked at that time IMO.

A child. An innocent child who didn't ask to be the chosen one. It's like throwing a baby into a small room with a pit viper. You can say that you didn't know the baby would get bit, but you can hardly deny the peril you put the baby in and have no way of claiming that the danger was unlikely. Further you can't say that just because you didn't shove the fangs in the baby that you didn't assist the viper in it's action. (And by you I mean the general you not the you in specific.)

Sure Snape put the baby in the viper pit; but he also ran to the guy (Dumbeldore) who had the means to remove the baby from danger, much before the viper actually got to the innocent child.

Dumbeldore in his turn took Snape's message seriously and informed the Potters.

Was it Snape's fault that the Potters chose one man (Remus) as the traitor almost at random, and trusted the guy who would bring his boss to shove the fangs into the baby and its parents to stay with them?

How do you tie up Peter's actions which killed the Potters and for which the Potters alone were responsible and Snape's actions, for which he was culpable but made amends?

1. Snape knowingly put a child (two as it turned out) at risk by deliberately giving Voldemort the Prophecy.

I agree.

2. Upon finding out the target Snape implores his master first. And Dumbledore calls him on that. It is also implied that if it had been Frank, Alice, and Neville Snape would not have switched sides at all.

We don't know that. There is no canon to say or imply that Snape would not have come for any other person, but yes, perhaps he may not have come for Neville at that time IMO.

3. Further in his conversations with Dumbledore he ignores the safety of James and Harry in an effort to have Lily spared.

Have answered above, this in this post itself.

Only when Dumbledore says he is disgusted that Snape sees his chance slipping away and agrees to help Harry and James.

Slipping away where?

He came thinking Dumbeldore was going to kill him or have him sent to Azkaban to be kissed. His first words to Dumbledore are 'Don't kill me.' He came because he had already started feeling the guilt of his actions IMO.

But he couldn't have Snape's hatred of James and Harry get in the way of any plan he put together. He had to make Snape think that his help was contingent on Snape's word to to protect all of them. What does that say about Snape that he believed that all people, even Dumbledore, were in some way treacherous or evil.

I don't understand this at all. Could you please explain?

Peter was a betrayer of the highest caliber in that he betrayed the very people who trusted him. But he was no more than a pawn between two powerful forces and he was weak. Also in a sense his hand was forced. While none of his friends ever expected for his life to be in jeopardy it really was. His very life was on the line to protect them. It is one thing to keep the secrets of your friends it's another thing totally to give your life for theirs. The instinct to save one's own life is not one so easily erased and requires a specific kind of courage. A courage that not many people have. And we know nothing about Peter. What of his family? Did Voldemort threaten his family? Or maybe He threatened Sirius and Remus as well? Perhaps he threatened torture? His decision I'm sure was not an easy one.

Am I understanding you wrong, or are you saying that Peter was justified in doing what he did?

At the time of the prophecy Snape may have been Voldemort's pawn but he was there out of his own accord.

I agree. He also walked out courageously of his own accord.

He wasn't bullied or pressured in the same way that Peter was. He wasn't weak like Peter was. He had a slew of choices open to him in a way that was never open to Peter. And his loyalties were not conflicted in the same way that Peter's was.

I diagree. I may be wrong, but I feel there is a justification for Peter's actions in the above quote, with which I totally disagree. Peter was a traitor pure and simple IMO.

He ran to Voldmeort of his own accord in POA. No one threatened him. He also tried to choke Harry to death in DH. No one threatened him there either. I'm sorry, but I don't agree or understand the point that Snape was more guilty of handing the prophecy and then making amends, than Peter who let Voldemort to the Potters home so that they may be killed.

Sorry for the looong post.

The "will be born" is in the second part of the prophecy which Snape did not overhear. One could think that the person was born at the end of July, was approaching (physically nearing closer) and was born to people who defied Voldemort. Voldemort was actively wreaking havoc for quite a while before this, so at this point without hearing the rest of the prophecy, one could make a different conjecture about it, and think these are people from Voldemort's past and not his present or future.

So that's how I was looking at it.
That's a very interesting point that the "will" is in the second half of the prophecy. I never thought of it that way. :tu:

He wasn't bullied or pressured in the same way that Peter was. I don't recall any instance of Peter Pettigrew being bullied before he betrayed the Potters? :hmm:


The Prophecy as Dumbledore replayed it for Harry:

The one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord approaches...born to those who have thrice defied him, born as the seventh month dies...(This is the part Snape heard and passed on to Voldemort)
and the Dark Lord will mark him as his equal, but he will have power the Dark Lord knows not...and either must die at the hands of the other for neither can live while the other survives....the one with the power to vanquish the Dark Lord will be born as the seventh month dies.... (colour added is mine)

Snape did not know that the Prophecy referred to a child, he did not hear that part. The part he heard, indeed, could have referred to a person of any age, born towards the end of July of any year, whose parents had thrice defied Voldemort. It was Voldemort who interpreted the Prophecy to mean a newborn.
And in the end, if Snape had not conveyed what he heard to Voldemort, the prophecy would never have been fulfilled (will mark him as his equal), and thus would be moot.