Is Snape good? If not, will he come back to the good side? v3

Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8

gravy82
February 10th, 2006, 2:33 pm
Gertiekeddle- Yeah I think Dumbledore definately knew about the vow. I don't think he would've been able to do anything to stop Malfoy during the year beacuse that would be interfering with the vow, and thus would result in the death of Snape. I'm sure he wanted to and just secretley hoped that noone else was going to get hurt in the process of Malfoy's attempted plan.

hpfan101
February 10th, 2006, 6:52 pm
As for the history of bullying and future choice -- I propose that we're all actually in agreement and just misunderstanding each other, because we seem to just be saying the same things with emphasis on different tennets.
I agree that we are all emphasizing two different tennets. We all seem to agree that it's about choices, but disagree on the amount that the past plays in those choices. :shrug: can't win them all!
What would there be to gain from pretending to trust Snape implicitly if he didn't?
Well, I think a lot can be gained by pretending to trust Snape. Firstly, even if Dumbledore did not know about the Vow, he did know about Malfoy's mission (and before you all argue with me: in The Lightening-Struck Tower, Dumbledore says to Draco, "Draco, Draco, you are not a killer....You have been trying, with increasing desperation, to kill me all year."--p.585, Am. hardback). If Dumbledore had a set agenda for the year, such as teaching Harry about the horcruxes and making sure that Harry was prepared to carry on without him, it was imperative that he finish that work. By continuing the "appear" to trust Snape, Dumbledore kept up the charade that ensured he could set his affairs in the order he wanted them at the time of his death. If he let it on that he didn't trust Snape anymore, what reason would Snape have to stay on at Hogwarts? This would have accelerated the plot and could have resulted in Dumbledore's death much sooner.

Now why would Dumbledore continue to tell Harry that he trusted Snape implicitly? Now this is where it gets a bit more complicated. Firstly, again, if Harry had found out any sooner in the school year, it would have risked alerting Snape--for as Dumbledore tells him, "Harry, you never were a good Occlumens." But this is a little different toward the end of the book. My only explanation is that if Dumbledore didn't trust Snape, the reason why he continued to mislead Harry right before they left for the Cave was because Dumbledore still thought he had more time. Otherwise, this scenario makes no sense to me and implies that Dumbledore did, up until the end, trust Snape.

I even wonder, why Dumbledore didn't stop Draco over the year. He tiold him at the tower that he knew, what he has done, but didn't care about the dangers other people - his students - came in. I believe Dumbledore knew about the vow and that was the most important thing behind all others, what brought him to the decision to die.
Hmm...this confuses me too. I know that he thought by approaching Draco, he would be putting Draco in even more danger with Voldemort. I understand that Dumbledore is going about this in a way that he thinks it can be handled discreetly--by having Snape approach Draco. But this is the problem I have: Dumbledore has more than one student to watch over. The minute this attacks ceased to become only about him and began to threaten the welfare of the students in general, I question Dumbledore's logic. He can take risks with himself, but to take risks with the student population in general seems to be very uncharacteristic for him. What would he have done had a student died? I understand that he wanted Draco to choose not to kill Dumbledore and to make the decision to do what was right. But what was gained by waiting until Draco cornered Dumbledore to make the offer to protect Draco? Dumbledore could have made that offer at any time during the school year (maybe Dumbledore thought, though, that Draco wasn't yet ready to accept the offer???). It's not that I think Dumbledore purposely put all of the students in danger, just that it could have been handled more wisely. And when it was obvious that Snape was not making headways with Draco, I think this is another warning sign that the current means were not working.

vlasiou
February 10th, 2006, 7:26 pm
Guys thanks a bunch! As you may have guessed, I didn't check the text but I was only based on what I was reading in the posts. It is then apparent that it is Bella and her husband, and then indeed it seems that Sirius was extraordinarily stretching the truth there.

Blood_River
February 10th, 2006, 7:58 pm
I am surprised that Dumbledore let Malfoy wreak such havoc -- risking even other students' lives to save his, but Dumbledore has always been a risk-taker in some ways. He let Harry face Voldemort when he was merely 11 years old; as if Harry had the "right" to face him. He didn't even consider Harry old enough to TELL about why he had the right to face Voldemort yet, but he let him do it.

He considers turning evil or losing loved ones worse than death. I also think he thought things were more under control than they were. He, like Voldemort, underestimated Malfoy's abilities.

gertiekeddle
February 10th, 2006, 8:00 pm
[QUOTE=Blood_River]I am surprised that Dumbledore let Malfoy wreak such havoc -- risking even other students' lives to save his, but Dumbledore has always been a risk-taker in some ways. He let Harry face Voldemort when he was merely 11 years old; as if Harry had the "right" to face him. He didn't even consider Harry old enough to TELL about why he had the right to face Voldemort yet, but he let him do it.[/QUOTE:agree: It seems as he only lived for doing this last aim: destroying Voldemort. Only Harry could do this, so he prepared him. All Dumbledore made was probably in order of helping Harry. It's scary, but it seems it happened that way. ....although I still think Dumbldore lived for much more than that. ;)

HedwigOwl
February 13th, 2006, 6:26 am
I've just started re-reading HBP again, and noticed something interesting Snape says at Spinner's End.

Snape describes Dumbledore as getting older, reflexes getting slower, as evidenced by a recent injury to his hand. This is the same explanation that Dumbledore gives on the Tower to one of the death eaters who asks about it (older, slower reflexes).

Given that Dumbledore told Harry that Snape was the one who ultimately stopped the injury from becoming mortal, which was obviously a nasty curse (probably dark magic), Snape would know full well that it wasn't from "slow reflexes". So why bother putting up the charade?? It seems that both Dumbledore & Snape are telling the same story (which is not the truth) -- are they setting the stage for a believeable fake death?? If they are, it means Snape is still on the good side.

daisy5
February 13th, 2006, 6:43 am
I guess what I have big trouble with is seeing Snape's horrible experiences at school at the hands of Marauders as mitigating circumstances for his choice to join Death Eaters. IMO that's just waaaaay beyond Snape growing up to be a bitter, nasty person who abuses his teaching position - that stuff is peanuts in comparsion.
Joining the Death Eaters is more serious than bullying your students, but I can still see how his school days contributed to his decision to do so. I can see joining the Death Eaters as a way for Snape to take back feelings of power, control, security, and a sense of self worth. What I find most telling is that Snape didn't get these things as a Death Eater, and left.

It also really depends on how you view the behavior of the Marauders as well. I see what they did as beyond a "horrible experience." For seven years they pretty much tortured the guy. They teased him, hexed/cursed him, and humiliated him continually. We also know that Snape probably didn't really have friends, and that his homelife probably sucked. There was absolutely no escape for Snape. As someone who wasn't bullied or teased in school, I can't even begin to imagine what that would do to someone's psyche, but I've heard it's pretty bad.

There is also the little murder attempt by Sirius, which, to me, is an indication of how violent the Marauders were. Sirius wasn't expelled (which is the least of what should have happened) and as far as we know, he wasn't even punished for it. Add to that the fact that Snape isn't allowed to say a word to anyone about it. Presumably, not even Snape's parents know. Not only does Snape find out that Sirius actually does want to kill him, but Sirius isn't gonna be punished and he has to keep his mouth shut. I get the feeling that this is the point where true rage and a sense of complete hopelessness become issues for Snape.

We don't get to see all of Snape's worst memory, but we are left with James/Sirius threatening to take off Snape's underwear in front of a crowd of onlookers. If they did, that's beyond bullying. That's sexual assault. That is the equivalent of holding someone down and stripping them. Obviously, I don't know that this happened, but if it did, it would a horrifically traumatizing event.

Between constant bullying, an attempted murder, and a possible sexual assault, I think there are mitigating circumstances for Snape's personality and behavior. Concerning becoming a Death Eater, since he has turned his life around (at least it is my belief that he has done so), I think he should be forgiven.

Saracene
February 13th, 2006, 9:56 am
Joining the Death Eaters is more serious than bullying your students, but I can still see how his school days contributed to his decision to do so. I can see joining the Death Eaters as a way for Snape to take back feelings of power, control, security, and a sense of self worth. What I find most telling is that Snape didn't get these things as a Death Eater, and left.

Well... firstly I don't believe that joining the Death Eaters would have been the only option for Snape to take back the feelings of control, security and self-worth. And that Snape was able to overlook such little details as murder, torture and pureblood supremacy when joining Voldemort is not much to his credit IMO.

And while of course we don't have much details about his Death Eater days, there's no suggestion in the books that he felt disillusioned or disappointed in his choice or that he felt that he didn't get the things he wanted. As far as we know, he stuck with being a Death Eater until he realised that his actions sent his master on the hunt for the Potters. I do believe BTW that his remorse was genuine and that he did abandon Voldemort after that. But I also have to wonder what would have happened if Voldemort picked some other family to go after - would Snape lift a finger then?

There is also the little murder attempt by Sirius, which, to me, is an indication of how violent the Marauders were. Sirius wasn't expelled (which is the least of what should have happened) and as far as we know, he wasn't even punished for it. Add to that the fact that Snape isn't allowed to say a word to anyone about it. Presumably, not even Snape's parents know. Not only does Snape find out that Sirius actually does want to kill him, but Sirius isn't gonna be punished and he has to keep his mouth shut. I get the feeling that this is the point where true rage and a sense of complete hopelessness become issues for Snape.

I guess it's a matter of personal opinion, but I never thought that Sirius was trying to actually kill Snape. It was a cruel, stupid and unbelievably thoughtless act, but a cold-blooded murder? I'd say not. And the reason why Snape was told not to say anything was not for the benefit of Sirius - but for Lupin's, whose secret Dumbledore wished to keep safe. Plus, Snape's own curiosity played a big part in the whole affair - it really wasn't any business of his where and why Lupin went off. He would know that it wasn't anything to do with mischief since he saw Mdme Pomfrey, a member of the staff, accompany Lupin to the Willow - near which, lest we forget, Snape was never supposed to go in the first place as per school rules.

vlasiou
February 13th, 2006, 4:21 pm
I guess it's a matter of personal opinion, but I never thought that Sirius was trying to actually kill Snape. It was a cruel, stupid and unbelievably thoughtless act, but a cold-blooded murder? I'd say not. And the reason why Snape was told not to say anything was not for the benefit of Sirius - but for Lupin's, whose secret Dumbledore wished to keep safe. Plus, Snape's own curiosity played a big part in the whole affair - it really wasn't any business of his where and why Lupin went off. He would know that it wasn't anything to do with mischief since he saw Mdme Pomfrey, a member of the staff, accompany Lupin to the Willow - near which, lest we forget, Snape was never supposed to go in the first place as per school rules.

I agree with all of your post (even the part I do not quote). However, I think that it makes sense to see this event from Snape's eyes. True, Sirius was just being an idiot, not a murderer, and true, Snape was breaking a bunch of rules set there for his protection, so there is no surprise there when his life is in danger after breaking these rules. However, I guess that if I were Snape (or just myself), I would probably focus on the fact that this hateful brat that has been on my case since day one deliberately tricked me to be in the same room with a warewolf. This brat can become an animal by transforming himself, while, I can only protect myself by killing the warewolf, and I'll probably have no time for this, as I am in utter shock because I never thought I'd be into so much ****.

I think that a good majority would focus on the "he knew the danger that was in store for me (should I break the rules) and he didn't care". And I think that this is the polite way to formulate it...

On the Snape matter, my beliefs are as follows: he is inexcusable. He is an adult, a bright one, and he never chose to behave like a benevolent human being. He chose to be bitter and he loves it. Why? It can probably be explained by the way he grew up, but this does not excuse him. It just makes his behaviour less surprising. I can accept his feelings towards James and his gang. I cannot accept his behaviour since day one towards Harry -and for the latter, I do not believe that I suffer from "our hero is a saint" syndrome. I believe that Snape was plainly mean, as he was mean towards other people (Tonks) and this nastiness cannot be so easily justified by the usual "he had a lousy childhood" argument. However, on the issue you raise about the opinion he had about Sirius and this event, well I think that at least I (if not most of us) would probably share his feelings.


Edit: haaaaaaaahaha! I was reading my post after submitting it, and I noticed that COS replaced my bad language by ****. Thoughtful... I wasn't so careful. It is a nice feature of the forum I was not aware of.

Idabomb333
February 13th, 2006, 8:44 pm
I've just started re-reading HBP again, and noticed something interesting Snape says at Spinner's End.

Snape describes Dumbledore as getting older, reflexes getting slower, as evidenced by a recent injury to his hand. This is the same explanation that Dumbledore gives on the Tower to one of the death eaters who asks about it (older, slower reflexes).

Given that Dumbledore told Harry that Snape was the one who ultimately stopped the injury from becoming mortal, which was obviously a nasty curse (probably dark magic), Snape would know full well that it wasn't from "slow reflexes". So why bother putting up the charade?? It seems that both Dumbledore & Snape are telling the same story (which is not the truth) -- are they setting the stage for a believeable fake death?? If they are, it means Snape is still on the good side.

I think you're wrong that it's not the truth. Dumbledore tells Harry that his reflexes were part of the cause at the SAME TIME he tells Harry that Snape helped him. Are you saying he contradicted himself in one speech? I thought about that for a while too, though, that it seemed like Snape was lying to them about it. He didn't mention in Spinner's End that he helped save Dumbledore. I think what happened is probably something like the curse starts; Dumbledore slows it down, but he's too late to stop it completely; Dumbledore finds Snape; Snape makes a potion or something (maybe shoves a bezoar down his throat) that stops the curse, but the hand is already beyond repair.

Tarentallegra
February 13th, 2006, 10:03 pm
Personally, I think all arrows point to the fact that Dumbledore really is dead. And, I also believe that Snape is good, and was acting on Dumbledore's orders, however, I think it will be very hard for the magical community, especially the Order to accept/forgive him again. They all know his past (Death Eater), and he's such a sketchy and introverted character I find it almost impossible that he would be accepted back and not treated as a traitor.

Blood_River
February 14th, 2006, 12:26 am
As for the Marauders & Snape -- way too much of this is conjecture. We don't know how often they fought or how often James had the upper hand, and I seriously doubt that Snape was always the poor little victim who couldn't defend himself. He definitely came off worse in SWM, but according to the accounts of their relationship from not only Sirius & Lupin (who are probably somewhat biased), but unbiased parties like Hagrid, Dumbledore, etc... we can assume that Snape sometimes gave as good as he got.

There's no grounds for saying that they completely tortured him for seven years or that he had no friends -- we know he was alone in SWM, but we also know there was a gang of Slytherins he hung around with. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that Sirius wasn't punished for the prank, and given that Dumbledore knew about it, I'd say it's very likely that he was. I seriously doubt he actually intended for Snape to die, although I can entirely understand Snape disbelieving that. I can also believe that Lupin and James might not have punished, and that Snape might have been very upset as he believes they were in on it.

As for his home life -- we also don't know. The mere fact that people who may or may not have been his parents once argued in front of him as a child isn't exactly proof that he was abused, neglected, or had a sucky homelife in any other way. There's just not enough information, and in any case, Harry's had a horrible, miserable life too. He was bullied and tormented to the point where none of his classmates would risk being nice to him because his cousin's gang would beat them up. He was neglected and rejected at home, unloved and repeatedly punished for things he couldn't control, and his life and Hogwarts hasn't exactly been a piece of cake. He's had quite his fair share of hardships and bullying but he doesn't turn around and join a racist terrorist organization dedicated to world domination and genocide, so I really don't find the Marauder's actions (the extent of which we don't know) an excuse.

As for the SWM incident -- yeah, nowadays pantsing would be considered a sexual assault, but 20 + years ago, it was fairly standard hazing, and considering how popular the Levicorpus spell was (which Snape designed, btw) I wouldn't be surprised if that weren't actually a little common.

Saracene
February 14th, 2006, 1:03 am
As for the Marauders & Snape -- way too much of this is conjecture. We don't know how often they fought or how often James had the upper hand, and I seriously doubt that Snape was always the poor little victim who couldn't defend himself. He definitely came off worse in SWM, but according to the accounts of their relationship from not only Sirius & Lupin (who are probably somewhat biased), but unbiased parties like Hagrid, Dumbledore, etc... we can assume that Snape sometimes gave as good as he got.

I do remember saying Lupin mention that Snape cursed James at every opportunity, but I can't really remember any detailed accounts of their relationship from Dumbledore or Hagrid. And Dumbledore's words about "wounds that go too deep for healing" doesn't suggest to me that he viewed their relationship as an even-handed feud where both sides got at each other as good as they got.

And I've mentioned this before on another thread, but I think that the whole reason why the Pensieve incident was so traumatic for Snape wasn't because of hexing, as such, but because of the public humiliation that he suffered in that scene. And this is where his and Marauders' respective social status would come into play. James and Sirius were, by everyone's admission, popular, handsome boys at the very top of the school's social ladder. What they did to Snape in the Pensieve memory got cheers and approval, with absolutely no one trying to stick up for Snape except Lily. And while Sirius mentions Snape being in the Slytherin gang in GoF, neither he nor Lupin in OotP say something along the lines of, "Snape and his Slytherin friends ganged up on us all the time, Harry". From their account in OotP, it appears that when it came to Snape's feud with the Marauders, at least, Snape was completely on his own. So no, I wouldn't say that Snape was in a position to give back as good as he got.

cinnamonluvr
February 14th, 2006, 2:08 am
Didn't Lupin say that it was 7th year that Snape cursed at every opportunity? And Dumbledore and Hagrid never mentioned anything about who bullied who besides the 'wounds that go too deep' as Saracene said (and I agree with everything you said), and something about James and Snape being somewhat similar to Harry and Malfoy.

My take on the whole situation is that Snape did attempt to defend himself (like in SWM), but James and the gang were mainly the attackers or agressors. Some people believe Snape was a bully as a student, but I never saw that and don't see any real 'proof' on that- he acts more as a victim- twitching and 'hiding' by bushes to look at his exam. However, we know that James had a 'big' head. Lily believed this, and there's the whole SWM thing and asking 'what did he ever do to you?' thing. They attacked Snape because they were bored, and their excuse was that he 'existed'. Then Lupin (or was it Sirius- in OOtP) said that James hexed pretty much anyone because he could and it wasn't until later that he 'deflated' a bit. Then we also have the detention cards showing more of what James did (and Sirius too, etc)- hexing and even giving illegal curses. It all points to James being a bully at that age. It seems that he and the mauraders had the upper hand in the situation.

And if Snape had this gang, where were they in SWM? I can't believe that if something like that happened to Harry, no-one would help, or that Ron and Hermione would just stand by and watch. I think that it was after the 'Prank' (speculation) that Snape got 'fed up' with everything and actually started being more agressive. (as someone said somewhere-ie. maybe the shooting flies were to practice aim?)

Anyway, I'll quit rambling. :D

DALeader
February 14th, 2006, 2:34 am
Snape may have been good when he was younger, but I believe that he is no longer good and wholly evil now. Even if he was good or he repents his evil ways he will never be excepted by the good guys again. Once he killed Dumbledore there was no turning back for him.

cinnamonluvr
February 14th, 2006, 3:02 am
Ok, since I actually have some more time, I'll continue rambling :)

Considering Snape's homelife, I think the one memory does point to a general unhappy homelife. It's the only info we have of his childhood, and it seems strange for JK to write that scene (unless you believe she's purposely hiding the truth and that Snape did have a happy childhood and this was an anomaly) without meaning to give it as representation. I don't think it's as extreme as his dad bringing out whips or anything, but I don't think it can just be dismissed as nothing.

Also, I don't believe Voldy really showed the true extent of his plans when he first came to power and was gathering followers. Sirius said that many families believed in Voldy's ideas, but not necessarily in how he was doing it. I take Snape to be somewhat like Regulus and other DE's who wanted to leave- he joined expecting something, but wanted to leave once he found what it was really about- what the consequences would actually be. I see it as somewhat like WWII- people at first believed Hitler had the right idea, but then everything went horribly wrong and people in general were too afraid to say or do anything (or in this case, some DE's might have ran but ended up dead- supposedly like Regulus). I guess you could say that now, in VoldyWar II, Voldy has the 'cream of the crop' of the baddies (at least the main ones).

Saracene
February 14th, 2006, 4:52 am
Also, I don't believe Voldy really showed the true extent of his plans when he first came to power and was gathering followers. Sirius said that many families believed in Voldy's ideas, but not necessarily in how he was doing it. I take Snape to be somewhat like Regulus and other DE's who wanted to leave- he joined expecting something, but wanted to leave once he found what it was really about- what the consequences would actually be. I see it as somewhat like WWII- people at first believed Hitler had the right idea, but then everything went horribly wrong and people in general were too afraid to say or do anything (or in this case, some DE's might have ran but ended up dead- supposedly like Regulus).

I think that the comparison with Hitler does not really apply. Voldemort did not come to power via political means, and he was never the head of state. He is more like a charismatic leader at the head of an illegal terrorist organisation. Whoever joins him and does his bidding do not do so because they are following the orders of their government, like Germans in WWII did.

And while we don't know when exactly Snape joined, he did so close to the end of Voldemort's first rise to power. At which point I think his and his Death Eaters' agenda and methods were made quite clear.

HedwigOwl
February 14th, 2006, 5:59 am
I think you're wrong that it's not the truth. Dumbledore tells Harry that his reflexes were part of the cause at the SAME TIME he tells Harry that Snape helped him. Are you saying he contradicted himself in one speech? I thought about that for a while too, though, that it seemed like Snape was lying to them about it. He didn't mention in Spinner's End that he helped save Dumbledore.
It's not a contradiction. I'm referring only to the part about why Dumbledore has suffered an injury to his hand. It isn't due to slow reflexes, it's due to a curse on the ring/horcrux on anyone but Voldemort taking possession of the ring, dark magic. It has nothing to do with declining reflexes. In fact, in HBP at the Dursleys, Harry notes that Dumbledore withdrew his wand so quickly Harry barely saw it -- and this was done with the injured hand.

So, we have Dumbledore telling Harry the truth but not all of it (no specifics, just that Snape helped him put a stop to the curse -- and later on tells him it was from the ring/horcrux). However, Dumbledore makes a point to tell the death eaters on the Tower that the injury was due to old age and slower reflexes -- the same thing that Snape tells Bella and Narcissa at Spinner's End (who'll carry the info back to other death eaters as well). Snape knows that's not the reason, so why say that?? I think that Snape & Dumbledore are planting information among Voldemort's followers that Dumbledore is declining due to age.....so no one will be surprised when Snape is able to "kill" (fake death) Dumbledore, when Voldemort could not just a few short months before.

In my opinion, Snape's statement is just one more little thing that points to his still being on the good side.

arithmancer
February 14th, 2006, 6:26 am
And while we don't know when exactly Snape joined, he did so close to the end of Voldemort's first rise to power. At which point I think his and his Death Eaters' agenda and methods were made quite clear.
Not according to Sirius. Regulus was younger than Snape, so he may have joined the Death Eaters even later than Snape did. But Sirius seems to suggest that Regulus did not in fact fully understand what he was signing up for. The 'pureblood' ideology was known, but perhaps not the rest of it.

hwyla
February 14th, 2006, 6:45 am
It does seem to stretch belief that by that time in the war, those joining would not know what they were joining. Yet we have the example of Regulus, who MAY have joined after Snape (altho' it seems equally as possible that he MAY have joined before Snape).

I tend to woder whether there wasn't a great deal of anti-Slytherin prejudice at the time. If so then those joining up (at least the Slytherins joining) might discredit what they thought was just the normal badmouthing of their house.

Tom's pretty charismatic. It wouldn't be that difficult to convince those who didn't like violence that it was all propaganda from the Ministry - that the group wasn't doing what they were accused of doing. Then, once marked they'd be stuck.

Especially when aimed at certain people who might be vulnerable to this tactic. For Snape and Regulus, I look at it as less like the recruitment for a terrorist organization (tho' THAT attitude probably worked well with Bella) and more like gathering for a cult.

hpfan101
February 14th, 2006, 7:21 am
Firstly, the point daisy5 is trying to make is NOT that this is an excuse for Snape's actions. No one has every said that the past excuses, justifies, lets Snape off the hook or belittles the importance of Snape's current and past choices regarding the Death Eaters and his treatment of Harry, because it doesn't. All she said, which I agree with, is that the past can be used as a means of understanding why someone might make certain choices that they otherwise might not make. The past shapes who we become because it gives us different perspectives that we otherwise would not have had. It is a way to examine who a character is and how they possibly got there.

Even take Sirius...yes he came from a certain homelife and rejected it. But why did he reject it? Are we just going to say that he rejected his homelife because he was born an amazing person and must be great? No, it's because of who he encountered at Hogwarts and maybe even how his parents treated him versus how they treated Regulus. It wouldn't be the first time that parents favored one kid over another. The fact is though that we don't know a lot about Sirius' past nor about his decision to reject his family life. I dunno if you guys think that he rejected his family because he is a stand up guy (to which I would argue that he is one of my favorite characters, but the guy has many faults....), but I think that if we were to delve deeper into his past, there are reasons that he rejected his family.

Take another example: Fact: someone has a massive fear of water.
why? because they were born scared? What if you were to learn that this person never learned to swim, or had a near-death drowning experience. This would help me to understand why this person has this certain fear. While we are not discussing a fear that Snape has but instead choices he has made, I will still maintain that his past helps me personally understand the person he has become. It doesn't make his mistakes any less traumatic, just helps me to understand why he chose some of those mistakes.
_________
As for Snape originally joining the Death Eaters, I agree that I am not sure he originally knew what he was getting in to. By all indications, he knew a lot of the Death Eaters through his house...even though many of them were older. I remember when I was little and in second grade, looking up at all of the older eighth graders...and then later in high school, looking at the seniors when I was a frosh. It's natural for kids to look at those older than them and look up to them. So maybe Snape thought he could trust their advice and judgement. But, once you become a Death Eater, you join for life...or it's death if you try and leave.

I actually think the analogy to Hitler is a great one. Yes, maybe Voldemort didn't use political means to gain popularity, but that's a moot point. Perhaps he lost power before he took on the ministry. And Hitler initially started out by joining a small group of supporters and turning that into something large. He used many of the same techniques as Voldemort: fear and intimidation.

When Snape joined the Death eaters, he had to prove himself. Well, Snape did menial jobs for them...and then all of a sudden, he grows in importance after he tells Voldemort about the prophecy. Once he gets into Voldemort's inner circle, this is where Voldemort's true colors really begin to show. And then Snape realizes that voldemort is going to kill whomever the prophecy refers to...and it's the Potters. That shakes him up and he realizes that he didn't sign on for all of this and he wants out. (Yes, this is all just speculation by me...)

Do you really think that those at the bottom of Voldemort's food chain get to spend enough time with him to learn anything of importance? Those at the bottom are of little importance until they prove themselves. Then they start to learn the big missions, in my opinion.

Awiana
February 14th, 2006, 3:56 pm
As for his home life -- we also don't know. The mere fact that people who may or may not have been his parents once argued in front of him as a child isn't exactly proof that he was abused, neglected, or had a sucky homelife in any other way.
Well, we could argue that Snapeís childhood was all happiness and sunshine, and his parents only argued once. But I just canít make myself to believe that argument.

I would find it very odd if JKR showed us memories that are completely atypical for Snapeís childhood. Thatís her perfect opportunity to shed some light on Snapeís past, why would she decide not to use it?

And itís very hard for me to see how the memory of Snapeís parents doesnít mean that they had an unhappy relationship that affected their child as well. All couples argue, and it doesnít mean that they have an unhealthy relationship. But the people in the memory werenít just shouting at each other. The man was shouting at the cowering woman, while the child cried in the corner. I donít think thatís a sign of a happy, healthy relationship. Itís not normal for women to cower while their husband is yelling at them. And itís not normal to let a kid cry alone without trying to comfort him. The fact that the woman didnít try to comfort the child definitely suggests to me that she was afraid of the man, and therefore that their homelife wasnít happy.

And, yes, I do believe that the people in the memory are Snapeís parents. Their ages werenít mentioned, and I tend to think that if there had been a big age difference it would have been mentioned, so I donít find it very plausible that the man shouting could be Snapeís grandfather. And I certainly donít believe that he was the landlord coming to collect the rent or something like that Ė what would be the point of showing us the memory if it doesnít show us Snapeís parents in a somewhat typical situation?

I really don't find the Marauder's actions (the extent of which we don't know) an excuse.
Me neither, and I doubt anyone on this thread thinks itís an excuse for Snapeís later actions. But what people have pointed out is that the past does shape us. We are responsible for our own choices, yet we donít make the choices in a vacuum Ė other peopleís choices affect us. The bullying and his home life have affected Snape, but that doesnít mean heís not responsible for his own choices. I havenít seen anyone claim that it was completely okay for him to join the Death Eaters because he was bullied in school. Itís not okay, not by any means. But understanding Snapeís past can make it easier to understand why he has made the choices he has. To understand, not excuse.

Blood_River
February 14th, 2006, 7:11 pm
what would be the point of showing us the memory if it doesn’t show us Snape’s parents in a somewhat typical situation?
To mislead us? To set up for a twist? :eyebrows:
It’s not normal for women to cower while their husband is yelling at them.
:agree: Yeah, but why would a witch cower before a muggle? I mean, we know she wasn't a Merope Gaunt-type because who taught Snape more dark arts than half the seventh years if not her?

It's probably not completely irrelevant, because JKR likes to use things like this to tell us things, but she also tends not to develop things in the usual way. I think it's going to be relevant but not so obvious.

I'm not saying he didn't have a hard life, but I just don't like getting wrapped up in poor-little-Snape-isms as if his childhood was just one perpetual victimization after another.

As for the Marauders -- we have quite a lot of references to them besides Dumbledore's "wounds too deep" remark although not many about their specific relationship to Snape. But as for their general characters, we have too many great people beaming about James like he's a stand-up guy for him to be this flat out cruel-hearted, malicious bully. Dumbledore says in PoA, that he knew James very well both at school and after, and that he would've saved Wormtail too. He would've saved a selfish, treacherous murderer to gift-wrapped his best friends and handed them over to the most evil wizard the world has ever seen for the sake of his own advantage. Hagrid beams about Harry's parents in the earlier books, and in general everyone who seems to know them seems to have thought very highly of them.

Even when they don't know Harry's listening, when McGonagall & Hagrid talk about the Marauders being trouble-makers, they describe them as forerunners of the Weasley twins.

This is covered in Harry's reaction to SWM -- that everyone's always been telling him what a great guy James was, etc... and he doesn't see. So I think there must be something more to the context that alters our perception of it. We already know that the spell used to hang Snape upside down was not only invented by him, but was used so extensively that school year Lupin said you couldn't make it through the halls for a few months without being hoisted upside by their ankles. This makes the whole see-his-underwear thing a lot less traumatic, for one thing. I just think there's more to it.

The question is not whether snape is bad or good..
Um, actually, in this thread it is. :D If you want to analyze him from the presupposition that he's bad, there's a thread called Snape, the bad: Analysis (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=81144&page=14).

hpfan101
February 14th, 2006, 8:34 pm
As for the Marauders -- we have quite a lot of references to them besides Dumbledore's "wounds too deep" remark although not many about their specific relationship to Snape. But as for their general characters, we have too many great people beaming about James like he's a stand-up guy for him to be this flat out cruel-hearted, malicious bully. Dumbledore says in PoA, that he knew James very well both at school and after, and that he would've saved Wormtail too. He would've saved a selfish, treacherous murderer to gift-wrapped his best friends and handed them over to the most evil wizard the world has ever seen for the sake of his own advantage. Hagrid beams about Harry's parents in the earlier books, and in general everyone who seems to know them seems to have thought very highly of them.

Even when they don't know Harry's listening, when McGonagall & Hagrid talk about the Marauders being trouble-makers, they describe them as forerunners of the Weasley twins.

This is covered in Harry's reaction to SWM -- that everyone's always been telling him what a great guy James was, etc... and he doesn't see. So I think there must be something more to the context that alters our perception of it. We already know that the spell used to hang Snape upside down was not only invented by him, but was used so extensively that school year Lupin said you couldn't make it through the halls for a few months without being hoisted upside by their ankles. This makes the whole see-his-underwear thing a lot less traumatic, for one thing. I just think there's more to it.
I do tend to agree with you about the Marauders (maybe I just happen to like them and I want Harry to have someone to be proud of). I'm not saying they were perfect all of the time, but every teenager makes mistakes and is influenced to some extent by peers. Unfortunately, teenagers do tend to be cruel to one another. I don't think that this means that James and Sirius were horrible people, only that they made mistakes like everyone else. I also think that James seemed to grow out of it, like many people do. It doesn't make it any better, but again, like you said, we have only one vision of James v Snape. I would be interested in getting a more complete picture. I doubt James was this perfect little hero, but I also doubt he was a cruel, vicious person all of the time.

Awiana
February 14th, 2006, 9:16 pm
Yeah, but why would a witch cower before a muggle? I mean, we know she wasn't a Merope Gaunt-type because who taught Snape more dark arts than half the seventh years if not her?
Hmm. I wouldnít rule it out as a possibility that Eileen was a Merope-type too. I think itís possible that Snape learnt all those curses from books. I know I donít have a whole lot of canon to back up the claim that Eileen was like Merope, but I just tend to think that Merope probably wasnít the only person ever in the Wizarding World to lose her powers because of depression. And then there is the theory that Snape was orphaned and was raised by relatives, but thatís just speculation of course.

As for the Marauders -- we have quite a lot of references to them besides Dumbledore's "wounds too deep" remark although not many about their specific relationship to Snape. But as for their general characters, we have too many great people beaming about James like he's a stand-up guy for him to be this flat out cruel-hearted, malicious bully. Dumbledore says in PoA, that he knew James very well both at school and after, and that he would've saved Wormtail too. He would've saved a selfish, treacherous murderer to gift-wrapped his best friends and handed them over to the most evil wizard the world has ever seen for the sake of his own advantage. Hagrid beams about Harry's parents in the earlier books, and in general everyone who seems to know them seems to have thought very highly of them.

Well, I think that a person can be a great guy to some and a horrible bully to others. I do think that James and Sirius were bullies at school, but that doesnít make them horrible human beings. They had a lot of good qualities, and I think they were fiercely loyal to their friends. I think Sirius was telling the truth when he said that he would have died for his friends, and I think that James would have been a fantastic husband and father, and I also believe that he would have saved Wormtail. But I donít think that stops them from being nasty bullies.

I see James and Sirius as the sort of people who treat people they like very differently from people they donít like. I believe they were great friends, and it doesnít surprise me in the least that so many people thought highly of them, they were clearly charismatic and popular. But I believe that they could be downright nasty to people who they didnít like, because they didnít quite see them asÖ well, as human as people they do like, maybe. In SWM they donít seem to consider Snape as someone who has feelings and can be hurt. He isnít quite human to them and I think that sort of thinking is very typical of bullies.

And just to clarify: I donít think that being bullied makes it okay for Snape to have joined the Death Eater, and it doesnít excuse any of his actions. But I do think that it can make it easier to understand why Snape has made the choices he has.

hwyla
February 14th, 2006, 9:31 pm
...Yeah, but why would a witch cower before a muggle? I mean, we know she wasn't a Merope Gaunt-type because who taught Snape more dark arts than half the seventh years if not her?It sould be remembered that this may not be true. We have no idea whether she ever taught Snape anything. It must be remembered that:

1) Sirius did NOT say Snape knew 'more dark arts than half the seventh years'. Sirius said Snape knew more CURSES than half the 7th years. We have NO indications that 'curses' are 'dark' they seem to be on a par with jinxes and hexes. The first 'curse' we saw was the 'leg-locker curse, which merely stuck Neville's legs together. A much less 'scary' spell than the 'Petrificus Totalis' Hermione placed on Neville later that year.

2) We don't know for sure that Sirius was even correct about Snape knowing ANYTHING that a 7th year didn't know. Considering just exactly WHO Sirius said were in the 'gang' of Slytherins (at least one 7th year and her future husband - the ages of the others are not known) - the comment COULD be all about Sirius and the other Marauders trying to figure out SOME reason some 7th years would have any interest in a first year.

Sirius DOES seem to adjust his 'facts' to prove his initial gut reactions. For instance - many now think Sirius said Snape knew 'dark arts' as a firstie (which is NOT what he said). But it's important to notice that Sirius NEVER mentioned anything about Snape being interested in the dark arts until AFTER Harry comes to him for an explanation of the memory in the pensieve.

Sirius is suspicious of Snape in bk4/GoF, trying to convince Harry that Snape 'might' be a death eater . He bases his 'proof' on who Snape hung out with (never mentioning that at least one of these kids was considerably older than Snape, but also Sirius' own cousin). YET he doesn't bother to mention that Snape was into 'dark arts'?

3) Voldy choosing Snape to spy on Albus by getting a job as a Hogwarts teacher is just plain ludicrous IF Snape had actually been this KNOWN "Dark Arts' practioner throughout his entire Hogwarts career. The idea that Snape would have been able to hide something like that from Albus at age 11, when Albus was able to see through Tom Riddle (who was cruel, but not actually using 'dark arts') at that age and then suppose that James and Sirius (two more 11 year olds) would be able to recognize the dark in Snape better than Albus could - it's just unreasonable.

Sirius is making it up as he goes. He probably doesn't see it as 'lying' to Harry, but adjusting the truth based on his NEW knowledge that Snape had actually been a Death Eater (never mind that he learns Snape was also Albus' spy at the same time) - he sees that and adjsuts backwards.

hermione8
February 15th, 2006, 2:49 am
As soon as I read the book, I truly believed that Snape was bad.. But then later, I had to change my mind.. Is Snape good? I don't know because he is a very interesting person and i am inclined to believe that he was in the good side but he is not on dumbledore's side or voldemort's side right now.. Will he come to the good side? I think so... I think that he will play the most important role in the last book.

Saracene
February 15th, 2006, 10:18 am
Sirius DOES seem to adjust his 'facts' to prove his initial gut reactions. For instance - many now think Sirius said Snape knew 'dark arts' as a firstie (which is NOT what he said). But it's important to notice that Sirius NEVER mentioned anything about Snape being interested in the dark arts until AFTER Harry comes to him for an explanation of the memory in the pensieve.

Sirius is suspicious of Snape in bk4/GoF, trying to convince Harry that Snape 'might' be a death eater . He bases his 'proof' on who Snape hung out with (never mentioning that at least one of these kids was considerably older than Snape, but also Sirius' own cousin). YET he doesn't bother to mention that Snape was into 'dark arts'?

That is actually incorrect. In "Padfoot Returns" in GoF, Sirius says, "Ever since I found out Snape was teaching here, I've wondered why Dumbledore hired him. Snape's always been fascinated by the Dark Arts, he was famous for it at school."

Also, I wouldn't say that Sirius tried to convince Harry that Snape might be a Death Eater. Harry told him about Crouch's interest in Snape's office, Moody's encounter with Snape and what Moody told him about hating "a Death Eater that walked free", and it was Harry who asked Sirius if Snape could be up to something. And when Hermione starts to insist that Dumbledore trusts Snape and Ron says that a really clever Dark wizard could fool Dumbledore, Sirius says that they both had a point. And, in the end, Sirius says that he just can't see Dumbledore letting Snape teach at Hogwarts if he'd ever worked for Voldemort.

I see James and Sirius as the sort of people who treat people they like very differently from people they don’t like. I believe they were great friends, and it doesn’t surprise me in the least that so many people thought highly of them, they were clearly charismatic and popular. But I believe that they could be downright nasty to people who they didn’t like, because they didn’t quite see them as… well, as human as people they do like, maybe.

That's how I see them, too, and I've seen people like them when I was at school: very popular, very likeable, well thought of by most of the students and teachers - but also capable of nastiness and cruelty towards those who they didn't like or just found fun to pick on. It's something like what Dumbledore said about Sirius' attitude to Kreacher: they simply didn't see those they disliked as people with feelings as acute as their own.

Plus, you gotta remember that James died a hero's death defending his family, and was an Order member fighting Voldemort before that. It would be natural for people who knew and cared about him to remember James' good sides rather than less-than-admirable ones.

MAGICicalMUggle
February 15th, 2006, 11:09 am
I think dumbledore ordered snape to kill him because dumbledore wouldnt beg for his life and i think snape told him about "the unbreakable vow" he made to protect draco malfoy ......and dumbledore knew that he will die at the end because he showed harry everything he needed to know about voldemorts past and about the horcruxes...............and from ootp dumbledore sended petunia a howler saying "remember my last" so that obviously means that dumbledore was writing to petunia long before his last letter he gave her the night he left harry in front of their doorstep.and in hbp dumbledore told him he needs to visit the dursleys one last time...........i think dumbledore has given the locations of where the horcruxes may be in those "other letters" we havent heard of yet and i think that snape will help harry for some reason that is also "unknown."

Bazzaice
February 15th, 2006, 2:49 pm
hi...new to this and only finished the book last week..:D

I think Snape is good..maybe when him and Dumbledore staired into each others eyes, Dumbledore let Snape see what he had drunk in the cave that night using legilimency. and Snape being good with potions & poisons (he is the half blood prince after all) knew what Dumbledore had drank and was no way he could live after drinking it.

The talk they where having in the forest could be Dumbledore saying 'do what you must to stay with the DE and Voldy. what Draco Malfoy is ordered to do and if he cannot you must do it.

He knew that if he dident kill Dumbledore he would be killed by the vow, Voldy or the other DE's. Dumbledore would have been killed by the DE's if Snape dident do it.
Dumbledore used the spell to freeze harry because he knew he was going to die that night and did not want Harry to die as he knew that Harry would fight to the death to try and save him.

this of coarse is all speculation but thats my 2 cents

Blood_River
February 15th, 2006, 3:25 pm
I doubt James was this perfect little hero, but I also doubt he was a cruel, vicious person all of the time.
:tu: Completely agree. I don't think he was this cruel, ruthless bully (when I think of a bully, I tend to think more of the Dudley or Malfoy types), but I do think that he could BE cruel, and I think part of that was not really considering / registering that Snape the kid he hated might have feelings like his own and be going through stuff and be hurt by him. People can be really short-sighted sometimes, especially when their 15/16.

I also think a big part of it was trying to handle stuff and not knowing how to and having to deal with things and doing it less than gracefully -- on both sides. It harkens back to what Lupin said in OotP, "whatever else James was, he always hated the dark arts" -- he knew they were bad, maybe he had even some experiences of his own, and he was angry as Snape for being fascinated by something evil, but he didn't know how to respond. It doesn't occur to most teenage boys to sit a boy they already don't get along with down for a chat, and over a spot of tea logically point out to him the reasons he shouldn't be messing with stuff -- and it probably wouldn't've worked if he had.

I remember once there was this kid in grade school who was bullied by a lot of the same kids I'd been picked on by, and being really frustrated with him for not even really trying to defend himself. And I remember being so angry at him about this, that I would try to goad and provoke him into standing up for himself, and it wasn't until many years later, at a different school, that I was mature enough to realize that I probably only added to his problems and grief. But at that age I was just frustrated and didn't know or understand how to deal with.

And I'll bet Snape handled things badly a lot too. I guess I just really distrust the idea that Snape was normally just this innocent little victim who was minding his own business when the cruel Marauders swooped in and started picking on him. I'd be really surprised if he didn't pick some of the fights too, and I really don't think that by SWM, Snape had never done anything to them.

vlasiou
February 15th, 2006, 3:28 pm
I was reading through the posts (and stopped at the point where one mentions that McGonagall says that the Marauders were forerunners of the Weasley twins).

I forget the name of the Slytherin guy that the twins pushed in the vanishing cabinet. Malfoy says that this guy was stuck there for quite some time, that he could sometimes hear voices from one end and taught himself apparition, while he never had lessons before, which was the way he escaped. My feeling is this guy was stuck alone in a "limbo" state, possibly not hungry or thirsty (unless he forgot his magic), but definitely ... in a tough spot. We saw apparition lessons, and the first we saw was some girl splintching herself... And this guy managed on his own out of desparation.

Now imagine that we saw this guy's worst memory... Would that make the twins evil, sarcastic bullies that wished this guy dead?

This is why I don't buy the "James was a cruel bully story". After all, everybody seems to love Lily, and she loved James.

hwyla
February 15th, 2006, 3:50 pm
That is actually incorrect. In "Padfoot Returns" in GoF, Sirius says, "Ever since I found out Snape was teaching here, I've wondered why Dumbledore hired him. Snape's always been fascinated by the Dark Arts, he was famous for it at school."Saracene - thank you - I'm afraid I missed that one - you're correct - so a little rethinking will need to be in order.

Certainly would seem to make Voldy a bit of a fool to assign Snape to spy on Albus tho' - and I'm not sure I like the idea of an Albus that lets a known dark arts supporter leave that room without an obliviate (I know Albus is into choices, but it seems then that he WANTS Voldy to know the part prophecy)

arithmancer
February 15th, 2006, 4:01 pm
Now imagine that we saw this guy's worst memory... Would that make the twins evil, sarcastic bullies that wished this guy dead?

It's Montague.

And no, it would make the twins just like James and Sirius. Popular, funny,talented at Quidditch (James, anyway), loyal to their friends, oh, and thoughtlessly cruel to people they dislike. In which number I would include Percy, Montague, and Dudley off the top of my head. (I also don't care very much for how they sometimes treat Ron...he's certainly intimidated by them.)


This is why I don't buy the "James was a cruel bully story". After all, everybody seems to love Lily, and she loved James.
It is why I do. Although that's overstating it. He was a cruel bully to Snape, I would not go so far as to speculate he acted this way generally, I am willing to believe Snape was always a special case. Hate at first sight, or however it was explained to Harry. Like Harry and Draco. The random hexing of people in the hallways, which we are also told about, was probably analogous to the Twins feeding of odd magical candies to random students.
About Lily: she also disapproved of those actions of James which have led to this discussion, and apparently would not have even considered dating him in their fifth year. Sirius explains her willingness to date James in the seventh year by suggesting James changed and matured.

marcko90000
February 15th, 2006, 4:52 pm
hi...new to this and only finished the book last week..

Wow, it has been a while since I've come across someone who has just finished the book. I hope you enjoy your time here.

I think Snape is good..maybe when him and Dumbledore staired into each others eyes, Dumbledore let Snape see what he had drunk in the cave that night using legilimency. and Snape being good with potions & poisons (he is the half blood prince after all) knew what Dumbledore had drank and was no way he could live after drinking it.

:lol: Ah, another Good!Snape shipper. Well, I might be seeing you around and arguing your points every so often.

Dumbledore used the spell to freeze harry because he knew he was going to die that night and did not want Harry to die as he knew that Harry would fight to the death to try and save him.

Why do you believe Dumbledore had not ordered Harry to fly somewhere else besides the Tower?

Bazzaice
February 15th, 2006, 6:08 pm
'Go and wake Severus,' said Dumbledore faintly but clearly. Tell him what has happened and bring him to me. Do noth*ing else, speak to nobody else and do not remove your Cloak. I shall wait here.'

'But -'

'You swore to obey me, Harry - go!'

Harry hurried over to the door leading to the spiral stair*case, but his hand had only just closed upon the iron ring of the door when he heard running footsteps on the other side. He looked round at Dumbledore, who gestured to him to retreat. Harry backed away, drawing his wand as he did so.

The door burst open and somebody erupted through it and shouted: 'Expelliarmus!'

Harry's body became instantly rigid and immobile, and he felt himself fall back against the Tower wall, propped like an unsteady statue, unable to move or speak. He could not understand how it had happened - Expelliarmus was not a Freezing Charm -

Then, by the light of the Mark, he saw Dumbledore's wand flying in an arc over the edge of the ramparts and under*stood ... Dumbledore had wordlessly immobilised Harry, and the second he had taken to perform the spell had cost him the chance of defending himself.

Dumbledore had ordered harry to go get snape.
i think he knew when he seen draco that the time for him to die had come.
knowing harry was still under his cloak and could not be seen & possibly knowing that harry would try fight with who ever came, he choose to freeze him, to save him.

Awiana
February 15th, 2006, 6:18 pm
Now imagine that we saw this guy's worst memory... Would that make the twins evil, sarcastic bullies that wished this guy dead?
If youíre asking whether Montague finds the twins evil bullies, I would say the answer is yes. Iím sure the twins donít see themselves as mean, horrible bullies, neither do any of the Gryffindors, but Iíve got the feeling that Slytherins might beg to differ.

When discussing how Snapeís experiences affected his personality and the choices he has made, I donít think itís relevant whether Sirius actually meant to kill Snape by using his friend as a murder weapon, or whether the Marauders were malicious and sadistic bullies or just stupid teenagers. Thatís important when discussing the Marauders and what kind of people they were and what motivated them, but when discussing SnapeÖ it's just not that relevant. Whatís relevant to a discussion about Snape, I think, is that he saw the Marauders as horrible bullies, and Sirius as someone who tried to get him killed.

And no, it would make the twins just like James and Sirius. Popular, funny,talented at Quidditch (James, anyway), loyal to their friends, oh, and thoughtlessly cruel to people they dislike. In which number I would include Percy, Montague, and Dudley off the top of my head. (I also don't care very much for how they sometimes treat Ron...he's certainly intimidated by them.)

Yes, the twins and James and Sirius are startlingly similar. They are charismatic and popular, and a lot of people see them as troublemakers but in a fun way: they are just loveable pranksters. But then there are people who disagree, like Snape and Montague, and probably a lot of Slytherins, actually.

hpfan101
February 15th, 2006, 11:51 pm
I don't think he was this cruel, ruthless bully (when I think of a bully, I tend to think more of the Dudley or Malfoy types), but I do think that he could BE cruel, and I think part of that was not really considering / registering that Snape the kid he hated might have feelings like his own and be going through stuff and be hurt by him. People can be really short-sighted sometimes, especially when their 15/16.
But that's kind of the point, isn't it? Bullies are nice to the people they feel deserve it, but not to everyone else that they see as below them.
zgirnius and Awiana, you guys both make excellent points: it doesn't matter how the Marauders saw themselves, but rather how the people they treated as inferior (especially Snape) saw them. It is definitely the same with the Weasley twins. Now, I like their characters just as much as I like the Marauders, but they definitely act similar to James and Sirius.

And I agree with Awiana, it is important to realize that even if the Marauders were having a good time and meant nothing mean, even if Sirius only wanted to play a joke on Snape, how Snape interpreted those experiences influenced him greatly and how he saw James and Sirius. Snape feels victimized (even if you don't agree with this in actuality, this is how he felt). How would you feel if someone said the only reasont hey keep hexing you is because you exist (from SWM)?? Snape says that the Marauders would never attack him unless it was four on one (yes, this might be an overgeneralization by Snape)...maybe this is why Snape felt so comfortable with the Death eaters and Voldemort...maybe they finally gave him a little bit of respect that he had never found before and a bit of protection.

Blood_River
February 16th, 2006, 2:52 am
I agree that, in regards to Snape's character, it mainly matters how he percieves things, but I think we should clarify since some people earlier were launching more into what seemed like rants about the Marauders, instead of just looking at it from Snape's perspective.

But that's kind of the point, isn't it? Bullies are nice to the people they feel deserve it, but not to everyone else that they see as below them.
Is it though? Dudley and Malfoy are bullies not because they don't realize they hurt people, but because they do and that's what they want and are after. They can be nice when it's to their advantage, but not out of kindness.

Everyone in the world is nice to some people and not to others -- at least sometimes. Most people learn to control it better by the time they grow up and many people learn to control it better before (or just aren't in a situation where they have to). Snape wasn't nice to Lily even though she was trying to help him -- treated her as if she was below him. And Lily stopped defending Snape once he insulted her because she felt he no longer deserved it. I wouldn't call either of them "bullies" in that scene. It's more complicated than simply not being nice to people.

Consider it this way -- do you think if Snape & one of his friends had done to James in SWM what James & Sirius did to him, it would have gone the same way? I can't see him letting any of those things get to him that much; he seems like the type who would laugh it off or something. And given that they weren't close and knew very little about each others' homelife, I doubt they would've even known how much they might've been hurting him.

And since Snape probably didn't bother to consider things like that (which, to be fair, many teenage boys don't), he didn't look at things from other people's perspective either and realize that they might not mean things the way he took them, might not know what he knows, he probably didn't think about the various ways in which he provoked people or did similar things to hurt others -- did he think about how calling Lily a m**b**** in front of a crowd of people when she was only trying to help him might hurt her? Probably not.

hpfan101
February 16th, 2006, 3:51 am
Is it though? Dudley and Malfoy are bullies not because they don't realize they hurt people, but because they do and that's what they want and are after. They can be nice when it's to their advantage, but not out of kindness.
Hmmm...I get what you are saying and I even knew you were going to throw that quote back in my face when I wrote it...because of your earlier comment. I guess I had it coming :p my own fault for not explaining properly. I think there is a difference between James/Sirius & the Weasley twins and Dudley & Draco. Firstly, I negated the latter two's influence in the subject simply because it isn't relevant to the Snape discussion (sorry I should have said that). You are completely right about those two. i think they are in the "elitist" group of bullies comprised of people who are just plain mean to everyone in general. Draco is not even nice to Crabbe and Goyle--that we see at least.

Everyone in the world is nice to some people and not to others -- at least sometimes.
Very true. I am not nice to every person I come across---I think that is almost impossible (congrats to everyone who is always nice, you win my admiration :)), but there is a difference. Snape is protecting himself against James and Sirius, who attacked him because they were bored. I am not saying Snape never had done the same to James...but in this particular instance, this is the case.

I personally think this issue in general is just difficult, because it all depends on everyone's individual perspective and what we have experienced in our own life. I've seen talk on other threads about people who understand what Snape felt like and others who say they have never gone through such an episode and cannot relate. I defnitely personally believe there are different levels of bullying, and in SWM, it was pretty bad.

Consider it this way -- do you think if Snape & one of his friends had done to James in SWM what James & Sirius did to him, it would have gone the same way? I can't see him letting any of those things get to him that much; he seems like the type who would laugh it off or something. And given that they weren't close and knew very little about each others' homelife, I doubt they would've even known how much they might've been hurting him.
Just because James' or Sirius' reaction would have been different doesn't mean the act itself would have been any less cruel. And yes, most people when they are young don't stop to think about people's homelife, but I think I am missing your point about why the homelife would matter (forgive me :( ), so I will refrain from commenting until I get what you are saying (so I don't sound any more uninformed than I already do ;)).

arithmancer
February 16th, 2006, 4:59 am
Consider it this way -- do you think if Snape & one of his friends had done to James in SWM what James & Sirius did to him, it would have gone the same way? I can't see him letting any of those things get to him that much; he seems like the type who would laugh it off or something. And given that they weren't close and knew very little about each others' homelife, I doubt they would've even known how much they might've been hurting him.

I don't think Snape's homelife was what made the bullying (or harrassment, or whatever word you prefer to use to characterize the Marauders' actions) so awful. (Although it could certainly be why Snape dealt with it so badly, if it was coming on top of other problems). It is the imbalance of power that exists between them, due to the Marauders' popularity (this is definitely canon, James and Sirius were among the 'coolest' kids in the school), and Snape's apparent unpopularity. (As indicated by the group of students standing around and laughing). He can hope to hex James back at some opportunity when he catches James alone; he can hope to toss some cutting insult his way if one comes to him later, but noone is going to laugh at James. This is why James could (and likely did, I would not be surprised to learn that at some point Snape went after him) laugh it off.


-- did he think about how calling Lily a m**b**** in front of a crowd of people when she was only trying to help him might hurt her? Probably not.
Certainly not at the time he said it. However, it has been hypothesized that what made this his worst memory was his (later) realization of the effect he had on Lily.

ETA:
Here's why I find the word bullying an accurate description of the Marauders' behavior towards Snape-the quote is from the Wikipedia article on the subject.

Researchers accept generally that bullying contains three essential elements: “(1) the behavior is aggressive and negative; (2) the behavior is carried out repeatedly; and (3) the behavior occurs in a relationship where there is an imbalance of power between the parties involved.”[1]

Bullying is broken into two categories: 1) direct bullying, and 2) indirect bullying, also known as social aggression.[2] Direct bullying is the form most common to male bullies. Social aggression or indirect bullying is most common to female bullies and young children, and is characterized by forcing the victim into social isolation. This isolation is achieved through a wide variety of techniques, including: spreading gossip, refusing to socialize with the victim, bullying other people who wish to socialize with the victim, and criticizing the victim's manner of dress and other socially-significant markers (including the victim's race, religion, disability, etc).

1) is clearly the case in the Worst Memory incident.
2) I personally believe SWM was not an isolated incident, though a typcial one may have been far less severe. The 'prank' is another incident in canon...but I also find the description of the reactions of the Marauders in SWM indicative of a pattern. Peter gets excited the moment Snape is spotted; Lupin frowns. Why? Because both, in my opinion, know what is coming. Not in terms of degree/severity, but generally speaking. Peter is looking forward to it, and Lupin is feeling guilty for not doing anything to stop it.
3) I think the crowd reaction is an indicator of this, as is the testimony of Lupin and Sirius (James and Sirius being so 'cool', and Snape being a greasy oddball).

voldyvolvol
February 16th, 2006, 12:25 pm
I think I found the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape....or maybe everyone knows about this one already.

"Worse even than that m'dear...."Fudge dropped his voice and proceeded in a sort of low rumble. "Not many people are aware that the Potters knew You-Know-Who was after them. Dumbeldore, who was of course working tirelessly against you-Know-Who, had a number of useful spied. One of them tipped him off, and he alerted James and Lily at once. He advised them to go into hiding.

Could this have possible been Snape?

Here's another relating to this.

"Snape has been cleared by this council," said Crouch disdainfully. "He has been vouched ofor by Albus Dumbledore."
"No!" shoulted Karkaroff, straining at the chains that bound him to the chair. "I assure you! Severus Snape is a Death Eater!"
Dumbledore had gotten to his feet.
"I have given evidence already on this matter," he said calmly. "Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is now no more a Death Eater than I am."

Now, this proves that Dumbledore's/Harry's explanation of why Dumbledore trusts Snape is proved not possible. Dumbledore said that Snape turned to their side AFTER Voldemort fell. He probably said this to hide the truth from Harry.

Is the fact that Snape may have tipped off Dumbledore about finding out Voldemort was after the Potter's, the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape? If this is true, I think that he is on the good side.

hwyla
February 16th, 2006, 12:39 pm
....Now, this proves that Dumbledore's/Harry's explanation of why Dumbledore trusts Snape is proved not possible. Dumbledore said that Snape turned to their side AFTER Voldemort fell. He probably said this to hide the truth from Harry.

Is the fact that Snape may have tipped off Dumbledore about finding out Voldemort was after the Potter's, the reason Dumbledore trusts Snape? If this is true, I think that he is on the good side.Actually - Harry interprets what he hears in bk6/HBP as Snape turning after his parents were dead - but it is NOT what Albus said. Albus said Snape turned when he realized the Potters were targeted - which has nothing to do with their actual date of death, but when Voldy started after them - so it fits just fine with 'the spy' tipping Albus off that the Potters need to hide.

Additionally we have the info from McGonagal about the traitor keeping Voldy up-to-date on the Potters' "movements" (plural) - which implies they had to move around (like Slughorn was doing) for awhile (apparently a year since we know that's how long Peter gave up info on the Potters) - that they had several hiding places before doing the Fidelus Charm.

voldyvolvol
February 16th, 2006, 12:54 pm
Additionally we have the info from McGonagal about the traitor keeping Voldy up-to-date on the Potters' "movements" (plural) - which implies they had to move around (like Slughorn was doing) for awhile (apparently a year since we know that's how long Peter gave up info on the Potters) - that they had several hiding places before doing the Fidelus Charm.

True. However, I don't think Voldemort realized who the chosen one was until he hit the spot, which Snape may have known about even under Voldemort's employ, and told Dumbledore.

Blood_River
February 16th, 2006, 4:33 pm
Just because James' or Sirius' reaction would have been different doesn't mean the act itself would have been any less cruel. And yes, most people when they are young don't stop to think about people's homelife, but I think I am missing your point about why the homelife would matter (forgive me ), so I will refrain from commenting until I get what you are saying (so I don't sound any more uninformed than I already do ).
Well, if you mean less cruel in the intent of the Marauders, then, yeah, I think it would matter how they'd react themselves because generally it's hard for people (especially teenage boys) to realize that things that wouldn't hurt them very much might hurt someone else. This is what I've been arguing (I know, Off-Topically), but the cruelty of intent of the Marauders.

As for the cruelty of perception -- what effect it has on Snape, I agree, it wouldn't matter to him much how they'd react in the reverse.

Oh, and as for his homelife -- I just brought it up because some people were pointing out that the things the Marauder's said must've been worse in light of what we can speculate about it (like the whole "because he exists" comment) and I was just pointing out that the Marauder's couldn't possibly know what that might mean to him. But again, to go back on topic that would hardly matter to Snape.

I've mostly been arguing on behalf of the Marauder's intents, but I agree, Snape would probably be quite unhappy with the situation regardless of what they meant.

True. However, I don't think Voldemort realized who the chosen one was until he hit the spot, which Snape may have known about even under Voldemort's employ, and told Dumbledore.
:huh: Que?

hwyla
February 16th, 2006, 4:49 pm
Additionally we have the info from McGonagal about the traitor keeping Voldy up-to-date on the Potters' "movements" (plural) - which implies they had to move around (like Slughorn was doing) for awhile (apparently a year since we know that's how long Peter gave up info on the Potters) - that they had several hiding places before doing the Fidelus Charm. True. However, I don't think Voldemort realized who the chosen one was until he hit the spot, which Snape may have known about even under Voldemort's employ, and told Dumbledore.Could you please restate this - I don't understand what you mean?

RCPotter
February 16th, 2006, 4:51 pm
I will never believe that Snape had good intentions. Since there is only one book left, I don't believe Rowling would have enough time to explain exactly why Snape was playing both good and evil roles, or if he and dumbledore shared a secret. That being said, there is not enough evidence in the previous books to form the opinion that snape is good.

gertiekeddle
February 16th, 2006, 5:01 pm
RCPotter, :welcome: to the boards! :D
I will never believe that Snape had good intentions. I agree in one big point: he killed Dumbledore. That's a fact, but I don't believe he had some own intentions in this. Maybe he really plays a double role, but I think Dumbledore was right in trusting him and wanted him to kill him.

Since there is only one book left, I don't believe Rowling would have enough time to explain exactly why Snape was playing both good and evil roles, or if he and dumbledore shared a secret. I like when people remind that there's just one book left, but not ten. :) But in this case I think all is explained and all is said, if it's really true, that Snape was working in Dumbledore's order. There are two interpretations of Snape becoming a murderer - the 'good' and the 'evil' one (ok and the one, which sees him on his own side). Both need explanations, but both have there main arguments in HBP. So, sorry. I don't think it will cost JK so much space to explain Snape's actions.


That being said, there is not enough evidence in the previous books to form the opinion that snape is good.Hm...Dumbledore believed him and we know from the books 'if we can't trust Dumbledore, we can trust nobody'. In my opinion it's enough evidence to keep the possibility alive. I wouldn't say, it's impossible that he really turned evil, there are some good hints for this opinion, too. But I believe it's easy to explain, too, if I'm right and Snape never left Dumbledore since he joined the order.

Idabomb333
February 16th, 2006, 6:49 pm
I think it is far from fair to say that the previous books lack reasons to think Snape is good. Even if you only take the obvious ones, he was incorrectly suspected in PS/SS and he saved Harry's life. He thought he was saving Harry's life from Sirius and Lupin in PoA. Dumbledore trusts him completely, and somehow supplied enough evidence that crazy Crouch senior didn't put Snape in Azkaban. None of those is 100% proof, though Dumbledore's complete trust is enough for me.

There are also several more subtle pieces of evidence. He volunteered to show his dark mark to Fudge to convince him that Voldemort had returned. He sent the Order to the Ministry in OotP despite the fact that that risked losing the prophecy, which was Voldemort's #1 priority. The death eaters at the MoM don't appear to know that Dumbledore has a pensieve and can show Harry the prophecy's exact wording. The description of Snape when he kills Dumbledore is very much like the description of Harry making Dumbledore drink the potion in the cave, and not very much like how I imagine an evil Snape would act when conquering his master's greatest enemy.

That's just a quick summary in an attempt something will get through and have you decide it's not a good approach to say you'll "never believe" Snape's good.

Blood_River
February 17th, 2006, 11:24 pm
He thought he was saving Harry's life from Sirius and Lupin in PoA.
Well... to be fair, he didn't exactly seem concerned for them. He was mostly just spazzing with revenge and suppressed triumph.

Dumbledore trusts him completely, and somehow supplied enough evidence that crazy Crouch senior didn't put Snape in Azkaban.
Well, since Crouch's exact wording is that he had been "vouched for" by Dumbledore, it's possible that Dumbledore didn't have to give any more evidence than his own trust. I mean, that was quite sufficient for everybody else in the world.

But yes, I agree, there are a few too many suspicious things to make me believe that Snape has just been a loyal Death Eater biding his time and spying on Dumbledore for his master.

iluvow
February 21st, 2006, 1:57 am
no!! he kileld dumbledore !! how can u be ggod and kill dumbedore!?!?!? besides, jkr has basically said that he is evil

"
MA: OK, big big big book six question. Is Snape evil?

JKR: [Almost laughing] Well, you've read the book, what do you think?

ES: She's trying to make you say it categorically.

MA: Well, there are conspiracy theorists, and there are people who will claim -

JKR: Cling to some desperate hope [laughter] -

ES: Yes!

MA: Yes!

ES: Like certain shippers we know!

[All laugh]

JKR: Well, okay, I'm obviously Ė Harry-Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry-Voldemort. I can't answer that question because it's a spoiler, isn't it, whatever I say, and obviously, it has such a huge impact on what will happen when they meet again that I can't. And let's face it, it's going to launch 10,000 theories and I'm going to get a big kick out of reading them so [laughs] I'm evil but I just like the theories, I love the theories."

ok so lets think about this , " clinging to some desperate hope" doesnt that sound like they still believe in something the rest of us all thought before? like thinking snape was good? but now that even though he killed umbledore they still think hes good?and even her words " clinging to a desperate hope" imply that what they think is foolish and not true.

arithmancer
February 21st, 2006, 2:45 am
JKR: Well, okay, I'm obviously Ė Harry-Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry-Voldemort. I can't answer that question because it's a spoiler, isn't it, whatever I say, and obviously, it has such a huge impact on what will happen when they meet again that I can't. And let's face it, it's going to launch 10,000 theories and I'm going to get a big kick out of reading them so [laughs] I'm evil but I just like the theories, I love the theories."

ok so lets think about this , " clinging to some desperate hope" doesnt that sound like they still believe in something the rest of us all thought before? like thinking snape was good? but now that even though he killed umbledore they still think hes good?and even her words " clinging to a desperate hope" imply that what they think is foolish and not true.

Well, she has so kindly written this wonderful series for us to enjoy, the least we can do is come up with some theories for her to enjoy, too. He's good, I tell ya!:lol:

More seriously, it is like she says. The answer to the question 'Is Snape Evil?' is a spoiler. We are not SUPPOSED at this point to be sure, one way or another.

random_musing
February 21st, 2006, 3:53 am
ok so lets think about this , " clinging to some desperate hope" doesnt that sound like they still believe in something the rest of us all thought before? like thinking snape was good? but now that even though he killed umbledore they still think hes good?and even her words " clinging to a desperate hope" imply that what they think is foolish and not true.
That is typical JKR right there. Shes trying to throw us off like she usually does. :rolleyes: I honestly didn't think much of it.

Blood_River
February 21st, 2006, 7:26 pm
Zgirnius, Random: tu: I agree. :agree:

Very JKR. Although, I tend to think Snape will pull a Spike and help Harry despite being evil. Very, "I want to save the world... for evil reasons" and Harry will have to accept this help if he wants to defeat Voldemort.

hpfan101
February 22nd, 2006, 3:50 am
:tu: what else is there to say? I mean, if you look at Jo's comments pre-OotP or pre-HBP, she never gives a major plot point away! She designed Snape to seem evil...but then in the first five books, she always proved us wrong. Then in book six, wham! He's evil? Hmmm...I don't think she would give us the real answer in book six...I think book 7 will spell it out for us.

enlil65
February 22nd, 2006, 7:20 am
Just to insert something out of the blue into this topic, which I don't think has been explicitly pointed out yet (I searched and didn't find it):

Snape has brought Harry good luck.

In particular, it was Harry's use of Snape's notes in the Half Blood Prince's potions book that directly resulted in his winning Felix Felicis, and that in turn was directly responsible for Harry being able to retrieve Slughorn's true memory regarding the Horcruxes.

Granted, this is an incidental observation, but I also happen to think it is significant.
As a hint, it at least leans Snape mildly toward the good side. :)

Blood_River
February 22nd, 2006, 4:14 pm
I mean, if you look at Jo's comments pre-OotP or pre-HBP, she never gives a major plot point away! She designed Snape to seem evil...but then in the first five books, she always proved us wrong. Then in book six, wham! He's evil? Hmmm...I don't think she would give us the real answer in book six...I think book 7 will spell it out for us.
To be fair, she might've just been surprising us in a different way. I mean by the time HBP set up the Snape-is-evil bit, I didn't even believe it. I was expecting, waiting for a twist, having been wrong about Snape before. So maybe this time she was surprising us by not pulling a twist out -- cuz, let's face it, that's what we were all expecting, right? ;)

Of course, I always love the PS/SS twist... "But Snape always seemed like he hated me!" "Huh? Oh, he totally does..."
:rotfl: Classic JKR -- much better than just having Snape trying to save Harry.

So Snape is going to be evil, but on Harry's side because he hates Voldemort more. Or something like that.

hpfan101
February 22nd, 2006, 8:18 pm
To be fair, she might've just been surprising us in a different way. I mean by the time HBP set up the Snape-is-evil bit, I didn't even believe it. I was expecting, waiting for a twist, having been wrong about Snape before. So maybe this time she was surprising us by not pulling a twist out -- cuz, let's face it, that's what we were all expecting, right? ;)

Of course, I always love the PS/SS twist... "But Snape always seemed like he hated me!" "Huh? Oh, he totally does..."
:rotfl: Classic JKR -- much better than just having Snape trying to save Harry.

So Snape is going to be evil, but on Harry's side because he hates Voldemort more. Or something like that.
I've heard this argument...but then I think if this is true, it kind of changes what I expect from book 7 (to be fair, I am NOT the author, so it really doesn't matter). I guess it's just my opinion that if Snape is truly evil, firstly, Jo lied to us for five books (unless we saw him switch sides in Spinner's End), plus now Harry will have to hunt Voldemort and Snape (because we know Harry won't let this thing go with Snape).

But you are right, Snape could be evil and still help Harry in the end. There are so many possibilities. I just am not sure what I think in that regard, since I think Snape is good :)

SiriusSpells
February 26th, 2006, 11:06 pm
In Harry 'Potter and the Half-Blood Prince Harry heard Snape say to Draco "I see Aunt Bella has been teaching you Occlumency." Could this prove something about either Snape or Draco? Was Draco hiding his true thoughts from Dumbledore?

Blood_River
February 27th, 2006, 6:00 pm
Could this prove something about either Snape or Draco? Was Draco hiding his true thoughts from Dumbledore?
:huh: How so? And when was Dumbledore legilimensing Draco?

I guess it's just my opinion that if Snape is truly evil, firstly, Jo lied to us for five books (unless we saw him switch sides in Spinner's End), plus now Harry will have to hunt Voldemort and Snape (because we know Harry won't let this thing go with Snape).
No more than she lied to us in the first book with Snape seeming evil or in the fourth with Moody really being Crouch Jr. Did she lie to us when it turned out to be Ginny controlling the basilisk or Voldemort himself to be the heir of Slytherin all along?

Also, we're narrowing ourselves to only two possibilities. Snape is a pretty complicated character -- I'm sure there's more than we're thinking of but it may not be apparant to us until the seventh book comes out and we've finished reading it.

In any case, I really like how she does things, so I'm holding out hope that it'll be good.

RoonibWazley
March 3rd, 2006, 5:33 am
Here's one thing that just occurred to me:

JKR has often said that the movie version of POA unintentionally gave several clues to events in the future books. One known one is:

Hermione instinctively grabbing Ron's hand when Harry's making friends with Buckbeak.

And, as I was watching POA today, I came across another possible one: When WereLupin is threatening the Trio outside the Whomping Willow, Snape instinctively protects them. This says, in my mind at least, that deep down, Snape is good.

hpfan101
March 3rd, 2006, 6:58 am
Here's one thing that just occurred to me:

JKR has often said that the movie version of POA unintentionally gave several clues to events in the future books. One known one is:

Hermione instinctively grabbing Ron's hand when Harry's making friends with Buckbeak.

And, as I was watching POA today, I came across another possible one: When WereLupin is threatening the Trio outside the Whomping Willow, Snape instinctively protects them. This says, in my mind at least, that deep down, Snape is good.
I've noticed that scene with Snape also. I had to go back and re-read the book because I started to take that interpretation as canon. I think that is powerful imagery in the movie: here is a kid who just attacked him (because in the movie, it's just Harry) and three kids that Snape REALLY does not like, yet he still stands inbetween them and danger. That part of the movie really got to me.

Blood_River
March 3rd, 2006, 8:48 pm
Yeah, but I don't think it's the kind of thing that gives her shivers. There was also a line of the twins about falling off the astronomy tower (eerily foreshadowing Dumbledore's death, perhaps?) and some lines of Lupin's about Harry being more like his mother than he realizes or Lily's ability to see the good in everyone... something like that.

In any case, we don't know what exactly it was in the movie, so we really can't use it to prove Snape's good- or evilness eitherway.

Here's some things I find interesting though -- if Snape did genuinely turn good when he came to work for the order, it was probably about a year before Voldemort's fall. Things we know that happened around that time : Harry was born, Regulus died, Harry was targetted by Voldemort, Wormtail turned traitor.

Rabia
March 3rd, 2006, 9:38 pm
Hello, thanks for the interesting posts in this thread!
I think it is pretty obvious that Snape is on the right side. He is nasty as a teacher, especially for poor Neville. But apart from his being not very nice most of the time, there is in my eyes only precisely one argument for his possibly being "bad", namely, that he killed Dumbledore. Apart from that, I find he is obviously on the right side, from beginning of HBP to the end. Strange that Harry, who made friends with the HBP, cannot see that it is the same person as Snape, whom he hates.
Yeah, and so I think it would be strange if Snape, the good, simply turned against Dumbledore to kill him, and so I donīt believe that.

marcko90000
March 5th, 2006, 2:51 pm
I think it is pretty obvious that Snape is on the right side.

How do you believe it obvious?

He is nasty as a teacher, especially for poor Neville. But apart from his being not very nice most of the time, there is in my eyes only precisely one argument for his possibly being "bad", namely, that he killed Dumbledore.

Stick around - I'm sure you'll see plenty of other arguments.

Quidagis
March 5th, 2006, 3:37 pm
I think it is pretty obvious that Snape is on the right side. He is nasty as a teacher, especially for poor Neville.
Sorry, no offence, but I found this rather funny. A couple of people who believe Snape is good continue to say that Snape being bad would just be too obvious, and people who believe that are reading the books at face-value (implying they're kind of stupid or no real HP fans). I find this incredibly arrogant and I always feel very tempted to write a not so very nice reply to such posts. I really don't mean you, it's fine if you feel your opinion is the right one for obvious reasons.

But apart from his being not very nice most of the time, there is in my eyes only precisely one argument for his possibly being "bad", namely, that he killed Dumbledore.
You said that you don't believe he really did it, so that explains that. But if you do think he did it, and if you don't buy any of the elaborate plot theories about the murder being planned, Snape killing Dumbledore is a very final argument against him being good.

arithmancer
March 5th, 2006, 3:57 pm
You said that you don't believe he really did it, so that explains that. But if you do think he did it, and if you don't buy any of the elaborate plot theories about the murder being planned, Snape killing Dumbledore is a very final argument against him being good.
There aren't only two choices for the events of the Tower...evil and 'elaborate plan'.

I believe Dumbledore when he tells Draco that he thought it was not possible for the Death Eaters to get into the school. I think it is pretty clear that Snape, too, did not know the details of the plan. All issues of loyalties/evilness aside, do you really believe Snape would hang around in his office waiting to be warned by Flitwick if he knew, when his life was riding on the outcome? This rather precludes any elaborate advance planning of the events by either of them, to my mind.

However, the choice that Snape had as far as I can tell when he came on to the scene was to die, and have Dumbledore die seconds later, or to kill him, and at least salvage Draco's soul, and remove the Death Eaters from the school. And I think that Dumbledore saw the options availabnle to them in the same way. If Dumbledore was hoping for rescue, there are a couple of things I doun't understand. First, the absence of Fawkes from the scene. If he can fetch a Sorting Hat to Harry, why not a wand to Albus? Second, if he was hoping for rescue, his very FIRST reaction to Snape's arrival ought to have been relief rather than the 'pleading' which so scared Harry. Snape had at that point done nothing but arrive at the scene and look around. That he was immediately concerned at Snape's arrival suggests to me that he considered himself beyond rescue, and did not want anyone else to get taken down with him.

Quidagis
March 5th, 2006, 4:42 pm
There aren't only two choices for the events of the Tower...evil and 'elaborate plan'.

I believe Dumbledore when he tells Draco that he thought it was not possible for the Death Eaters to get into the school. I think it is pretty clear that Snape, too, did not know the details of the plan. All issues of loyalties/evilness aside, do you really believe Snape would hang around in his office waiting to be warned by Flitwick if he knew, when his life was riding on the outcome? This rather precludes any elaborate advance planning of the events by either of them, to my mind.

However, the choice that Snape had as far as I can tell when he came on to the scene was to die, and have Dumbledore die seconds later, or to kill him, and at least salvage Draco's soul, and remove the Death Eaters from the school. And I think that Dumbledore saw the options availabnle to them in the same way. If Dumbledore was hoping for rescue, there are a couple of things I doun't understand. First, the absence of Fawkes from the scene. If he can fetch a Sorting Hat to Harry, why not a wand to Albus? Second, if he was hoping for rescue, his very FIRST reaction to Snape's arrival ought to have been relief rather than the 'pleading' which so scared Harry. Snape had at that point done nothing but arrive at the scene and look around. That he was immediately concerned at Snape's arrival suggests to me that he considered himself beyond rescue, and did not want anyone else to get taken down with him.
That doesn't answer the question why he made an Unbreakable Vow to kill Dumbledore in the first place. I haven't read an explanation for it that really made sense, so far (and I did read a lot of them).

Finding out the plan would be pointless if he at the same time committed himself to see to it that the plan would be fulfilled. Apart from the fact that it would be a really stupid thing to do. Appearing to be a loyal Death Eater doesn't make sense because it was made clear that Narcissa went against Voldemort's orders in asking for help (Snape had a ready-made excuse for refusing the third part of the vow). It doesn't even make sense if you assume that his main objective was to help Narcissa and Draco, because he limited his options with the Vow (he was bound to interfere even if it would have been more helpful if he didn't).

As for saving Draco's soul. He didn't kill Dumbledore, but he's either going to be killed by Voldemort or he's going to be asked to kill someone else very soon. He's not really in a different situation now. The only thing that would have made a difference was if he'd accepted Dumbledore's offer to join the good side and Dumbledore would have been able to protect him.

Imo, it's not possible to reconcile the Vow with some non-sinister killing on the Tower (if such a thing exists). The only way out would be if Dumbledore wasn't dead, because Snape found a way around the Vow, but I don't buy that one.

arithmancer
March 5th, 2006, 5:23 pm
That doesn't answer the question why he made an Unbreakable Vow to kill Dumbledore in the first place. I haven't read an explanation for it that really made sense, so far (and I did read a lot of them).

Couldn't agree more. I can't see what Evil Snape (either Voldemort's man, or with some evil plans of his own) would want with taking such a Vow either. Precisely because, as you point out, even if its goals are congruent with his, the Vow limits his choices about when and how to achieve them.

The best I have come up with is that he was expecting to take a less dangerous Vow, mirroring the conversation he had just had with Narcissa. To watch over Draco, protect Draco, and help Draco. When the third part became 'finish the task for Draco' it was an unpleasant surprise..."Good" Snape felt he could not balk at JUST the third clause, because it is the only part of the Vow that actually IS congruent with Voldemort's wishes. (I tend to think Voldemort wanted Dumbledore dead, and after making Draco throughly miserable for a while, was probably planning to pass the task on to Snape.) Why "Evil" Snape went along...well, I'm hoping someone will explain that, somehow, besides "because he wanted to kill Dumbledore".

And "Good" Snape's reasons for taking the Vow at all (assuming it was just to protect/help/watch Draco) would be threefold. First, to perhaps convince Bella enough for her to cease her (apparent) whispering campaign against Snape among the other Death Eaters, and second, to gain the trust of Narcissa and Draco enough to learn the details of the plan (this did not work out, apparently!), and to have an excuse to keep a close eye on Draco.
As for saving Draco's soul. He didn't kill Dumbledore, but he's either going to be killed by Voldemort or he's going to be asked to kill someone else very soon. He's not really in a different situation now. The only thing that would have made a difference was if he'd accepted Dumbledore's offer to join the good side and Dumbledore would have been able to protect him.

Draco's situation was not improved for the moment, true. But he has not yet killed or been killed, and that could have turned out worse. For the time being, I am supposing that Snape will continue to try and help out Draco (in fact, it is my view that he MUST, again regardless of his loyalties, because clause two of the Vow specifies neither time limit, nor other condition like "as he tries to carry out the Dark Lord's wishes".) It is possible that Snape has some knowledge about Dumbledore's 'witness protection program' and will be able to get Draco into it despite the circumstances, that is, without getting into personal contact with any Order member (who would all quite reasonably curse first and ask questions later...). Perhaps by somehow hinting to either Draco or Narcissa whom they should contact for help, for example. (Harry knows of Dumbledore's intentions vis a vis Draco...) Until we see Draco, Snape, and Voldemort together, (or learn of the results of this meeting), we are missing information.

harryanifan
March 5th, 2006, 5:43 pm
I'm just joining this forum right now, so apologies if I am repeating what others have said. Here are my theories (all of which support Snape being on the "good side").

1. He made an unbreakable vow to protect Draco. He repeatedly tried to find out what the plan was for two reasons. First, so that he knew what he ultimately would have to do if Draco couldn't. Second, so he could inform Dumbledore of the plan.

2. Dumbledore knew what Draco was up to (if not specifics, at least that he was up to something significantly 'no good'). He humoured Harry, but listened to him the whole time. I believe that he and Snape agreed (likely reluctantly on Snape's part) that Snape would fulfill that promise, to solidify his place in Voldemort's fold. When it came down to that final moment, Dumbledore tried to save Draco himself, and when he pleaded with Snape, it was for Draco's soul, not his own life. Snape's look of disgust wasn't because of Dumbledore's 'weakness' in his last moments, but for what he was about to do.

3. I believe that Snape and Dumbledore had an unbreakable vow of their own, made years earlier. Dumbledore listens to people's advice, criticism and opinions, yet he NEVER entertains the challenge that Snape is a Voldemort supporter. He states time and time again that he has his reasons, that Snape is NOT working for Voldemort, and he will hear no more of it. I believe that he testified at the Wizengamot on Snape's behalf knowing full well that Snape would not and could not go back to Voldemort, because he had that unbreakable vow with him. He tells nobody about this (only the witness would know ... I haven't yet worked out who that would have been, but it would have to be someone obscure that Voldemort wouldn't suspect) because Voldemort is such an accomplished Legilimens, and could read others' thoughts. So he just dismissed people when they challenged Snape.

4. Snape is "mean" to Harry, and picks on him relentlessly, but that causes Harry, in spite of himself, to learn from Snape. Recall when Snape was running away after killing Dumbledore ... he was still teaching Harry. I do not believe he was taunting him, but rather teaching him HOW to use the spells. I believe that Snape feels guilty about telling Voldemort about the prophecy, and ultimately causing Lily & James' deaths, but that doesn't mean he has to LIKE Harry. Nor does his dislike for him make Snape want Harry dead.

Other postings also support his "goodness", so I won't elaborate ... he saved Harry and his friends numerous times, etc.

Quidagis
March 5th, 2006, 6:16 pm
Couldn't agree more. I can't see what Evil Snape (either Voldemort's man, or with some evil plans of his own) would want with taking such a Vow either. Precisely because, as you point out, even if its goals are congruent with his, the Vow limits his choices about when and how to achieve them.

The best I have come up with is that he was expecting to take a less dangerous Vow, mirroring the conversation he had just had with Narcissa. To watch over Draco, protect Draco, and help Draco. When the third part became 'finish the task for Draco' it was an unpleasant surprise..."Good" Snape felt he could not balk at JUST the third clause, because it is the only part of the Vow that actually IS congruent with Voldemort's wishes. (I tend to think Voldemort wanted Dumbledore dead, and after making Draco throughly miserable for a while, was probably planning to pass the task on to Snape.) Why "Evil" Snape went along...well, I'm hoping someone will explain that, somehow, besides "because he wanted to kill Dumbledore".

Imo, the Vow proves that Snape is not in control of his own feelings and desires. It's a stupid thing to do from whatever angle you look at it. It doesn't matter whether you assume Snape is on Dumbledore's side, on Voldemort's side or on his own. I think Bella's comments immediately before he agreed to take the Vow hit home very hard, so that he became reckless and wanted nothing more than to prove her wrong. She basically accused him of being a coward who always wiggles out of serious action. His reaction to Harry calling him a coward confirms that. It's something he's got real issues with.

I see Snape as a weak person, who hasn't got the guts to really prove his loyalty to anyone when it comes to choosing between the right and the easy thing to do. He's very good at playing the double-agent, and he's very proud of that role and convinced he earned some respect for it, but deep down, he really is a coward. His interaction with Bellatrix is very telling. He's pleased as punch that she's sunk in the Dark Lord's favour, and he doesn't miss a chance to drive it home to her, or to tell her that he's been much more valuable to Voldemort (there are a couple of mirror images in OotP where he gloats about being more valuable to the Order than Sirius or Harry). He makes himself look like the winner, but he can't be too sure of himself, because he also uses the opportunity to explain in detail why all the suspicions about him really are unfounded. He's still very much on the defensive.

I think the real reason he bound himself to do it was some desire to get one over all the people who didn't think him capable of doing it: Voldemort for assigning the task to a student rather than him, Bella and other Death Eaters like her for despising him for his safe and comfy role, Dumbledore for trusting him (in the sense that not seeing him as a danger was a lack of respect for his capabilities of being dangerous), the Order for taking his spying for granted while not paying him any respect for it....

Basically, I think he snapped, and he didn't find a way out of it afterwards.

harryanifan
March 5th, 2006, 7:00 pm
I don't know, Quidagas ... I think that Snape felt he had no other choice. Bellatrix was going to persist and continue to question and challenge Snape at every opportunity. The only way to "shut her up" so to speak was to do something drastic. She didn't think he'd do it, but he called her bluff. Was it stupid? Perhaps, but effective. It was seemingly the only way he could solidify his place with Voldemort, and continue to serve the greater good of the Order. Anything else (e.g. leaving the 'ticking bomb' that was the emotional Bellatrix) was risking everything the Order had worked for. This way, nobody would question his commitment to Voldemort. The only problem in the end was that he had to follow through in the end, which he did (albeit with displeasure).

Quidagis
March 5th, 2006, 7:16 pm
I don't know, Quidagas ... I think that Snape felt he had no other choice. Bellatrix was going to persist and continue to question and challenge Snape at every opportunity. The only way to "shut her up" so to speak was to do something drastic. She didn't think he'd do it, but he called her bluff. Was it stupid? Perhaps, but effective. It was seemingly the only way he could solidify his place with Voldemort, and continue to serve the greater good of the Order. Anything else (e.g. leaving the 'ticking bomb' that was the emotional Bellatrix) was risking everything the Order had worked for. This way, nobody would question his commitment to Voldemort. The only problem in the end was that he had to follow through in the end, which he did (albeit with displeasure).
I agree that Bellatrix was a problem. But he had ample opportunity to shut her up, if he'd taken it. He had been taunting her with being cleverer and more useful because he was cleverer all the time in Spinner's End. It wouldn't have been a problem for him to continue in that vein.

The vow wasn't in Voldemort's best interests. Snape had to blow his cover with the Order despite the fact that there were a couple of other Death Eaters around to do the job. I don't think that Voldemort won't realize this.

arithmancer
March 5th, 2006, 9:59 pm
Imo, the Vow proves that Snape is not in control of his own feelings and desires. It's a stupid thing to do from whatever angle you look at it. It doesn't matter whether you assume Snape is on Dumbledore's side, on Voldemort's side or on his own. I think Bella's comments immediately before he agreed to take the Vow hit home very hard, so that he became reckless and wanted nothing more than to prove her wrong. She basically accused him of being a coward who always wiggles out of serious action. His reaction to Harry calling him a coward confirms that. It's something he's got real issues with.
:tu: I agree with you there. He does have issues with that.

He's pleased as punch that she's sunk in the Dark Lord's favour, and he doesn't miss a chance to drive it home to her, or to tell her that he's been much more valuable to Voldemort (there are a couple of mirror images in OotP where he gloats about being more valuable to the Order than Sirius or Harry).
Yes, on both sides, actually. Sirius makes a big point about not trusting Snape. There is a certain family resemblance between Sirius and Bella (in addition to the obvious physical one we are told of). Only he wasn't fanatically devoted to a psychopath, he was devoted to his friends and heedless of his own danger for that reason.

He makes himself look like the winner, but he can't be too sure of himself, because he also uses the opportunity to explain in detail why all the suspicions about him really are unfounded. He's still very much on the defensive.

Yes, hence the possibility he thinks he needs to prove something...
Oh, that's right...I did not bring up Wormtail in my original post. Another possible clue that all is not peachy between Voldemort and Snape. He seems to be trying to spy on Snape.

I think the real reason he bound himself to do it was some desire to get one over all the people who didn't think him capable of doing it: Voldemort for assigning the task to a student rather than him, Bella and other Death Eaters like her for despising him for his safe and comfy role, Dumbledore for trusting him (in the sense that not seeing him as a danger was a lack of respect for his capabilities of being dangerous), the Order for taking his spying for granted while not paying him any respect for it....

I haven't seen this one before. It's good! I still like mine, of course. :) But this makes sense psychologically to some extent. I also like how it works with my other pet theory, that the DADA curse influenced his decision to agree to the Vow. Because a tendency to be provoked by the sorts of remarks Bella made IS a weakness of Snape's, in my opinion.

I do believe, though, that (as Snape said) Voldemort intended Snape to do it in the end. And it seems to me that Snape valued Dumbledore's trust, as opposed to being resentful of it as an underestimation of his capabilities.

Blood_River
March 5th, 2006, 11:22 pm
:clap: :tu:, Quidagis, I very much like your assessment on Snape & the UV, and also agree, as zgirnius pointed out, that this would tie in with the DADA curse.

As for Dumbledore's unshakeable trust, IMO, it doesn't require anything like an Unbreakable Vow (not only because I don't believe Dumbledore would ever do something like that). People have pointed out that Dumbledore "wouldn't hear a word against him" -- but they forget that he was the exact same way with Lupin in PoA when Snape suggested that Lupin was helping Sirius somehow -- and he didn't have anything more but his (correct) assessment of Lupin's character to back him up. I think it's just his nature to trust wholly or not at all, so to speak.

I also think there's an arrogance to him, however modestly he speaks, when it comes down to it. He considers his judgement superior to those of other peoples (and he's often right) -- it seems almost like he doesn't really respect other people opinions/ideas/disagreements, however much he may bear them out. Obviously, he was willing to aid the escape of a convicted murderer in PoA based on his assessment of Sirius, Harry, Hermione, Snape, etc... regardless of the Ministry... and I kind of got the impression in HBP that, despite acting like he wanted Harry's opinions on the matters involving Voldemort, what he really wanted to do was lead Harry to the conclusions he himself had reached.

He just in general doesn't brook with disagreement... not really. So I can't say that his unshakeable trust proves anything except that he, a very wise man who can sometimes make mistakes, trusted Snape. But as he didn't have unshakeable reasons for trusting Hagrid or Lupin, all we know is that he's generally very good at judging character.

Edited to Add:One more thing -- Doesn't the DADA curse usually have a negative effect? I mean normally the curse causes them to leave for a bad reason, getting soul-sucked or locked in a trunk, vaporized, memory-wiped, or exposed as a werewolf or something... So, why did Snape get off with a mere "I killed my Master's Greatest Enemy and triumphantly have abandoned my dangerous double agent role to be his most honored servant!" I mean, I realize we don't know the full history of the curse so it's possible some have left for perfectly un-bad reasons before, but it's a little suspicious, no?

marcko90000
March 6th, 2006, 5:30 am
Couldn't agree more. I can't see what Evil Snape (either Voldemort's man, or with some evil plans of his own) would want with taking such a Vow either. Precisely because, as you point out, even if its goals are congruent with his, the Vow limits his choices about when and how to achieve them.

Taking the Vow or not makes no difference to Snape. At this point he has already decided that he would be the one to kill Dumbledore. As you say, he has to do it in a much shorter time frame; by the look of things, by the end of the school year.

Saracene
March 6th, 2006, 6:27 am
So I can't say that his unshakeable trust proves anything except that he, a very wise man who can sometimes make mistakes, trusted Snape. But as he didn't have unshakeable reasons for trusting Hagrid or Lupin, all we know is that he's generally very good at judging character.

I'd say though that Dumbledore's trusting Hagrid or Lupin is a whole different kettle of fish compared to him trusting Snape. We know that Hagrid and Lupin are good guys and good people and that the prejudices others might have against them because of who they are are not fair. Dumbledore believed that Hagrid was innocent and had nothing to do with Myrtle's death; he also believed that Lupin, despite being a werewolf, was a good person.

But Snape really does have a very sinister past; he was a Death Eater, he is not innocent at all. He also, on the surface, doesn't exactly give an impression of a person who feels remorseful about his past. Unlike Lupin or Hagrdi, Snape truly received a second chance from Dumbledore - the whole idea about getting a second chance is that you're supposed to have done something really bad in your life beforehand.

blackgem
March 6th, 2006, 9:49 am
I personally think that snape is not evil. It is just simply too obvious for him to be evil. It is like in the beginning when Harry convinced himself adn his friends that it was Snape who was after the stone because all the signs pointed to him. He seemed evil, he had the capacity, there was evidence he was on the third floor, and so forth. But then, we get to the end and it turns out it was not him but Quirrell who wanted the stone for Voldemort. The perpetrator was the person we least expect. This same theme is recurring throughout the book. In the Chamber of Secrets we suspected Draco and it turned out to be Voldemort. In PoA we all thought Sirius was evil and voila he is not evil but was actually framed. Throughout the HP series Jo has had a knack for luring us in the wrong direction. It is not like Jo to be so blatantly obvious. It's is just too easy for Snape to be the bad guy. I would like to give Jo more credit that that, i think while he may not like Harry because of his previous experience with his family he is still a good guy. It is like Sirius said the world is not just split up into good guys and death eaters. There are good guys out there that hold grudges, are not the nicest people, and look out for their number one, themselves.But the fact remains that they are not evil and are not on Voldy's side.

Awiana
March 6th, 2006, 10:48 am
3. I believe that Snape and Dumbledore had an unbreakable vow of their own, made years earlier. Dumbledore listens to people's advice, criticism and opinions, yet he NEVER entertains the challenge that Snape is a Voldemort supporter. He states time and time again that he has his reasons, that Snape is NOT working for Voldemort, and he will hear no more of it. I believe that he testified at the Wizengamot on Snape's behalf knowing full well that Snape would not and could not go back to Voldemort, because he had that unbreakable vow with him. He tells nobody about this (only the witness would know ... I haven't yet worked out who that would have been, but it would have to be someone obscure that Voldemort wouldn't suspect) because Voldemort is such an accomplished Legilimens, and could read others' thoughts. So he just dismissed people when they challenged Snape.
I also believe that Snape is on the good side, and I agree with almost all of your points, but I donít really agree about Snape and Dumbledore having an Unbreakable Vow. In my opinion that seems out of character for Dumbledore, I just donít think that he would ask somebody to promise to do something or die. I do think that Snape could have been prepared to make an Unbreakable Vow to prove that he genuinely wants to change sides, but I canít see Dumbledore accepting the Vow. And Dumbledore trusting Snape without an Unbreakable Vow probably made a huge impact on Snape, I donít think heís used to people trusting him implicitly.

As for Dumbledore's unshakeable trust, IMO, it doesn't require anything like an Unbreakable Vow (not only because I don't believe Dumbledore would ever do something like that). People have pointed out that Dumbledore "wouldn't hear a word against him" -- but they forget that he was the exact same way with Lupin in PoA when Snape suggested that Lupin was helping Sirius somehow -- and he didn't have anything more but his (correct) assessment of Lupin's character to back him up. I think it's just his nature to trust wholly or not at all, so to speak.
Thatís a good point, but I tend to agree with Saracene: trusting Hagrid or Lupin is somewhat different from trusting Snape. Dumbledore trusted all of them completely, but I donít think he exactly gave Hagrid or Lupin a second chance, because they havenít really done anything evil so that theyíd actually need a second chance. Many people wouldn't trust Lupin or Hagrid because of prejudice against werewolves or half-giants, but they haven't really done anything bad. But Snape has done something horrible, he was a Death Eater, and that's what makes Dumbledore's trust in him slightly different from his trust in Lupin and Hagrid, in my opinion.

Welcome to the new posters, by the way! :welcome:

hwyla
March 6th, 2006, 11:39 am
...Many people wouldn't trust Lupin or Hagrid because of prejudice against werewolves or half-giants, but they haven't really done anything bad. But Snape has done something horrible, he was a Death Eater, and that's what makes Dumbledore's trust in him slightly different from his trust in Lupin and Hagrid, in my opinion.For Remus I agree that he wasn't suspected of being 'bad' by anyone (except Snape).

However, in truth IF Sirius HAD really been out to kill Harry then Remus WOULD have basically allowed Sirius access to him, by not revealing that Sirius could run around as a dog.

It's hard to remember after reading the books that Remus never told Albus what he knew even after he knew Sirius had somehow entrered the castle (slashed portrait of the Fat Lady) AND still thought Sirius was the traitor who betrayed the Potters.

So, IF Sirius had really turned out to be out to kill Harry then Albus would have been wrong to trust Remus - not because Remus was 'bad', but because Remus was afraid to tell Albus about the animagi and that they let Remus run free as a werewolf.

And as for Hagrid, it isn't necessarily about his being a half-giant, but really instead about believing that Hagrid was NOT the one who was responsible for Myrtle's death. This MAY be as simple as his having legilimensed Hagrid and seeing the memory of Tom telling Hagrid he was setting him up.

Problem with that is that so far we really haven't seen anything that says the legilimens can actually HEAR what is said in the memory they watch. Everything that was described by Harry when he saw into Snape's memories could be known from just visuals.

For instance, we know Snape's parents argued, but Harry doesn't seem to know what was the subject of the arguement.

So, Albus was trusting in Hagrid despite it seeming that Hagrid had caused Myrtle's death.

As far as Snape is concerned - yes he was a Death Eater and that's difficult to overlook. However, canon-wise we still don't know what Snape ever did personally. Canon-wise we have Bella saying that Snape avoided the dangerous stuff. It would seem that Snape was allowed to skip the raids and killing or torturing, since Voldy apparently wanted to keep Snape 'clean' so he might have a chance to get a Hogwarts job.

So, we don't actually know that Snape ever did anything worse that tell Voldy the half-prophecy. I admit that he probably gave Voldy other info that may have led to other deaths (pre-Albus' acceptance). But so far we don't have canon for it.

Additionally, we have JKRs interview answer that Snape could see thestrals because as a Death Eater he had SEEN things (not done them)

Awiana
March 6th, 2006, 12:54 pm
Hwyla- youíre right, it isnít only about Hagrid being a half-giant. But I still think that thereís a small difference between Dumbledore trusting Hagrid and trusting Snape. Dumbledore didnít believe that Hagrid had done what he was accused of, whereas with Snape he knew that he was a Death Eater and his actions had endangered people, and still he decided to trust him and give him a second chance. I guess itís not all that different, but I do feel that thereís a small difference.

hwyla
March 6th, 2006, 1:16 pm
Awiana - I agree there IS a difference - I was only pointing out that it isn't as big a difference as seemed to be implied before. That there was more reason for Albus to possibly distrust Remus or Hagid other than because they are a werewolf or half-giant. That it took a greater leap of faith than just believing in someone who had never been accused of anything excepy what they are. I did not mean to imply that they were as bad as Snape. Only that Remus was NOT totally innocent and that Hagrid was believed by others to have been responsible for Myrtle's death. And by the same token that when Albus accepted Snape, he MAY not have yet done anything except pass information to Voldy. Admittedly this info put the Potters in danger, but as far as canon goes so far we don't have anything else yet that tells us Snape did much more wrong than witnessing killings. That in itself is quite wrong, but we also don't know if that happened before or after Snape had gone to Albus.

Blood_River
March 6th, 2006, 6:51 pm
I agree that Dumbledore trusting Snape (who has a history) is different from his trusting Remus/Hagrid, but I was just disagreeing with the idea that Dumbledore must have some really unshakeable, concrete fact he's not telling us to justify his "ironclad"-seeming trust in Snape.

He trusted that Hagrid wasn't a murder on no more than his knowledge of Hagrid's character, and perhaps his suspicions of Tom Riddle. If he'd had something concrete (like a memory of someone else admitting it), he would have taken it to the ministry to clear Hagrid's name.

His trust in Lupin and later trust in Sirius were grounded, essentially, in little more than his judgement of their character.

So despite Snape's history, it's very possible that he trusts in Snape's remorse in the same way he trusted in Hagrid's innocence -- depending primarily of his opinion of Snape's personality and little more.

For Remus I agree that he wasn't suspected of being 'bad' by anyone (except Snape).
And Sirius. And the Ministry. And apparently some of the staff as they thought Dumbledore was crazy and Dumbledore had to work very hard to convince them that Lupin was trustworthy.

Dudley13
March 7th, 2006, 2:24 am
He wouldn't kill dumboldure for no reason.

hwyla
March 7th, 2006, 6:24 am
...And Sirius. And the Ministry. And apparently some of the staff as they thought Dumbledore was crazy [to trust Remus in PoA] and Dumbledore had to work very hard to convince them that Lupin was trustworthy.I believe I missed this. I wasn't really aware that the staff in general or the Ministry knew Remus was a werewolf before Snape let the secret out. Would you mind telling me where this can be found please? And I think Sirius trusted Remus again as soon as he knew the traitor was really Peter (way back at All Saints Day - Nov 1 - '81)

staniw
March 7th, 2006, 3:42 pm
I believe I missed this. I wasn't really aware that the staff in general or the Ministry knew Remus was a werewolf before Snape let the secret out. Would you mind telling me where this can be found please? And I think Sirius trusted Remus again as soon as he knew the traitor was really Peter (way back at All Saints Day - Nov 1 - '81)
But they allready know, said Lupin, at least the staff doCat, Rat and Dog, POA.
Lupin goes on to say that Dumbledore had a hard time to convince some of the staff that Lupin could be trustworthy. So the staff knew Lupin was a werewolf.
We don't know about the ministry but we do know that Umbridge made anti werewolf legislation two years before the beginning of OOTP, which diminished Lupin's chance of getting a job. (Snape's outing is at that moment some 1 and a halve year previously). Apparently the ministry knows who is a werewolf.

HpPygmyPuff
March 7th, 2006, 5:41 pm
Snape is evil!!!!! I hate him so much, like I always have!!!

Blood_River
March 7th, 2006, 6:58 pm
About Lupin -- yes, Sirius probably trusted him as soon as he realized what he'd done, that Peter was a traitor, but the fact was that he still, at some point, distrusted him, whether for himself or by sheer process of elimination.

People have distrusted Lupin's goodness before, and Hagrid's innocence, and is that so hugely different from distrusting Snape's remorse? Sure, there's a history, but still... In any case, my point was only ever that the mere fact that Dumbledore is so firm on his trust in Snape doesn't prove that he had a really great top-secret reason for trust Snape since Dumbledore is always quite firm about his trust in other people when he very often is basing his decision on little objective evidence, but primarily his assessment of their character.

Veering slightly from the topic, does anyone have any thoughts about James/Snape dynamics. I've always found their enemyship a bit flat, you know, like there's something there not being explained fully. And Snape's Worst Memory still strikes me a very suspcious. If they were really such great enemies, why was Snape sitting near them? Wouldn't someone used to getting picked on (as we're led to believe) be more aware of the people who pick on them?

And it isn't it odd, also, that their fighting escalated to its worst not on a day when Snape had really, truly done a bunch to p**** them off, but on a day when he seemed oblivious to them and entirely unprovoked.

Also, tell me if I'm crazy, but does their seem to be a tone of "rejectedness" in Snape's bitter hatred? Like maybe he initially liked James? Maybe he immaturely and stupidly tried to impress him with hexes/jinxes and got an entirely different reaction than he expected.

Also, where do you think SWM fits into the timeline in regards to the werewolf prank? I know Snape was 16 by SWM (his birthday is in January), but what about Sirius & James? It seems odd that they would lay into him this much after the prank -- knowing that he was protecting Lupin's secret (even if on Dumbledore's orders).

I wonder if this was their first fight after a temporary truce (the truce would probably only be between James & Snape, since Lupin and Sirius didn't mention it). I can't really account for it except some crazy theory involving the Shrieking Shack incident, and worrying that Snape might turn into a werewolf (assuming they lied a little about how close the call came to spare Lupin's feelings, etc...) and holding a truce until the next full moon when they found out...

It would explain, at least, why Snape's guard was down, and also, if he spent a month on tenderhooks waiting to find out if he would transform, it would explain why he's so very, very bitter about the prank -- cuz really, seeing a werewolf down a tunnel just doesn't quite sound like enough to be ****** about (or like his life was in enough danger to James to have been considered as saving Snape's life at great risk to his own).

Dumbledoresaide
March 7th, 2006, 7:19 pm
One thing I just thought of was that in the first book he could have easily let Voldemort get the stone and become immortal. If what he said was true then why didnt he allow him to get the stone and have voldemort protect him. I have a feeling Snape just got himself deeper or he is(was) a double agent. He must have liked all the attention of being accused of still being a deatheater and/or being a traitor to Voldemort.

Awiana
March 7th, 2006, 7:28 pm
It would explain, at least, why Snape's guard was down, and also, if he spent a month on tenderhooks waiting to find out if he would transform, it would explain why he's so very, very bitter about the prank -- cuz really, seeing a werewolf down a tunnel just doesn't quite sound like enough to be ****** about
Well, I donít think heís bitter about seeing a werewolf down a tunnel, heís bitter because Sirius played a ďhilariousĒ prank on him that would have killed him/transformed him into a werewolf if his worst enemy hadnít come to save him. It probably infuriates him that he was so gullible that he actually went down the tunnel, and I think it makes him extremely bitter that his life means so little that a popular school boy sees fit to try to kill him. And we donít know what kind of a punishment Sirius got for this, but at least he wasnít expelled, so maybe Snape feels that he had been treated unfairly because Sirius wasnít punished appropriately.

Also, tell me if I'm crazy, but does their seem to be a tone of "rejectedness" in Snape's bitter hatred? Like maybe he initially liked James? Maybe he immaturely and stupidly tried to impress him with hexes/jinxes and got an entirely different reaction than he expected.
Thatís not crazy. Something similar happens with Harry and Draco, when Draco at first offers to be Harryís friend and Harry rejects him.

hwyla
March 7th, 2006, 8:32 pm
....Also, where do you think SWM fits into the timeline in regards to the werewolf prank? I know Snape was 16 by SWM (his birthday is in January), but what about Sirius & James? It seems odd that they would lay into him this much after the prank -- knowing that he was protecting Lupin's secret (even if on Dumbledore's orders).Unfortunately we don't have birthdates for either James or Sirius.

However, even if we did I doubt Snape would know when their birthdays were - so I tend to think that referring to Sirius being 16 when the Werewolf Incident happened means 6th year, when ALL students would be 16.

We can tell from the nicknames that they had managed to become animagi by the time of the DADA OWL. But I think it would have required a few 'outings' with Remus before Sirius really so discounted the danger. I'm really of the opinion that Sirius wanted to scare Snape and just didn't think about what might happen.

Mostly because I believe the 'Sectumsempra in the Bathroom' is our mirror to the 'Werewolf Incident'. That Harry didn't THINK when he cast the spell implies 'to me' that Sirius didn't think about what might happen either. But also because I doubt Sirius would have intentionally used Remus like that if he thought about what would happen to Remus afterwards.

And really, it is SO in character for Sirius to do it without even thinking it through. My guess is that the 'Werewolf Incident' takes place after one of those 'close calls' Remus mentioned had already taken place. And that because Remus had not actually attacked whomever they saw (probably because the person was far enough away and he had the animagi with him at the time), Sirius downplayed the danger.

Besides, I see the comment Sirius made about Snape following them around as an escalation of hostilities. I haven't decided exactly why Snape began following them, but I have several ideas:

1) hoping to get them caught (as Sirius seems to think)
a) either because he was wanting revenge or
b) he thought getting them caught would somehow force them to leave him alone

2) checking their location so he could avoid them - but with the ante upped IF they ever used the Map to FIND him - I see hints of this in:
a) Snape recognized the blank parchment Harry had wasn't just parchment
b) Snape called the parchment 'DARK' - which he might believe if he thought the Marauders used it just to find him when he was hiding from them
c) Echoes Harry using the Map to try to find Draco

3) or last possibility - the Marauders only THOUGHT Snape was following because he just happened to be nearby on the Map
a) the Map had to come after they became animagi because of the nicknames
b) Snape would be one of the names they would take notice of on the Map often - whether he was really following them or not.

For one thing, Snape probably had to be at least occasionally going someplace where he could brew potions. His potions book is evidence of that. That means possibly the potions room outside of classtime or some other dungeon room where he had set up a lab. The dungeons are near the kitchen (probably the Marauders first uses of the map until the felt sure it worked well) and seeing Snape's name in a dungeon hallway on evenings when they went to the kitchens might have been the beginning of the idea that Snape was out to get them in trouble, when he really was just going to the potion lab.

So - I think the order would be:
1) becoming animagi - 5th year
2) SWM - 5th year
3) inventing the map and testing - 5th year after animagi & 6th year
4) seeing Snape on the map too often - 5th to 6th year
5) werewolf incident - late in 6th year
6) leading us to Snape 'hexing' James (and probably the others, but James is the one mentioned) which James returned - 6th year after Werewolf & 7th year

I'm not sure if Snape hexed first or not - could also be a Marauder reaction to Snape beginning to fight back effectively

Saracene
March 8th, 2006, 10:09 am
People have distrusted Lupin's goodness before, and Hagrid's innocence, and is that so hugely different from distrusting Snape's remorse? Sure, there's a history, but still... In any case, my point was only ever that the mere fact that Dumbledore is so firm on his trust in Snape doesn't prove that he had a really great top-secret reason for trust Snape since Dumbledore is always quite firm about his trust in other people when he very often is basing his decision on little objective evidence, but primarily his assessment of their character.

I still think there's a difference though in that it's not exactly clear, on the surface at least, why Dumbledore formed the sort of opinion he did about Snape. With Hagrid, for instance, we've seen enough of his character to see why Dumbledore trusts him with his life. But Snape, on the other hand, is an enigma and is a very shut-off, opaque character (unless it concerns his negative emotions, which he has no problems expressing). And the person's history and past actions also count a lot when forming an assessment of their character.

marcko90000
March 8th, 2006, 3:25 pm
One thing I just thought of was that in the first book he could have easily let Voldemort get the stone and become immortal. If what he said was true then why didnt he allow him to get the stone and have voldemort protect him.

He explained that in Spinner's End.

arithmancer
March 8th, 2006, 4:52 pm
I still think there's a difference though in that it's not exactly clear, on the surface at least, why Dumbledore formed the sort of opinion he did about Snape. With Hagrid, for instance, we've seen enough of his character to see why Dumbledore trusts him with his life. But Snape, on the other hand, is an enigma and is a very shut-off, opaque character (unless it concerns his negative emotions, which he has no problems expressing). And the person's history and past actions also count a lot when forming an assessment of their character.

The problem for us is that Harry is a friend of Hagrid's. So they spend time together on page, as friends, in which we get to see Hagrid's many fine qualities. We learn about his family. We grow to understand and tolerate his sometimes dangerous obsession with Magical Creatures. So we as readers can easily see why Dumbledore, who has known Hagrid from an 11 year-old-boy, would trust him with his life (as he says).

Snape is another person Dumbledore has known from the same age 11, with a short break of 2-3 years between Snape's graduation and his 'return' to the good side. Though he's younger. Dumbledore may know more about Snape's family than we do. He has doubtless seen another side of Snape (we basically only see him in class...) He knows what Snape was like in school (we can only speculate, and different people speculate VERY differently). And he knows far more details of Snape's spying activities than we do (and again, we can specualte, with VERY different results depending on who's speculating...) So we really can;t judge how reasonable Dumbledore's trust of Snape is or is not.

Blood_River
March 8th, 2006, 8:34 pm
Great points, again, hwyla. :agree:

I love your comparison of the SS/Werewolf incidents -- although I'd like to point out that Harry was defending himself from something horrible at the time.

I agree Sirius probably discounted the danger because of his many moonlit outings with Moony and the aforementioned close calls.

2) checking their location so he could avoid them - but with the ante upped IF they ever used the Map to FIND him - I see hints of this in:
a) Snape recognized the blank parchment Harry had wasn't just parchment
b) Snape called the parchment 'DARK' - which he might believe if he thought the Marauders used it just to find him when he was hiding from them
I doubt Snape recognized the parchment as belonging to the Marauders -- he just thought it was suspicious because it was very old, because it was Harry's, and because he already suspected Harry of being in Hogsmeade and why would a boy illegally visiting Hogsmeade carry around a very old spare bit of parchment?

He connected it to the Marauders when it revealed their nicknames, and even then, he wasn't willing to admit that he knew them. He probably called it dark because he wanted an excuse to confront Lupin with it in person -- maybe see his reaction, challenge him a bit. If he really suspected anything dark about it, he wouldn't've bothered calling Lupin in since he knows more about the the Dark Arts than him anyway.

3) or last possibility - the Marauders only THOUGHT Snape was following because he just happened to be nearby on the Map...
b) Snape would be one of the names they would take notice of on the Map often - whether he was really following them or not.
... The dungeons are near the kitchen (probably the Marauders first uses of the map until the felt sure it worked well) and seeing Snape's name in a dungeon hallway on evenings when they went to the kitchens might have been the beginning of the idea that Snape was out to get them in trouble, when he really was just going to the potion lab.
Interesting idea. I like it -- I think it's very possible that Snape might not have been following them at all, but doing something entirely else -- his own illegal/unallowed activities, for example -- and I can see it as very Marauder-like that it simply didn't occur to them he had his own things going on completely regardless of them. I mean, he was a budding death eater, too, so it's unlikely that he was always on the straight and narrow.

1) becoming animagi - 5th year
2) SWM - 5th year
3) inventing the map and testing - 5th year after animagi & 6th year
4) seeing Snape on the map too often - 5th to 6th year
5) werewolf incident - late in 6th year
6) leading us to Snape 'hexing' James (and probably the others, but James is the one mentioned) which James returned - 6th year after Werewolf & 7th year
Really? My guess would be:

1. Becoming animagi -- 3rd year (per Lupin in PoA)
2. Making the Marauder's Map -- late 4th, or sometime in 5th
3.SWM -- end of 5th year
4.Suspecting Snape of following them -- maybe 5th year (triggering the nastiness of SWM)
More likely after it (6th year), since they didn't remark on his sitting strangely near them in the bushes. Unless they were so convinced by that time he was following them, it wasn't even surprising anymore.
5. Werewolf prank, early/mid - 6th year.

~*~
One thing I just thought of was that in the first book he could have easily let Voldemort get the stone and become immortal.
Snape explained to Bellatrix that he stopped Quirrell from getting the stone because he did not know it was for Voldemort. Voldemort never revealed himself to Snape, who considered Quirrell greedy and unworthy and did everything in his power to stop him.

I personally find this a little suspicious since 11-year-old Harry was able to work out that someone was trying to steal the stone for Quirrell, and Harry was much less experienced with the wizarding world, the parties involved, or any of the circumstances. But it's not impossible. (Although why didn't Death Eater!Snape try to steal it for himself? He wasn't afraid of supsiciously going into it to try and stop Quirrell from getting it.

hwyla
March 8th, 2006, 9:24 pm
1. Becoming animagi -- 3rd year (per Lupin in PoA)
Do you have the quote by any chance? Don't have the book available as I've begun packing for a move. Lexicon has it as they found out Remus was a werewolf in 2nd year and then worked to become animagi, succeeding in their 5th year.

September, 1975 Begins his fifth year at Hogwarts.
1975-1976 school year (date unknown) Potter and Black master the complex spells to become Animagi and assist Pettigrew to do the same. They accompany Lupin when he transforms. Under their influence he becomes less dangerous, his mind less wolfish.* http://www.hp-lexicon.org/wizards/lupin.html

The Lexicon also lists the Map as being invented in 6th year, but I don't remember Remus actually giving a year for that, so I feel unsure of the exact date for it. I place it as 6th because I think it would have taken quite a bit of time and effort. I think they were too occupied with becoming animagi before they could turn to the Map

m_wizard
March 8th, 2006, 9:29 pm
I think he will in the end.

Blood_River
March 8th, 2006, 9:43 pm
You're right; I was wrong. I got confused because Lupin says it took them the better part of three years to do it, but that in their fifth year they finally managed it. Sorry. :blush:

Rabia
March 8th, 2006, 9:59 pm
Hello ! my first post in this thread.


Snape is another person Dumbledore has known from the same age 11, with a short break of 2-3 years between Snape's graduation and his 'return' to the good side. Though he's younger. Dumbledore may know more about Snape's family than we do. He has doubtless seen another side of Snape (we basically only see him in class...) He knows what Snape was like in school (we can only speculate, and different people speculate VERY differently). And he knows far more details of Snape's spying activities than we do (and again, we can specualte, with VERY different results depending on who's speculating...) So we really canīt judge how reasonable Dumbledore's trust of Snape is or is not.

Yes. We always see mostly how Snape reacts to Harry, and filtered through how Harry, who doesnīt like him, perceives this. We only see him in class or acting as a teacher in front of students, and always through our "Harry-filter". So we donīt know how Snape is in other contexts. Probably Snape is quite different in other situations, but we never get to see it.

Dumbledore must know Snape much better, and in a much wider range of situations, than weīll ever see him in. So, yes, maybe Dumbledore simply was able to get a good picture of Snapeīs character which is sufficient to trust him. We decidedly lack important information about Snape, and I hope weīll get some more.
I was really surprised how Snape acted in Spinnerīs End. For me, he was like a different person in that scene. And this scene was without the Harry-filter, and Snape was not a teacher in that situation, but in a different context.

hwyla
March 8th, 2006, 10:11 pm
He connected it to the Marauders when it revealed their nicknames, and even then, he wasn't willing to admit that he knew them. He probably called it dark because he wanted an excuse to confront Lupin with it in person -- maybe see his reaction, challenge him a bit. If he really suspected anything dark about it, he wouldn't've bothered calling Lupin in since he knows more about the the Dark Arts than him anyway.Okay - I can see that he may not have realized the paper was the Map until the names appeared. However I think he also MIGHT have, especially as he might have seen the Marauders consulting it when they were doing something like sneaking out. Snape had just really realized that Harry had James' invisibility cloak (IF Snape had known James had one) because only Harry's head had been showing. IF Snape had known the Marauders used to consult a piece of parchment, then his mind would leap to Harry having 'inherited' it as well.

About calling the parchment 'dark' - canon-wise we've yet to actually see Snape LIE. Even when he IS lying he uses truths (if we believe he is lying to Bella in Spinners End). For instance, so far everything he has said about James has turned out to be true (which until book 5 was pretty much where we all thought he was lying).

Snape may have things WRONG - like Remus aiding Sirius in PoA (altho' in a way he really WAS aiding him by not revealing that he was an animagus and by not giving Albus the Map) - or Sirius intending that Snape should die (still up for grabs, but I think the SectumSempra mirrror says Sirius was just stupid). But he doesn't appear to outright lie.

So in this case - I think he calls the parchment 'Dark' because that is what he believes. He might be mistaken, but I think it IS what he thinks. I do think we must keep in mind tho' that Snape DOES know about the 'Dark' (and so should Remus since he teaches DADA) and that the Map might be at least 'grey'


Interesting idea. I like it -- I think it's very possible that Snape might not have been following them at all, but doing something entirely else -- his own illegal/unallowed activities, for example -- and I can see it as very Marauder-like that it simply didn't occur to them he had his own things going on completely regardless of them. I mean, he was a budding death eater, too, so it's unlikely that he was always on the straight and narrow.I'm not positive we can say that Snape was a budding Death Eater while at Hogwarts. So far, canon-wise, we only have him placed as a Death Eater as of June(ish)'79 which seems to be 2 full years after leaving Hogwarts. Additionally, I think Snape was chosen by Voldy to spy on Albus specifically because he thought Albus would find Snape unlikely to be a Death Eater.

Voldy KNEW Albus was good at 'seeing' people and knew Albus wouldn't give HIM a teaching position, even tho' his reputation at school had him as a model student (with the other teachers). There would be no point in sending someone to Albus for a job if he would be suspicious of that person. To do so would only tip Voldy's hand that he WAS trying to place a spy at Hogwarts.

We also have Bella complaining that Snape didn't have to go on the risky 'assignments'. Voldy was keeping Snape's reputation 'clean' so he could have a chance of being hired.

Lastly, there's the eavesdropping event. I think Albus let Snape leave without an obliviate or a legilimens specifically because Albus didn't suspect Snape really was a Death Eater - altho' I'll concede that Albus may have legilimized him and seen that Snape was looking to get a job at Hogwarts (as Sybil suggested in her telling Harry the story). I think much of the reason Albus didn't obliviate Snape at that point had to do with the fact that Snape had not told Remus' secret even after leaving school.

However - canon-wise we DO have a Snape that was spending a great deal of time working on fixing potions instructions and making spells. The spells could have been done in a dorm room, but potion experiments would probably require a 'lab' (much like Hermione using Myrtle's bathroom) - either he was working in the potions classroom (possibly with permission from Slughorn) or he had his own set-up somewhere in an unused classroom. Since he was experimenting, I HOPE he used a dungeon room. Snape seems intelligent enough to realize the risks - but he WAS young, so the room might have been elsewhere. (By the way, I'd should add here that I think Sirius was also intelligent - I don't think he was too stupid to see the risks, I think he chose to embrace them or to ignore them)

Villemo
March 9th, 2006, 9:27 pm
I don't like Snape from the very beginning. The way he treats Harry is really awful. He fails to show any signs of goodness. I don't have English version of the book to give you some quotes but for example I remember his hatred when Dumbledore introduced Lupin to the students. It is mainly because of Snape that Lupin had to resign. Snape told everyone that Remus is a werewolf. Do you remember how Snape behaved when he learned that Siruis managed to escape? He treats his students in a very unfair way. I do not believe that Snape is on good side and all what he does is just a game. I do not believe that he will turn out a good guy.

Blood_River
March 9th, 2006, 10:18 pm
I do not believe that he will turn out a good guy.
:agree: I see him as more an "enemy of my enemy is my friend" kind of ally -- a jerk through and through and "deeply horrible person" as JKR calls him, but anti-Voldemort either through sheer ambition or some sort of personal vengeance motive.

Dumbledore must know Snape much better, and in a much wider range of situations, than weīll ever see him in.
Not necessarily. Evil!Snape would certainly put an act on for Dumbledore which he may not bother to for Harry. He may not even be able to -- the few times we've seen him really lose his cool have been Marauder-related and James' son and replica seems to strike a nerve with Snape that few others ever do.

I was really surprised how Snape acted in Spinnerīs End. For me, he was like a different person in that scene.
Really? I thought he was perfectly Snapish -- almost like we were seeing him in a pure and concentrated form.

In any case, I hope he is good, or at least, anti-Voldemort. The scary thing about Evil!Snape is that, unlike Good!Snape, he actually understands Harry quite well and all the times he seemed to misunderstand him were really just a masquerade for his advantage.

arithmancer
March 9th, 2006, 11:16 pm
Not necessarily. Evil!Snape would certainly put an act on for Dumbledore which he may not bother to for Harry. He may not even be able to -- the few times we've seen him really lose his cool have been Marauder-related and James' son and replica seems to strike a nerve with Snape that few others ever do.

Yes, he may put on an act. But it would still be reasonable for Dumbledore to think this about Snape, right? That he knew Snape as a schoolboy (even if he was wrong about him), and that he has seen a different side of Snape in his interactions with him personally, with Order members, and with colleagues at the school.

None of which, whether sincere or not, we see much about, the scene in Spinner's End excepted. (And THAT is a scene where I would guess sincerity is somewhat lacking...)

random_musing
March 10th, 2006, 1:11 am
It is mainly because of Snape that Lupin had to resign.
Actually, the Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher position was a major factor. Do you remember how Snape behaved when he learned that Siruis managed to escape?
Well of course he was angry. He thought Sirius betrayed the Potters.I do not believe that Snape is on good side and all what he does is just a game. I do not believe that he will turn out a good guy.
He can be a bad person on the good side. Not everyone on the good side is a nice person.

Blood_River
March 12th, 2006, 3:01 am
Well of course he was angry. He thought Sirius betrayed the Potters.
Thought, or hoped? :evil:

He seemed quite a bit more fixated on the Werewolf Prank. Admittedly, this could be because he (re:JKR) wasn't about to reveal how involved he was in or how much he cared about the events of that night.

But when Dumbledore came to see Harry at the end of PoA, Snape didn't once mention the crimes of which Sirius was accused in his argument -- he focused, once again, on the prank.

And it's honestly not that hard to see why. It was probably a pretty horrible ordeal -- IMO, Lupin's account (however sincere) was inaccurate because merely glimpsing a werewolf at the end of a tunnel doesn't sound dangerous enough for James to be considered as having saved Snape's life, nor does it explain why James had to pull Snape out instead of just call ahead "turn back; there's a werewolf!".

I mean, from Snape's perspective a bunch of kids who are always tormenting him because, according to them, "he exists" play an incredibly dangerous, potentially fatal prank on him and barely get in trouble. James is treated like a hero for calling off the "attempt to kill him," Lupin is treated like an unaware co-victim it seems, and Sirius is regarded as a reckless idiot who didn't really mean any harm.

And I want to believe that he was -- that he really didn't mean to kill -- but I can understand why Snape would be skeptical that a boy who was "exceptionally bright" (and from McGonagall that's extravagant praise) and one of "the best in their year at everything they did" was too stupid to realize that being trapped alone in an isolated, inescapable building with a werewolf would most likely be fatal.

I'm willing to bet too that he was reminded he could be in trouble for being out of bounds, afterhours, snooping around. And then to be unable to tell anyone -- that would really suck to not even be able to confide in your friends or parents or anything after that experience, to not be able to talk with anyone about it.

PotionsPrince5
March 12th, 2006, 3:53 am
Yes... i sure hope he'll come back to the Good side. i also hope that DUmbledore has a horcrux, and comes back. I think Dumbledore/snape will be explained in book 7.

hwyla
March 12th, 2006, 3:56 am
...But when Dumbledore came to see Harry at the end of PoA, Snape didn't once mention the crimes of which Sirius was accused in his argument -- he focused, once again, on the prank.I'm befuddled or confounded - I don't remember exactly what Snape said then that was about the werewolf prank (and my book is unavailable)

Could you please remind me? I checked the Lexicon and unfortunately they don't say anything except Snape accusing Harry of having something to do with Sirius' escape.

I remember Snape telling Harry he should be thankful, but was as arrogant as his father for trusting Sirius (alluding to Sirius as secret-keeper) - but I cannot remember if that was IN the shack or after it all in the infirmary. I really think it was IN the shack - which seriously implies that Snape's mind was on the death of the Potters at the time.

All I remember Snape saying in the infirmary with Albus there was that the kids were confounded and that Harry just HAD to have something to do with Sirius' escape.

....i also hope that DUmbledore has a horcrux, and comes back.You WHAT??? This would imply that Albus had murdered someone!

On a happier note - Albus should at least be back as his portrait. One would assume he will not become a ghost since he supposedly did not fear the afterlife, but saw it as the next adventure. This of course all depends on whether one believes Albus was begging for his life on the tower or begging Snape about something else. If he did beg for his life, then he might actually have become afraid and then return as a ghost.

Saracene
March 12th, 2006, 9:08 am
I'm befuddled or confounded - I don't remember exactly what Snape said then that was about the werewolf prank (and my book is unavailable)

It's when Dumbledore says that he'd like to talk to Harry and Hermione alone.

Snape took a step towards Dumbledore.

"Sirius Black showed he was capable of murder at the age of sixteen," he breathed. "You haven't forgotten that, Headmaster? You haven't forgotten that he once tried to kill me?"

I think that in this scene Snape wanted to make a point that Sirius has shown himself to be a murderer even while at school and shouldn't be trusted.

And yeah, I think that JKR, at that point, would not want to stress too much that Snape had any involvement or interest with the events at Godric's Hollow. I only really paid attention to the bit in the shack where Snape screams how Harry should have died just like his father after reading the sixth book.

hwyla
March 12th, 2006, 9:12 am
Thanks Saracene - I was remembering that line to be elsewhere

Awiana
March 12th, 2006, 9:27 am
I mean, from Snape's perspective a bunch of kids who are always tormenting him because, according to them, "he exists" play an incredibly dangerous, potentially fatal prank on him and barely get in trouble. James is treated like a hero for calling off the "attempt to kill him," Lupin is treated like an unaware co-victim it seems, and Sirius is regarded as a reckless idiot who didn't really mean any harm.
Yes, I think the reason why Snape is still so furious about the ďprankĒ is precisely this: James is treated like a noble hero, Lupin is treated as a victim, and Sirius most likely was regarded as reckless rather than a malicious murderer. We readers know that Lupin wasnít in on the plan and he was a victim of the ďprankĒ himself too, but Snape doesnít know that. And whether Sirius actually meant to kill Snape or not, I think Snape definitely believes that itís exactly what he meant to do. Maybe Snape felt that the whole thing is written off as Ďboys being boysí although he sees it as an attempt to murder him.

I think he wouldnít be so bitter about it if he had felt that everyone was fairly treated: that someone had acknowledged his perspective on it, and Sirius would have been appropriately punished, and James wouldnít have been treated as this noble hero who saved his life. I think itís the unfairness of it that still rankles Snape so much.

I remember Snape telling Harry he should be thankful, but was as arrogant as his father for trusting Sirius (alluding to Sirius as secret-keeper) - but I cannot remember if that was IN the shack or after it all in the infirmary. I really think it was IN the shack - which seriously implies that Snape's mind was on the death of the Potters at the time.
Yes, that was in the shack, and I agree that it implies that Snapeís mind was on the death of the Potters.

Blood_River
March 12th, 2006, 2:16 pm
Obviously, though, the hatred didn't go away when Snape learned that Sirius was innocent of betraying the Potters, and I would think that by the time Sirius had escaped -- having heard the whole story about Pettigrew and knowing that Dumbledore believed it, and knowing furthermore that if Harry had, as he believed, help Black escape, they must have been in enough proximity for Sirius to kill Harry -- which, unless he really was framed, was his goal.

So by the time he was tantruming in front of the Minister at Sirius' escape, he had evidence enough by then that Sirius hadn't been the Potters Secret-Keeper, although -- to be fair -- he hadn't any opportunity for it to sink in.

Because of that, I'm not too concerned by his behavior here except that it demonstrates a lot less self-control than I'd expect from a superb occlumens who can lie to Voldemort. Unless of course he was acting the whole time in which I'm a little scared of him and see why he could fool Dumbledore. That was quite a performance, and he was yelling to the point of spitting in front of the Minister of magic -- something I'd normally expect Snape would be much too proud to do intentionally.

He even went all out to put on a masquerade before them all in the Shrieking Shack, despite knowing that none of them would really understand it. Damn, that's clever.

arithmancer
March 12th, 2006, 2:45 pm
Obviously, though, the hatred didn't go away when Snape learned that Sirius was innocent of betraying the Potters, and I would think that by the time Sirius had escaped -- having heard the whole story about Pettigrew and knowing that Dumbledore believed it, and knowing furthermore that if Harry had, as he believed, help Black escape, they must have been in enough proximity for Sirius to kill Harry -- which, unless he really was framed, was his goal.

Snape had not heard the whole story about Pettigrew. He was knocked out by the Trio's Expelliarmuses. THEN the Trio heard the whole Pettigrew story. Snape only regained consciousness after Lupin had transformed and run off into the forest, and Pettrigrew had escaped.

Blood_River
March 12th, 2006, 3:20 pm
"I suppose he's told you the same fairy tale he's planted in Potter's mind?" spat Snape. "Something about a rat and Pettigrew being aliv--"
"That, indeed, is Black's story," said Dumbledore, surveying Snape closely through his half-moon spectacles.
"And does my evidence count for nothing?" snarled Snape. "Peter Pettigrew was not in the Shrieking Shack, nor did I see any sign of him on the grounds."
....
He crossed to the door and held it open for Snape, but Snape hadn't moved.
"You surely don't believe a word of Black's story?" Snape whispered, his eyes fixed on Dumbledore's face.

He heard enough of it to know what the gist of Black's claim was -- and he knew that Dumbledore, who'd heard the whole story, believed it. And shortly after the last line, his argument switches to "but he tried to kill me, so he's capable of it." IMO, he's trying to get black punished for the werewolf prank as he thought he ought to have been, and may even by now consider it possible, if not likely, that Sirius was at least telling the truth about not being the secret-keeper.

hpfan101
March 12th, 2006, 5:07 pm
He heard enough of it to know what the gist of Black's claim was -- and he knew that Dumbledore, who'd heard the whole story, believed it. And shortly after the last line, his argument switches to "but he tried to kill me, so he's capable of it." IMO, he's trying to get black punished for the werewolf prank as he thought he ought to have been, and may even by now consider it possible, if not likely, that Sirius was at least telling the truth about not being the secret-keeper.
Which again brings up the question: why did Snape, as a "trusted" death eater, not even know about Pettigrew in the first place?

As for Snape's knowledge, I guess that depends on how long he was listening at the door before he revealed himself. Lupin and Sirius do mention Peter before Snape reveals himself, but it's quite a bit before. And then Lupin goes on and on about his time at Hogwarts and the other three Marauders' transformations into anamgi. But it isn't until AFTER Snape is knocked out that Wormtail is revealed. So perhaps we can assume that Snape heard the story that Peter is a animagus and alive...but then he saw no evidence of it. And he never heard any evidence that Peter was the secret keeper, as he was unconscious for that bit. Snape ONLY could have heard that Peter was an animagus and that he was alive.

That's not a lot of the story, so obviously Snape is still poorly informed in the scene with Dumbledore and he doesn't know the whole story. Even if Peter were alive, why would Snape suspect that this means that Peter had been the Secret keeper for the Potters and that Siruis was innocent? Even if Peter had been responsible for the 12 dead muggles, Snape would still think that Sirius is responsible for the Potters.

I will say, though, that I think Snape was so persistent about Sirius because he still blames Sirius for the Werewolf incident. I doubt that Sirius was sufficiently punished, in Snape's eyes (I mean...even a month's detention, would that suffice for thinking someone tried to kill you? I doubt Snape would think that was fair). But i also think that if Snape tried to warn the Potters' before their death to not trust their friends and James laughed it off, I think Snape would resent whomever had betrayed the Potters, and at this point he still believes it to be Sirius.

arithmancer
March 12th, 2006, 7:01 pm
He heard enough of it to know what the gist of Black's claim was -- and he knew that Dumbledore, who'd heard the whole story, believed it. And shortly after the last line, his argument switches to "but he tried to kill me, so he's capable of it." IMO, he's trying to get black punished for the werewolf prank as he thought he ought to have been, and may even by now consider it possible, if not likely, that Sirius was at least telling the truth about not being the secret-keeper.
No. What he believed to be the gist of Sirius' claim is that Peter Pettrigrew was still alive. In other words, Sirius was claiming (Snape thought) that he was not a murderer. Hence his remark to Dumbledore, quoted by you upthread-basically, I don't care if he murdered Peter or not, I know he is capable of murder because of the 'prank'. If a magical deus ex machina device had somehow instantly provided Snape with complete and total proof that Sirius did not kill Peter, and the Muggles died in an unfortunately timed gas main explosion for which Sirius is not responsible, this would have had zero impact on Snape. It was not the deaths of Peter and the Muggles that made Snape run out to the Shack to confront a werewolf and a dangerous fugitive, it was not his 'schoolboy grudge'. It was the betrayal of the Potters (whom, as you know, I believe Snape tried to save with his spying, after he 'returned'.)

What noone said, or even hinted at to Snape, was that Sirius was not the Potters' Secret Keeper. I still say it is all about the Potters, not the Prank.

And I do think it would have required a leap of the imagination to come up with the secret keeper switch. I am sure that, like everyone else, Snape has a low opinion of Peter, so the idea that the Potters would choose Peter would not naturally occur to him.

staniw
March 13th, 2006, 12:49 am
It is very strange that Snape, when he is back in the castle, still doesnít want to consider the possibility Sirius is innocent. He has enough clues. He may not have heard enough about Pettigrew (although Snapeís remark to Fudge indicates that he realises what Siriusí defence is) but he knows he was knocked unconsciously and he knows that after that happened Sirius hasnít killed Harry, which was supposedly Sirius intention. A logical mind would want to know what the story is, because if Sirius didnít kill Harry but is found unconsciously outside the castle something else is going on. Worth investigating for a logical mind, which Snape has.

So Snape has the clues he needs to realise that he doesnít have the whole story. Yet he insists that Dumbledore doesnít listen to Harry and Hermione. This is a man who insists on revenge for what is done to him. Therefore he reminds Dumbledore what is done to him, not about a betrayal of the Potters.
In fact in all of his shouting in the shack and in the castle there is only one remark about the betrayal of the Potters (if Snape meant that remark to be about the betrayal) All his shouting and spitting are about his grudge and the untrustworthiness of Lupin. It is strange that if Snape acts out of anger of this betrayal he only warrants it one remark. He specifically refuses to listen to any explanation Sirius may or may not offer. That is not a man motivated to get knowledge about betrayal of the Potters, this is a man obsessed with revenge, who finally has his chance and doesnít want anything to come between his revenge.

Blood_River
March 13th, 2006, 12:57 am
staniw: :agree: Completely.

Besides, he didn't hear the bit about Peter being still alive in the Shrieking Shack before he was knocked out, so he MUST have heard more of the story after he regained consciousness, either from Hermione while Harry was unconscious, or somewhere not shown expressly in the scene.

It was not the deaths of Peter and the Muggles that made Snape run out to the Shack to confront a werewolf and a dangerous fugitive, it was not his 'schoolboy grudge'. It was the betrayal of the Potters (whom, as you know, I believe Snape tried to save with his spying, after he 'returned'.)
:huh: Well, that's the issue we're debating now -- why was he doing this?

What noone said, or even hinted at to Snape, was that Sirius was not the Potters' Secret Keeper. I still say it is all about the Potters, not the Prank.
So why did he bring up the prank to Dumbledore?

If Snape believed that Sirius was NOT claiming to be innocent of having been the Potter's Secret Keeper, why did he not say to Dumbledore "He still sold out his friends to Voldemort, betrayed them and as good as killed them." instead of "He tried to kill me when we were teenagers."? In fact, why did he feel the need to say anything at all -- surely he didn't suspect that Dumbledore was about to aid in the escape of a heartless, traitorous death eater merely because he hadn't, point-blank committed ALL the crimes of which he was accused.

Killing is hardly the only thing that lands you in Azkaban -- Rookwood was chucked in for merely passing info to Voldemort.

Besides, at this point, he's upset because Sirius got away -- and he believes with Harry's help. If he still believed Sirius sold James and Lily to Voldemort, why wasn't he asking himself why Sirius hadn't taken advantage of the proximity to Harry to, you know, kill Harry?

I just don't see any proof that the main reason Snape was flipping out on the Minister of Magic was because he believed Sirius was the traitor and secret keeper, and not because he finally got a chance to get revenge (or as he probably feels, justice) for Sirius' "prank."

Saracene
March 13th, 2006, 4:27 am
It is very strange that Snape, when he is back in the castle, still doesnít want to consider the possibility Sirius is innocent. He has enough clues. He may not have heard enough about Pettigrew (although Snapeís remark to Fudge indicates that he realises what Siriusí defence is) but he knows he was knocked unconsciously and he knows that after that happened Sirius hasnít killed Harry, which was supposedly Sirius intention.

I looked at at what Snape says to Fudge before Harry awakes and all Snape says is, "they seemed to think there was a possibility he was innocent." Nothing specific about what Sirius' line of defence was.

And why should Snape ask himself why Sirius didn't kill Harry after he himself was knocked out? He knows that it was Ron, Hermione and Harry who knocked him out - therefore they were armed. Sirius, on the other hand, wasn't.

Besides, he didn't hear the bit about Peter being still alive in the Shrieking Shack before he was knocked out, so he MUST have heard more of the story after he regained consciousness, either from Hermione while Harry was unconscious, or somewhere not shown expressly in the scene.

He would have heard it from Harry, actually, soon after he and Hermione were awake.

"Minister, listen!" Harry said. "Sirius Black's innocent! Peter Pettigrew faked his own death! We saw him tonight!... I saw him too. It was Ron's rat, he's an Animagus, Pettigrew, I mean..."

That is not a man motivated to get knowledge about betrayal of the Potters, this is a man obsessed with revenge, who finally has his chance and doesnít want anything to come between his revenge.

Why would Snape be motivated to get knowledge about betrayal of Potters if he was convinced that he had all the knowledge there was? Harry didn't go after Sirius because he was motivated to get knowlegde about betrayal of his parents - he wanted revenge, plain and simple. And unlike Harry, Snape was not inclined in the slightest to listen to Lupin who he hated and suspected of working with Sirius.

hwyla
March 13th, 2006, 4:45 am
...And unlike Harry, Snape was not inclined in the slightest to listen to Lupin who he hated and suspected of working with Sirius. Especially after hearing with his very own ears, Remus telling the trio that he had kept info from the headmaster all year that would have helped capture Sirius.

I also think that after bk6/HBP - we must take into consideration that Snape had Fenrir's relationship with Death Eaters to compare to this situation. He was aquainted with at least one werewolf that worked in cooperation with Death Eaters. It's not surprising that Snape would suspect that Sirius (supposedly a Death Eater) had his own werewolf working with him - especially with the idea of targetting children (which the trio still were).

arithmancer
March 13th, 2006, 7:44 am
In fact in all of his shouting in the shack and in the castle there is only one remark about the betrayal of the Potters (if Snape meant that remark to be about the betrayal) All his shouting and spitting are about his grudge and the untrustworthiness of Lupin.
Actually, Snape's shouting and spitting in the Shack is mostly NONSPECIFIC. And is never about the grudge. It is Lupin (and, taking his cue, Harry) who goes on about the grudge. BTW, I am not trying to suggest Snape's dislike of Lupin is based on the fate of the Potters. Only Sirius. Obviously, since noone has any reason to think Lupin had anything to do with that. So Snape's distrust of LUPIN is, or course, based in his schooltime experiences. My take on Lupin is that Snape does not trust him, because he sees him as a weak man who will not go against his friends, even when his friends are in the wrong and he knows it. This view of Lupin's was formed by Snape as a schoolboy; and from all I have seen it is a rational reaction to the events we have been shown. Certainly in Snape's Worst Memory Lupin failed to step in in any way, although he seemed displeased with his friends' actions and was a Prefect. He even failed to step in in support of Lily (his fellow Prefect), later in that scene. And, he admits in general that he never got in the way of James and Sirius in this way, in the OotP conversation with Harry.

Let's recap. Snape enters the Shack under Harry's Invisibility Cloak, while Lupin is talking. They hear the door creak, then Lupin resumes speaking and gives the tale of how he was bitten, and how he nonetheless got to go to school and make great friends who all became Animagi. Lupin admits he feels badly that he has not warned Dumbledore all year about Sirius being an Animagus, 'Snape's been right about me all along'.
Sirius wonders what Snape had to do with anything, Lupin explains that Snape is teaching at Hogwarts and launches into his version of the Prank.
Harry says, "So that's why Snape doesn't like you, because he thought you were in on the joke?"
Snape reveals himself, saying "That's right". This is about the Prank-but it is an explanation of why Snape doesn't like Lupin.

Snape explains how he saw Lupin on the Map, and how is pleased to finally have the proof for his suspicions of Lupin. He's not nice about it at all, but he makes no reference to either his grudge OR to the Potters.

LUPIN says, "You fool, is a schoolboy grudge worth putting an innocent man back inside Azkaban?"

Snape neither confirms nor denies the motive which Lupin attributes to him. He responds by tying up Lupin. When Sirius responds by roaring at him in rage and starting at him, Snape says 'Give me a reason. Give me a reason to do it, and I swear I will.' Again, totally nonspecific.

Now, Hermione intervenes. Snape berates the Trio for being out of bounds, and then goes CAPSLOCK: "KEEP QUIET YOU STUPID GIRL!DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!" Which certainly again has nothing to do with the Prank, and, arguably, is reflecting Snape's opinion that all assembled do not understand what it is all about. (Which, if he's all upset about the Potters, is the simple truth.)

There follows an interaction in which Snape gloats about how he wanted to be the one to catch Sirius, and about taking him to the Dementors, again, with no explanation offered by Snape why he wants vengeance, or to be the one to catch Sirius.

Then Harry steps in. He defends Lupin, pointing out Lupin did not harm him when he had the opportunities during the school year. Snape tells him to get out of the way, again, no mention of the Potters, or of the Prank.

Now Harry goes capslock:"JUST BECAUSE THEY MADE A FOOL OF YOU AT SCHOOL YOU WON'T EVEN LISTEN-" (Again, the prank is brought up, and again, NOT by Snape.)
Snape's reponse: "SILENCE! I WILL NOT BE SPOKEN TO LIKE THAT! Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved your neck; you should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have been well served if he'd killed you! Just like your father, too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black-now get out of the way, or I will make you. GET OUT OF THE WAY, POTTER!"
THIS, I claim, is a reference to the betrayal of the Potters by Sirius. And it is the ONLY mention of a motive by Snape in the entire scene. The mentions of the Prank are by Lupin (twice) and Harry.

Snape is knocked out at this point.

I am increasingly convinced that Rowling introduced the Prank at this point in the series (PoA) as a red herring. To provide for the readers a convincing motive for Snape's behavior, (and one which I bought hook, line, and sinker for years) in order to hide a different motive she was saving for later. Post HBP, though, the scene just looked very different. I do not think it is a coincidence that the Prank is brought up several times in the Shack, but never by Snape. I think it was done by design, and quite cleverly, to get the readers thinking about it. It is not very noticeable that it wasn't Snape going on about the Prank at all, since he was being so extremely nasty for no other apparent reason that would have occured to us at that time.

Blood_River
March 13th, 2006, 10:22 pm
Snape berates the Trio for being out of bounds, and then goes CAPSLOCK: "KEEP QUIET YOU STUPID GIRL!DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!" Which certainly again has nothing to do with the Prank, and, arguably, is reflecting Snape's opinion that all assembled do not understand what it is all about. (Which, if he's all upset about the Potters, is the simple truth.)
:tu: An excellent argument for Snape being upset about the betrayal of the Potters -- the best yet, and quite a convincing one ;)

In the shack, I find it quite likely that Snape truly believed Sirius was the Secret-Keeper, had little reason to doubt this, and was upset with him for either betraying the Potters, or leading Voldemort to the place he'd met his downfall :evil: (see, ;) Evil!Snape motivations never go away -- Rowling rocks! :agree: )

We were originally discussing his tantrum at Sirius' escape, though, and by then he did have reason to doubt that Sirius had ever been the Potters Secret-Keeper. He had Dumbledore's trust, for starters.

And why should Snape ask himself why Sirius didn't kill Harry after he himself was knocked out?
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant after Sirius escaped, why didn't Snape wonder that he didn't take the opportunity of being close to Harry (whom Snape believes helped Sirius escape) to kill Harry, once Harry had released him?

Oh, also, you attributed a quote to me, Saracene, that was actually staniw's.

Harry didn't go after Sirius because he was motivated to get knowlegde about betrayal of his parents - he wanted revenge, plain and simple.
Harry was a 13-year-old boy and, at the time, had NO reason to doubt that Sirius had betrayed parents to Voldemort. Sirius himself didn't even deny it, but opined about causing their deaths and muttered cryptically about only one murder taking place that night.

By the time of Snape's post-escape tantrum, he had quite a bit more to go on than Harry.

Plus, you know, there's the fact that their mutual hatred didn't exactly relent when Snape found out Sirius was innocent, a year or two later.

arithmancer
March 13th, 2006, 11:22 pm
:tu: An excellent argument for Snape being upset about the betrayal of the Potters -- the best yet, and quite a convincing one ;)

Thanks!
In the shack, I find it quite likely that Snape truly believed Sirius was the Secret-Keeper, had little reason to doubt this, and was upset with him for either betraying the Potters, or leading Voldemort to the place he'd met his downfall :evil: (see, ;) Evil!Snape motivations never go away -- Rowling rocks! :agree: )

Oh, that's true! And so we wait for Book 7...
I am just so impressed with how she's planned it all out!

We were originally discussing his tantrum at Sirius' escape, though, and by then he did have reason to doubt that Sirius had ever been the Potters Secret-Keeper. He had Dumbledore's trust, for starters.

Dumbledore does not tell Snape he trusts Sirius. He says he has spoken to him and Lupin, and must now speak to Harry and Hermione, without confirming or denying his belief in the story/stories he has been told by any of the parties.

After the escape of Sirius, Snape has a discussion with Fudge in which he accuses Harry of being involved in the escape. Dumbledore interrupts him, points out the kids have been locked in the room all this time, and says, "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in troubling them further." Snape leaves the room without a word. My take on this is that Snape realizes that Harry and Hermione CAN be in two places at one time, and concludes from Dumbledore's statement that HE told then to Time Turn (and is thus very much himself involved in helping Black to escape, indicating that he does trust Black.)

He still hasn't figured out the Secret Keeper switch, but it is only at this point that he realizes that, for whatever reason, Dumbledore trusts Sirius. Presumably he thereafter figures ut out, or has it explained to him by Dumbledore.

Plus, you know, there's the fact that their mutual hatred didn't exactly relent when Snape found out Sirius was innocent, a year or two later.
Oh, I would never argue that, were it not for the deaths of the Potters, Snape would have forgiven Sirius. On the contrary, he believes Sirius tried to kill him, andhge despises Sirius. And he can see that Sirius hates him still (this is obvious even before Snape shows himself in the Shack scene). So of course there's not going to be a harmonious relationship there!

Saracene
March 14th, 2006, 4:15 am
Sorry, I was unclear. I meant after Sirius escaped, why didn't Snape wonder that he didn't take the opportunity of being close to Harry (whom Snape believes helped Sirius escape) to kill Harry, once Harry had released him?

Well... at that point Snape was going all CAPSLOCK and was in full mad spitting rage. Hardly a state for clear thinking, :)

Oh, also, you attributed a quote to me, Saracene, that was actually staniw's.

Oops... sorry for the mix-up.

Plus, you know, there's the fact that their mutual hatred didn't exactly relent when Snape found out Sirius was innocent, a year or two later.

Snape still hates Sirius, of course. But when I first read GoF, I was actually rather surprised that Snape's reaction to Sirius' appearance in the hospital was so subdued compared to his murderous hatred in PoA. My feeling is that Snape's "hatred level" in later books returned to probably what it had been back at school - but without that extra edge.

Dumbledore's "he's just suffered a severe disappointment" which he says about Snape after Snape storms off also looks rather different post-HBP; Dumbledore would know everything about Snape's connection with the Potters affair.

hpfan101
March 14th, 2006, 5:12 am
Dumbledore's "he's just suffered a severe disappointment" which he says about Snape after Snape storms off also looks rather different post-HBP; Dumbledore would know everything about Snape's connection with the Potters affair.
Maybe this severe disappointment was that for 11 years, Snape had been able to alleviate his conscious by blaming the Potters' deaths on Sirius' betrayal. This probably felt very good to Snape: he hated Sirius and this justified Snape's own continued hatred of James (maybe Snape thought "good riddance, if James is arrogant enough to trust Sirius, he deserved to die. And thus, James caused his own death, and Sirius is also directly responsible for telling Voldemort about the Potters' location...thus my role is almost irrelevant"). If Snape is good and he truly did return to the good side because of his guilt over how Voldemort interpreted the prophecy, it is possible that Sirius' alleged betrayal helped to lessen Snape's own feelings of guilt. When Sirius escaped and it seemed as if one of his two worst enemies is actually innocent, Snape has to reevaluate his own role in the Potters' death. Perhaps it is fear of having played a larger role in the Potters' death than he has lead himself to believe for 11 years, fear of having to relive that guilt, that causes Snape to lose it. But that's only for Good!Snape. EvilSnape just wants revenge!;)

Blood_River
March 14th, 2006, 8:25 pm
The problem with that idea is, if that's truly the case, Dumbledore was being almost heartlessly glib about it, saying "ah, he must've apparated" and "oh, he's just suffered a severe disappointment."

Furthermore, why would it effect Snape's guilt if it were Pettigrew, not Sirius, who betrayed his friends and Pettigrew, not Sirius, whom James arrogantly trusted? The only way I can see it is if Snape said something to James about Sirius being the traitor, and even then, it wouldn't increase his own guilt much, it would just lesson his ability to gloat over James' memory about being right.

The only way I could see Snape having to re-evaluated his role in their deaths would be if he did something -- for example -- to cause Pettigrew to be overlooked, or if he -- here's my wild theory -- found out before hand that Voldemort was coming and sent the Potters a warning (don't ask me why he didn't alert anyone else in the order) to the effect "Sirius has betrayed you; Voldemort's coming... tra la la, etc..." when in fact he merely knew that their Secret-Keeper (whom he assumed was Sirius) had betrayed them.

The Potters, knowing Sirius was NOT their secret-keeper, disregarded this warning as an attempt to lure them out of hiding, and Snape for many years deeply resented (in a self-satisfied, smug kind of way) James for trusting Sirius the traitor over him. But of course, now that he knows Sirius wasn't their secret keeper, he must face the fact that the reason they disregarded his warning his own fault (and not due to James' arrogance)...

Hmm... this is all, of course, assuming he's good.

arithmancer
March 14th, 2006, 9:29 pm
The problem with that idea is, if that's truly the case, Dumbledore was being almost heartlessly glib about it, saying "ah, he must've apparated" and "oh, he's just suffered a severe disappointment."

We do not get an attribution for the first statement. I have always assumed it was FUDGE who says that. Dumbledore, even if he has not read Hogwarts: A History, must know you can't Apparate from Hogwarts.

As for the second comment-noone else in the room knows what Dumbledore knows, and Dumbledore is keeping this knowledeg a secret. Snape has already left. I don;t see a problem with what Dumbledore said regardless of WHY he thinks Snape was disappointed.

Furthermore, why would it effect Snape's guilt if it were Pettigrew, not Sirius, who betrayed his friends and Pettigrew, not Sirius, whom James arrogantly trusted? The only way I can see it is if Snape said something to James about Sirius being the traitor, and even then, it wouldn't increase his own guilt much, it would just lesson his ability to gloat over James' memory about being right.
[QUOTE]The only way I could see Snape having to re-evaluated his role in their deaths would be if he did something -- for example -- to cause Pettigrew to be overlooked, or if he -- here's my wild theory -- found out before hand that Voldemort was coming and sent the Potters a warning (don't ask me why he didn't alert anyone else in the order) to the effect "Sirius has betrayed you; Voldemort's coming... tra la la, etc..." when in fact he merely knew that their Secret-Keeper (whom he assumed was Sirius) had betrayed them.

Or, alternatively, he could have warned James that Sirius is the traitor. Had he instead warned James that 'someone close to him' is a traitor, James might have been less likely to agree to the Secret Keeper Switch. Or, (this one's ironic!) James could have BELIEVED Snape, but thought Sirius was somehow blackmailed into joining Voldemort, and, when presented by Sirius with the switch scenario, have taken Sirius up on it, thinking this was Sirius' way to protect James and his family while not getting into trouble with Voldemort. ("I am not the Secret Keeper...")

Blood_River
March 17th, 2006, 7:24 pm
Or, (this one's ironic!) James could have BELIEVED Snape, but thought Sirius was somehow blackmailed into joining Voldemort, and, when presented by Sirius with the switch scenario, have taken Sirius up on it, thinking this was Sirius' way to protect James and his family while not getting into trouble with Voldemort.
:clap: That's an awesome idea -- I've wondered if it was something like that, if James, after determining on Sirius (and apparently praising his loyalty to Dumbledore), grew uneasy and, when Sirius proposed the switch, believed he meant to protect them by taking it out of his power to hurt them -- even without the blackmail/coerced-supporter idea, it works, IMO.

And it would be a good explanation for why James and Lily agreed to the Secret-Keeper switch -- a feeling of obligation to let Sirius off the hook, rather than being entirely sold on the "bluff" idea itself. Of course, obviously they didn't distrust Pettigrew at all and believed he would protect them, so... :sigh:

I still say Dumbledore was rather glib though if this was the case (unless he, like we, believed it was all about their schoolboy rivalry, wrongly) as the following quote will show.

I think he is the one who suggested disapparition, regardless of obviously knowing it impossible (hence increasing the glibness), because the speaker, like Dumbledore, calls Snape "Severus" while Fudge only ever calls him "Snape" and "Man" besides being quite angry himself.

Here's the exact quote:

"He must have disapparated, Severus. We should have left somebody in the room with him. When this gets out---"
"HE DIDN'T DISAPPARATE!" Snape roared, now very close at hand. "YOU CAN'T APPARATE OR DISAPPARATE INSIDE THIS CASTLE! THIS---HAS---SOMETHING---TO---DO---WITH---POTTER!"
"Severus -- be reasonable, Harry has been locked up---"
BAM.
The door of the hospital wing burst open.
Fudge, Snape, and Dumbledore came striding into the ward. Dumbledore alone looked calm. Indeed, he looked as though he was quite enjoying himself. Fudge appeared angry. But Snape was beside himself.
"OUT WITH IT, POTTER!" he bellowed. "WHAT DID YOU DO?"
"Professor Snape!" shrieked Madam Pomfrey. "Control yourself!"
"See here, Snape, be reasonable," said Fudge, "This doors been locked, we just saw---"
"THEY HELPED HIM ESCAPE, I KNOW IT!" Snape howled, pointing at Harry and Hermione. His face was twisted; spit was flying from his mouth.
"Calm, down man!" Fudge barked. "You're talking nonsense!"
"YOU DON'T KNOW POTTER!" shrieked Snape. "HE DID IT, I KNOW HE DID IT---"
"That will do, Severus," said Dumbledore quietly. "Think about what you are saying. This door has been locked since I left the ward ten minutes ago. Madam Pomfrey, have these students left their beds?"
"Of course not!" said Madam Pomfrey bristling. "I would have heard them!"
"Well, there you have it, Severus," said Dumbledore, calmly. "Unless you are suggesting that Harry and Hermione are able to be in two places at once, I'm afraid I don't see any point in troubling them further."
Snape stood there, seething, staring from Fudge, who looked thoroughly shocked at his behavior, to Dumbledore, whose eyes were twinkling behind his glasses. Snape whirled about, robes swishing behind him, and stormed out of the ward."
Come on -- if Snape is going through a major emotional upheaval about his responsibility in the deaths of innocent people, Dumbledore is kind of heartless to be quite enjoying himself and looking at Snape with twinkling eyes.

Plus being upset that someone wasn't guilty and being upset that they escaped are two different things...

arithmancer
March 17th, 2006, 7:52 pm
I think he is the one who suggested disapparition, regardless of obviously knowing it impossible (hence increasing the glibness), because the speaker, like Dumbledore, calls Snape "Severus" while Fudge only ever calls him "Snape" and "Man" besides being quite angry himself.

Aha! Yes, you are right. :tu: It was Dumbledore. I didn't catch the form of address...

Of course, Dumbledore is going to be happy and relieved at this scene, because only now does he know that his scheme to rescue Sirius has worked. It would make him calm and twinkly, I imagine. I don't see that he can speak too freely to Snape in front of Fudge anyway. This still works with how I see the scene. The Apparition argument is for Fudge, also present, not Snape. Dumbledore knows that Snape knows that you can't Apparate out of Hogwarts. I think he's hoping Snape will follow his lead (since he knows Snape knows he knows you can't Apparate out of Hogwarts).

(I confess I have always wanted to write a sentence like the above. :evil:)

I see the comment about Harry being in two places at the same time as another hint to Snape that Dumbledore was involved in the escape. Because it is not a ridiculous statement., as it seems to us Muggles Any knowledgeable wizard who gives the matter some thought should realize that Harry CAN be in two places at the same time. But he would need help to do so under the circumstances.

g_i_n_n_y
March 17th, 2006, 9:52 pm
This is what really confuses me. If he was evil you think that he would already try to lure him towards Voldemort or try something else really dark. If he was good why did he kill Dumbledore or was he under the Imperius curse. Does anyone remember (I forgot who said this) that if you are a death eater you never stop being a death eater?

arithmancer
March 17th, 2006, 10:19 pm
This is what really confuses me. If he was evil you think that he would already try to lure him towards Voldemort or try something else really dark. If he was good why did he kill Dumbledore or was he under the Imperius curse. Does anyone remember (I forgot who said this) that if you are a death eater you never stop being a death eater?
Fake Moody said that 'some spots never come off', which might be what you are thinking about. Some character, I believe Sirius, described being a Death Eater as 'a lifetime of service, or death'.

Blood_River
March 18th, 2006, 10:54 pm
Yes -- it would help to know why Snape became a Death Eater, though. If his motives were kind of spurious, his defection would be more believable.

In any case, I don't know how much his actions prior to GoF are going to tell us. It's possible that many DEs were living quite contently with Voldemort gone --enjoying not serving a psychopath who'd kill at them as soon as look at them. None of the thirty or so in the circle sought him out -- and many had to know he was still, technically, alive (Dobby knew in CoS that Harry had fought Voldemort in SS/PS, and so apparently did the whole school).

That doesn't mean that any of them were fool enough, upon his return, to not come back brimming with remorse and obedience.

So even if Snape didn't want Voldemort to return to power-- an entirely plausible speculation -- what is his position now that Voldemort has?

arithmancer
March 19th, 2006, 12:55 am
Yes -- it would help to know why Snape became a Death Eater, though. If his motives were kind of spurious, his defection would be more believable.

Yes, it would sure be nice. I do happen to believe he had spurious motives, hence my belief his defection was for real. I take his unhappy-seeming childhood memories, his 'worst memory', and the Prank, stir it all up, and come up with:

He was unhappy at home, and he was unpopular at school. And when events came to a head with the 'Prank', Dumbledore responded by making James Head Boy. Oh, and Lily started dating him. So Snape decided to show them all and joined the Death Eaters. Big mistake.

So even if Snape didn't want Voldemort to return to power-- an entirely plausible speculation -- what is his position now that Voldemort has?

He wants him defeated. For one thing, if Snape was sincere in his return, he will never be able to live in peace until Voldemort is gone. Likely (IMO) Snape's also angry about the death of Lily. (I don't particularly fancy the theory, it just seems to me to be where the story is going...) And, aside from Lily, I think Snape has personal issues with Voldemort anyway. The whole big speech Snape makes to Harry during Occlumency lessons (currently a hot topic on Dev of Sev) about 'fools who wear their hearts on their sleeves' and how that is handing Voldemort weapons, just strikes me as autobiographical. And Snape is not a man to appreciate being made a fool by anyone.

omgsf06
March 19th, 2006, 1:50 am
I think that Dumbledor has good judgement. He would not have trusted Snape all these years for no good reason. So I really don't think Snape is actually bad. I think that maybe this all has a reason. J.K. constantly says that these deaths had a reason for happening. So if she says everything will work out then I believe her.

g_i_n_n_y
March 19th, 2006, 2:58 am
After what he had he has to be evil less he was out under the Inperius curse.

Awiana
March 19th, 2006, 12:04 pm
Yes, it would sure be nice. I do happen to believe he had spurious motives, hence my belief his defection was for real. I take his unhappy-seeming childhood memories, his 'worst memory', and the Prank, stir it all up, and come up with:

He was unhappy at home, and he was unpopular at school. And when events came to a head with the 'Prank', Dumbledore responded by making James Head Boy. Oh, and Lily started dating him. So Snape decided to show them all and joined the Death Eaters. Big mistake.
Yes, I think his decision to join the Death Eaters had a lot to do with him not wanting to be the victim anymore. He had been ridiculed and bullied at school, and I think he had had enough of it. Maybe at that time joining the biggest bully seemed like a good idea, because that way heís not a victim himself.

I also think that he may have felt let down by the good side, partly because of the treatment of the Marauders. From his perspective they were horrible and cruel, yet most people saw them as funny and charismatic, and Dumbledore made James Head Boy. Maybe from his perspective the bad guys werenít punished and the unfairness of it would make him angry and bitter.

He also may have wanted to be part of a group that appreciates and respects him and his talents. Maybe at Hogwarts he was somewhat overlooked in favour of more socially skilled and charismatic peers. Slughorn probably gushed over students like Lily and didnít pay that much attention to the socially awkward Snape, and although most of the teachers arenít like Slughorn, in my opinion itís still possible that Snape may have felt that his talents werenít fully appreciated. Voldemort can exploit othersí weaknesses, so maybe he saw Snapeís bitterness and anger and his need for appreciation.

I guess we canít rule it out as a possibility that Snape at some point did believe in the Death Eatersí ideas about blood purity, but Iím not convinced he did. I donít think itís necessary that he believed in their ideas, I think there are a lot of reasons why he could have joined them even if he wasnít a pureblood supremacist himself. But I guess itís possible that he may have felt resentment towards Muggles, especially if his Muggle father was abusive and he didnít have that much contact with other Muggles.

arithmancer
March 19th, 2006, 3:25 pm
Maybe at Hogwarts he was somewhat overlooked in favour of more socially skilled and charismatic peers. Slughorn probably gushed over students like Lily and didnít pay that much attention to the socially awkward Snape, and although most of the teachers arenít like Slughorn, in my opinion itís still possible that Snape may have felt that his talents werenít fully appreciated. Voldemort can exploit othersí weaknesses, so maybe he saw Snapeís bitterness and anger and his need for appreciation.
Yes, I can really see this. Slughorn would have been the most important person for Snaepo at Hogwarts. He wa his Head of House, and he taught the class which was Snape's best subject. If someone was going to appreciate Snape's abilities, it would have more or less had to have been Slughorn. And while I am sure he did appreciate his talent, I can definitely see him focusing more positive attention on Lily, because of her obvious charisma and good looks.

Snape also presumably excelled in DADA-but there he would have been hurt by the curse. The revolving door of DADA teachers at Hogwarts was well under way by the time Snape came there as a student.

Blood_River
March 19th, 2006, 5:05 pm
:agree: I completely agree -- I doubt Snape truly cared about blood purity as Lucius or Bellatrix did, but he was obviously indifferent enough to it to join the DEs, and not off-put by their beliefs or objectives.

I'm also positive Snape was resentful about the treatment of the Marauders -- particularly after the "prank" which he's always perceived as an attempt to kill him, and James making Head Boy (very likely in reaction to it). I can easily believe him feeling overlooked or undervalued by Slughorn -- explaining why he's so determinedly, and almost studiedly, an opposite type of teacher and head of house from him.

And I wouldn't be surprised if Voldemort or DEs on the lookout for potential recruits exploited these feelings to sort of... recruit him.

I've also toyed with the idea of a sort stockholm syndrome. If his father was -- as many have speculated -- abusive, perhaps a coincidentally-timed Death Eater raid in his area "saved" him from a beating and he viewed the DEs in a positive light from that. This experience, coupled with his own being accused of "Dark Arts"-interest and general anti-Slytherin bias, may have given him the impression that the DEs weren't as bad as they were made out to be.

But that's a little hard to buy given how late into the war he would have at earliest been able to join.

Rabia
March 19th, 2006, 6:26 pm
It may be that Snape simply took flight to his intellectual side and so did more Dark stuff, ending up a DE without choosing it. We see it in the DADA classes (and not only in year 6): to fight Dark Arts, you have to learn them. So good students on NEWT level learn Dark Arts. We see that more or less, the good stuff is harmless, and if wizards get more advanced, the work tends to become, well, dangerous and dark. We see it especially in Harry, who is now advanced and Ė tries to use Unforgivable Curses.

So I think that a very gifted student could easily end up with the DEs without any special reason at all. And Severus certainly was that. Maybe it is more that you needed a reason NOT to become a DE in those years.

Dumbledore says to Harry somewhere that Harry will never go for the power Dark Arts give you, because of his love (for his parents).
If Snape didnīt have any friends or other reasons to keep him back from it ...

Awiana
March 20th, 2006, 2:26 pm
This experience, coupled with his own being accused of "Dark Arts"-interest and general anti-Slytherin bias, may have given him the impression that the DEs weren't as bad as they were made out to be.

But that's a little hard to buy given how late into the war he would have at earliest been able to join.

Itís not impossible that he may have had the impression that the Death Eaters werenít as bad as they were made out to be. In OotP Sirius says that when Regulus joined the Death Eaters his parents thought he was a real hero, and they only got cold feet later when they realised what Voldemort was prepared to do to gain power. So I think itís possible that Snape may not have fully realised how truly evil the Death Eaters are when he joined them, but Iím somewhat reluctant to buy this idea. I think Snapeís story is more powerful if he joined the Death Eaters knowing what he was getting into and then later regretted that decision, than if he joined them having the impression that they arenít all that bad. But I think itís possible that he had quite a good idea of what the Death Eaters were all about, but still didnít fully realise what he was getting into.

Dumbledore says to Harry somewhere that Harry will never go for the power Dark Arts give you, because of his love (for his parents).
If Snape didnīt have any friends or other reasons to keep him back from it ...
Good point. Yes, Dumbledore said that Harryís ability to love is ďthe only protection that can possibly work against the lure of power like VoldemortísĒ (HBP, Horcruxes p. 477 UK) So maybe Snape was lured by what Voldemort offered him, and he didnít feel he had any reason to refuse what he was offered.

Blood_River
March 20th, 2006, 4:42 pm
True, it would be hard to refuse to become a Death Eater if personally asked -- you've seen what Voldemort does to families who refuse to help him. Still, I doubt he uses the same for his inner circle who'd he'd want to be the loyalest of the loyalest.

Voldemort had been moving in the open, terrifed people out of saying his name, for 10 years before Regulus was killed, so I find it hard to believe he didn't know what they were about, but rather -- like Malfoy -- thought he could handle it until actually asked to do so. Did Sirius specifically include his parents in the people who got cold feet when Voldemort showed his true colors?

In any case, I think Snape probably had a myriad reasons, maybe he did think the DE-committed horrors were exaggerated, but I'm sure he also wanted power and respect to -- and yes, not having a reason to refuse was probably a big deal. A boy that clever in Slytherin house would certainly get noticed by Death Eater's children and future DEs -- I'm sure he was, at least partially, recruited into joining.

hpfan101
March 20th, 2006, 6:27 pm
I tend to agree that you can't refuse to be a death eater. Anyone who refused to join was killed. Per Hagrid in PS/SS, he said:
About twenty years ago now, [Voldemort] started lookin' fer followers. Got 'em, too--some were afraid, some just wanted a bit o' his power, 'cause he was gettin' himself powerful, all right....'Course some stood up to him--an' he killed 'em. Horribly.
So if we look at the timeline of events: Harry was 11 at this point. 10 years had passed since his parents' death (weren't they supposedly around 22 when they were killed?). So that puts Voldemort's coming out around 10 years previous to this...right around the time that James, Lily and Snape would have started at Hogwarts. (I also looked this up on HP Lexicon (http://www.hp-lexicon.org) and they said basically the same thing).

So I don't know how much they really would have known about Voldemort's activities. Surely, he was gaining power and support, but did people really fear him like they did after James, Lily and Snape had left Hogwarts?

After all, Sirius hints at the fact that no one knew what Voldemort was prepared to do until later. We know Regulus was at least one year younger than Sirius. Sirius said that his parents thought Regulus was "a right little hero for joining up at first" until "Voldemort showed his true colors....[and] they got cold feet when they saw what he was prepared to do to get power" (OotP, p. 112).

So it seems that even around the time the Marauders and Snape left Hogwarts, Voldemort had yet to show his true nature. I doubt that Snape was in complete denial about the type of organization that he joined, but I also don't quite believe he knew what would be asked of him. After all, one of his first assignments was apparently to "spy" on Dumbledore. That doesn't seem so bad does it? And then, it wasn't until Snape saw what Voldemort was willing to do with the information from the prophecy that Snape realized, perhaps like Regulus, just how far Voldemort would go to achieve complete and utter control and immortality.

hwyla
March 20th, 2006, 7:21 pm
Itís not impossible that he may have had the impression that the Death Eaters werenít as bad as they were made out to be. In OotP Sirius says that when Regulus joined the Death Eaters his parents thought he was a real hero, and they only got cold feet later when they realised what Voldemort was prepared to do to gain power.This is one of those troublesome things Sirius says. He left home about 3-4 years before Regulus' death and has stated that after that point he never saw Bella again. So, unless he still had contact with his family HOW would he know what his parents thought?

arithmancer
March 20th, 2006, 8:09 pm
This is one of those troublesome things Sirius says. He left home about 3-4 years before Regulus' death and has stated that after that point he never saw Bella again. So, unless he still had contact with his family HOW would he know what his parents thought?
Contact with Regulus, perhaps?

Blood_River
March 21st, 2006, 6:23 pm
It's definitely confusing.

The night he left Harry with the Dursley's, Dumbledore said he'd been trying to convince people for 11 years to say Voldemort instead of You Know Who -- so from around the time Voldemort started moving in the open. And just disagreeing with his goals doesn't sound like a reason to stop saying his name. No one's afraid to say "Malfoy" and he's a pureblood supremecist, too.

So it's hard for me to believe that Voldemort didn't show his true colors until after Regulus joined up. It's odd. I'm guessing though it came in steps -- and people got horrified at different stages is the only way I understand it.

hpfan101
March 21st, 2006, 8:04 pm
It's definitely confusing.

The night he left Harry with the Dursley's, Dumbledore said he'd been trying to convince people for 11 years to say Voldemort instead of You Know Who -- so from around the time Voldemort started moving in the open. And just disagreeing with his goals doesn't sound like a reason to stop saying his name. No one's afraid to say "Malfoy" and he's a pureblood supremecist, too.

So it's hard for me to believe that Voldemort didn't show his true colors until after Regulus joined up. It's odd. I'm guessing though it came in steps -- and people got horrified at different stages is the only way I understand it.
I still don't know what to think about Voldemort's first reign. We know so little about it...except that everyone lived in fear. It doesn't quite add up, but maybe no one knew Voldemort was willing to kill innocent people until much later on in the war. We have two people who are questionable: Snape and Regulus. We only have Sirius' account that Regulus got scared and tried to pull out. Does he know this first-hand? Or is this just the story that he has heard? According to OotP, Sirius says "from what I found out after he died..." This seems to indicate that Sirius did not have contact with Regulus prior to Regulus' death. So truthfully, we do not have a clear picture of how much the wizarding world knew about Voldemort in his early days.

As for Snape, I still see his motives for joining the Death Eaters as a quest for respect. He had never felt that respect at Hogwarts, and here were some people offering him the chance to gain respect and power (he is, after all, a Slytherin). I don't see him buying into the pure-blood mania because, well frankly, we already have a half-blood who is psycho (Voldemort himself). Just for that sake alone, I tend to think the reasons Snape joined up are different than Voldemort's himself. But we have NO idea how much Snape knew when he went in, just as we still have NO idea what James, Sirius, Lupin and Lily did between the time they left Hogwarts and when the Potters were killed. There is so little information!

Awiana
March 23rd, 2006, 11:55 am
This is one of those troublesome things Sirius says. He left home about 3-4 years before Regulus' death and has stated that after that point he never saw Bella again. So, unless he still had contact with his family HOW would he know what his parents thought?
Oh, good point, I had completely forgotten that Sirius presumably didnít have contact with his parents at that point. I donít know, maybe he had contact with some other relative, or maybe heís just assuming what his parents thought about it. He actually says that ďI bet my parents thought Regulus was a right little hero for joining up at firstĒ, so I think that implies that he didnít actually know what his parents thought.

Did Sirius specifically include his parents in the people who got cold feet when Voldemort showed his true colors?
Originally I had read the comment about getting cold feet as referring to Siriusís parents, but actually now that I re-read it it could refer to the general group of people who thought Voldemort had the right idea about things. Hereís the quote:

ĎWere Ė were your parents Death Eaters as well?í
ĎNo, no, but believe me, they thought Voldemort had the right idea, they were all for the purification of the wizarding race, getting rid of Muggle-borns and having pure-bloods in charge. They werenít alone, either, there were quite a few people, before Voldemort showed his true colours, who thought he had the right idea about thingsÖ they got cold feet when they saw what he was prepared to do to get power, though. But I bet my parents thought Regulus was a right little hero for joining up at first.í (OotP p. 128 UK paperback)

Eolynn
March 23rd, 2006, 4:34 pm
I think he's neither good nor evil and only serves himself.

Blood_River
March 23rd, 2006, 7:40 pm
I think Sirius was generally talking about people who thought Voldemort had the right idea. And it seems unlikely that people during the Marauder's era didn't expect him to kill, but maybe they considered it justified killing as in a sort of war-situation and it wasn't until slightly later into the war -- when many people opposing him were still scared-- that the people supporting him got freaked out at just how vicious he could be.

I agree with hpfan101 -- Snape's main motive for joining the DEs was probably a desire for respect, and maybe power a little bit. But it still is significant as to how bad he knew/believed the Death Eaters were because it shows to what lengths he was willing to go to get respect.

As for coercion -- I don't see that as a factor in the deep inner circle of actual tattooed Death Eaters. People who are just being imperiused, blackmailed, threatened into helping Voldemort don't need a method of identifying themselves to each other, nor do I think Voldemort wants involuntary people deep in his inner circle -- people are forced into helping, but not actually being Death Eaters, IMO.

hwyla
March 23rd, 2006, 8:40 pm
...As for coercion -- I don't see that as a factor in the deep inner circle of actual tattooed Death Eaters. People who are just being imperiused, blackmailed, threatened into helping Voldemort don't need a method of identifying themselves to each other, nor do I think Voldemort wants involuntary people deep in his inner circle -- people are forced into helping, but not actually being Death Eaters, IMO.While I agree that I doubt Voldy's more 'trusted' Death Eaters were 'coerced', I still think they were ALL given the Dark Mark once they agreed. There were probably people that 'helped' but who weren't Death Eaters and may not have been aware they helped (Ludo Bagman as a possible), but I think the ones who KNEW they were helping (long-term, not a one-time imperio for a 'job' like Rosemerta) were marked. I actually doubt there were ANY Imperio'd Death Eaters, but blackmailed and threatened I think are good possibilities. Four reasons to mark them:

1) Voldy can call them to him and they never need to know where he IS - keeps him safer

2) During the first war not all Death Eaters knew all the others. So the mark WOULD be necessary to identify these people to his other Death Eaters

3) Snape often rubs his arm after someone say Voldy's name - inconclusive, but possible that Voldy can actually somehow KNOW thru a Dark Mark when he is being discussed by someone who doesn't fear him (uses his name)

4) Permanent - harder to back out of the deal once marked. Possible way to track someone if they try. (also not stated as canon)

plainlypotter
March 23rd, 2006, 8:49 pm
Forgive me if this has been discussed before by at the moment I do not have time to look through the 38 pages of posts that have already been posted .

My first thought was that Snape was just plain and simple - EVIL But upon reflection, and reading many posts, I realized that this viewpoint was way too simple and obvious. There had to be more to Dumbledore believing that Snape was on the side of the Order and what, then would make Snape act they way he did? Obviously, Jo has shown us the answer in chapter two - the unbreakable vow.

Because this is the first time we see the vow are we to assume that it is the first time Snape has taken a vow, but what if it isn’t. What if Snape has taken an unbreakable vow before, say with Dumbledore to protect Harry Those of you who have read my posts to other editorials know that this theory answers many of the objections that have been made to both the Snape is good believers and the Snape is bad believers. Snape would not be completely bad or good - He would just be practical.

The unbreakable vow to protect Harry would logically answer the main objections I have seen posted :

1) Snape has to be “good” and working for the Order because he didn’t kill Flitwick , Hermione, and Luna outside his door when Flitwick came to tell him that Death Eaters were in the castle.

Ans: Harry will need Flitwick, Hermione and Luna to vanquish the Dark Lord so in order to protect Harry Snape could not kill him - Practically, if the Order beat the Death Eaters, Snape would not have “burned his bridges” so to speak. Result: Flitwick Herimone, Luna and Snape live.

2) Snape is “good” because he doesn’t harm Harry when he is trying to leave, doesn’t allow others to harm Harry, and doesn’t take Harry to Voldemort and instead teaches him what he needs to know in order to vanquish the Dark Lord - Close your mouth and your mind.

Ans: If Snape’s life depends on Harry’s survival he would naturally not do him harm and would definitely not bring Harry to Voldemort because Voldemort would kill Harry and therefore Snape would die. As for the teaching - well again if Snape dies because Harry loses to Voldemort it is to Snape’s benefit that Harry know what he has to do to rid the world of Voldemort and therefore save himself - result Harry lives and Snape lives

3) Snape is good otherwise why would he keep “saving” Harry ( see SS, CoS, PoA, GoF, OoP)

Ans: If Snape is bound by the unbreakable vow if Harry dies, Snape would die - Therefore the practical alternative is to keep Harry alive.

4) Snape is Bad because he has always treated Harry horribly and he taught Harry nothing.

Ans: True, Snape treats Harry horribly, but that doesn’t break the vow. Under the vow he need only protect Harry from death not unhappiness. Same for teaching, Snape’s rotten teaching skills are not reserved only for Harry. He pretty much teaches everyone equally badly although he does pick on Harry more than others - but again “picking on him” doesn’t effect his protecting Harry’s life.

5) Snape killed Dumbledore therefore he is bad/evil.

Ans: This is probably the most telling and the most biggest issue most “snape is bad” believers have. But if we look at the Tower scene we see that Dumbledore is probably already too far gone from drinking the potion in the cave to survive, he is wandless, and surrounded by Death Eaters and Harry is frozen under the invisibility cloak whe Snape arrives. Snape has no choice here. If he kills the Death Eaters and saves Dumbledore, (if it is at all possible which is debatable) he dies because of the unbreakable vow he took to complete Draco’s task, and if anyone other than Snape kills Dumbledore, Snape dies and Harry, now unfrozen, will probably die as he will be outnumbered, has no others to help him and no way for help to get to him. By Snape killing Dumbledore, he in effect saves Harry by causing Harry to be in shock and remain frozen until there is only one Death Eater in the Tower, and he saves Draco ( because the task is completed ) and he saves himself. Very practical and pragmatic approach.

I have up until this point been promoting some kind of magical contract ( unbreakable vow) between Dumbledore and Snape to protect Harry. If Snape would die either way in book seven, either not protecting Harry, or by protecting Harry from Voldemort and thereby forfeiting his life the result would be the same: snape would die. Would this then really provide Snape with the ability to redeem himself if the result would be the same either way ?

Many have indicated that they feel that Snape must be “good” because Jo would not have two equally evil character in the series, there is no point to it. I then submit, why have two equally contractually bound characters? We know from PoA that Peter at some point will have to meet his commitment to Harry because Harry saved him from Sirius and Lupin in the shrieking shack, he is bound by magical contract - why then would JK do the same for snape - she wouldn't - or at least I think she wouldn't if she was trying to emphasis that it is more noble, or heroic for one who is not is obligated to do what is right, to actually do what is right even if it is not easy. All this time I have assumed that it is Harry who must do what is right even if it is not easy - but maybe the whole point of the series is that Snape must do what is right even though it is not easy.

Harry is inately a good person, and although he has had to make choices that have been hard , he has made them coming from a selfless nature, rather than a selfish one, which makes the decision to act for the good somewhat easier, as it is in his nature to act that way. We have seen that Snape always has acted in a way that is in his best interest, even the teaching of Harry was in Snape's best interest whether one believes it was for help harry b/c of the unbreakable vow or for some other more devious purpose. Right now Snape has no choice but to go back to Voldemort. He has left a place where he has been treated well and with respect, and he is going to the dark side so to speak where Voldemort treats failure and non compliance with pain and suffering (crussio of Avery and Peter's suffering at the rebirth) , one would not think that this is in Snape’s best interest.

But if we go one step further - if Harry , for all his limited talents can vanquish Voldemort, Snape will either probably be the next dark lord as e is at the moment LV's "most trusted" follower and probably the most feared by the other death eaters as he was able to best Dumbledore where even Voldemort was not able or if he helps harry to succeed without getting killed himself, he will have redeemed himself and be able to "start over so to speak.

if Snape chooses to save Harry and he is not under contractual duty to do so, he will be doing what is “right” but not what is easy. In sum - my vote is for a practical snape who will be redeemed .

[QUOTE=Blood_River]I think Sirius was generally talking about people who thought Voldemort had the right idea. And it seems unlikely that people during the Marauder's era didn't expect him to kill, but maybe they considered it justified killing as in a sort of war-situation and it wasn't until slightly later into the war -- when many people opposing him were still scared-- that the people supporting him got freaked out at just how vicious he could be.

Jo makes many references to real events in our/ muggle history. Here is a good correllation to how Germany reacted to Hitler.in the beginning. Most people did not see the problem with what Hitler was proposing ( otherwise he would not have been elected) it was only later when people started disappearing and minority groups were hauled away to concetration camps that people realized exactly how far Hitler was willing to go - He also was not called by his name - he was the Furer. This is not to excuse either those who followed Hitler or those who followed V it is just a statement of the times

[QUOTE=Blood_River]I think Sirius was generally talking about people who thought Voldemort had the right idea. And it seems unlikely that people during the Marauder's era didn't expect him to kill, but maybe they considered it justified killing as in a sort of war-situation and it wasn't until slightly later into the war -- when many people opposing him were still scared-- that the people supporting him got freaked out at just how vicious he could be.

Jo makes many references to real events in our/ muggle history. Here is a good correllation to how Germany reacted to Hitler.in the beginning. Most people did not see the problem with what Hitler was proposing ( otherwise he would not have been elected) it was only later when people started disappearing and minority groups were hauled away to concetration camps that people realized exactly how far Hitler was willing to go - He also was not called by his name - he was the Furer. This is not to excuse either those who followed Hitler or those who followed V it is just a statement of the times

Blood_River
March 26th, 2006, 4:20 pm
Interesting idea, but I generally disagree. I don't believe Dumbledore would ever have someone make a UV to him (even if willing). I suppose he could've been roped into making one to Lily or James, but I just can't see how...

As for the objections -- they don't quite work for me.

1. Evil!Snape probably did not kill Flitwick, etc... because he hadn't yet blown his cover and it would be a stupid risk to take if he didn't have to. Harry doesn't need any of them for his survival, and if a UV to help/protect Harry stopped Snape from killing them, it should also have prevented Snape from killing Dumbledore (whom Harry surely needs more), taking the second Unbreakable Vow to kill Dumbledore, stopping Harry's occlumency lessons, and not teaching him as well as he could.

2. Evil!Snape may not have taken or hurt Harry much because Voldemort doesn't want anyone to -- possibly, he has plans for Harry that require him in tact but aren't ready to implement yet, or considers Harry useful to him still (as he did in GoF). Or possibly, Snape was just more concerned with getting away before the Ministry arrived and taking Harry would make it too hard.

In any case, since Snape is capable of physically harming Harry when he's really provoked (HBP, OotP), it wasn't a UV that caused him to stop the other DEs from hurting Harry.

3. The few occasions of Snape saving Harry don't need a UV to justify them as the presence of Dumbledore/ orders of Voldemort do that just fine.

4. I agree, Snape is a horrible teacher and any vow that requires him to help Harry to the best of his ability would be violated by this. Furthermore, by OotP and HBP, Snape's failure to teach Harry properly could be construed as endangerment because of how absolutely pivotal it is to Harry's livelihood that he learn these things. Any UV to protect Harry must be only point-blank and not include round-about things of the sort, then.

5. :agree: At this point, Snape had virtually no choice if he wanted to stay alive, ensure Harry's safety, or anything else -- but only because of the Vow to Narcissa he'd already made.

In the long run, I agree that Snape is more complicated than Good/Evil, and won't be a clone of Voldemort or run-of-the-mill DE. But I don't think that necessarily means he'll be good or in-between. As JKR said, he's more culpable than Voldemort because he's been loved, and IMO, it's possible he'll turn out to be in some ways even worse.

plainlypotter
March 26th, 2006, 8:52 pm
Interesting idea, but I generally disagree. I don't believe Dumbledore would ever have someone make a UV to him (even if willing). I suppose he could've been roped into making one to Lily or James, but I just can't see how...

As for the objections -- they don't quite work for me.

1. Evil!Snape probably did not kill Flitwick, etc... because he hadn't yet blown his cover and it would be a stupid risk to take if he didn't have to. Harry doesn't need any of them for his survival, and if a UV to help/protect Harry stopped Snape from killing them, it should also have prevented Snape from killing Dumbledore (whom Harry surely needs more), taking the second Unbreakable Vow to kill Dumbledore, stopping Harry's occlumency lessons, and not teaching him as well as he could.

I guess I didn't make myself clear, I was advocating a snape is practical point of view. When I first read HBP I thought about the possibility that snape and DD had made an unbreakable vow, but like you disgarded it for the same reasons you did.

As for snape's being prevented from killing DD - take a second look here at the circumstances if there had been an unbreakable vow in effect. DD is seriously weakened, and is without a wand and probably dying. There are three or four death eaters, plus malfoy, snape, harry and DD in the room ( limited space ). If snape chooses to fight the death eaters - is there a good chance that harry , malfoy and DD will be seriously injured ? I think the answer is yes. If someone other than snape kills DD (thereby releasing harry from the full body bind) would harry not have reacted? I think the answer again is yes. I think the only reason Harry does not respond immediately when snape kills DD is that he is in shock, as most of us were, shocked not by snape's evil act so much , as by the enormity of DD's error. Even those of us who have always found snape reprehensible, have at the same time relied on DD's assessment. Given the circumstances, if an unbreakable vow were in effect which I am not advocating, which scenario would prove to be the most likely to protect Harry? I think killing DD ( who to me appears too far gone to be saved at this time) is likely the safest route for both snape and for harry.

As for the occlumency lessons and other teachings - well "protecting" harry does not mean he has to either treat him well or has to help him to close his mind to V - afterall perhaps snape knows that V could not possess harry because of the "love" that flows in his veins, perhaps he knows that the occlumency lessons actually weaken harry's resistence to penitration.

2. Evil!Snape may not have taken or hurt Harry much because Voldemort doesn't want anyone to -- possibly, he has plans for Harry that require him in tact but aren't ready to implement yet, or considers Harry useful to him still (as he did in GoF). Or possibly, Snape was just more concerned with getting away before the Ministry arrived and taking Harry would make it too hard.

In any case, since Snape is capable of physically harming Harry when he's really provoked (HBP, OotP), it wasn't a UV that caused him to stop the other DEs from hurting Harry.

There is a difference between hurting and killing - sometimes you have to suffer the lessor to avoid the more permanent consequences

3. The few occasions of Snape saving Harry don't need a UV to justify them as the presence of Dumbledore/ orders of Voldemort do that just fine.

I agree

4. I agree, Snape is a horrible teacher and any vow that requires him to help Harry to the best of his ability would be violated by this. Furthermore, by OotP and HBP, Snape's failure to teach Harry properly could be construed as endangerment because of how absolutely pivotal it is to Harry's livelihood that he learn these things. Any UV to protect Harry must be only point-blank and not include round-about things of the sort, then.

You are assuming an unbreakable vow which requires that snape "help harry to the best of his ability" what if the vow is to protect harry's life period, This is the same problem I had with snape's vow to Draco - "the best of his ability" gives way too much wiggle room as I am sure Cissy and Bella realized, and the reason the last part of the vow was added. Much as I lean toward snape is evil, when I first read spinners end I did not get the impression that snape knew what draco's task was afterall it could have been anything from getting the death eaters into the castle which could have been plaanned for and thwarted once the death eaters had entered to bringing harry to V or as had happened killing DD. Once Cissy added the last part of the vow snape found himself painted into a corner and really couldn't get out w/o messing up either his relationship with DD or his relationship with V. I think snape thought that by agreeing (and figuring out later what the task was that he had to accomplish if draco couldn't) he had time to plan a counter attack that either didn't include his doing anything or one that would insure that he could complete the task without damaging either side thereby saving his hide and giving him more time to sit on the fence and see who was likely to win.

5. :agree: At this point, Snape had virtually no choice if he wanted to stay alive, ensure Harry's safety, or anything else -- but only because of the Vow to Narcissa he'd already made.

In the long run, I agree that Snape is more complicated than Good/Evil, and won't be a clone of Voldemort or run-of-the-mill DE. But I don't think that necessarily means he'll be good or in-between. As JKR said, he's more culpable than Voldemort because he's been loved, and IMO, it's possible he'll turn out to be in some ways even worse.

Again , I didn't make myself clear - IMO snape has up until this point acted in his own best interests , not b/c of an unbreakable vow but rather b/c it is to his advantage. - if this were not a "children's " book I would opt for Snape as the next Dark Lord , but considering the gendre, I think we are looking at snape choosing the greater good rather then his self interest

daisy5
March 26th, 2006, 9:18 pm
Oh, good point, I had completely forgotten that Sirius presumably didnít have contact with his parents at that point.
The war started before he actually left his family. His comment was probably an accurate description of their opinions while he was still at home.

Blood_River
March 28th, 2006, 4:06 am
The war started when they were 10 or 11 -- when Voldemort started moving in the open, and when Dumbledore began trying to convince people to use his proper name.

Regulus likely didn't join the DEs until after Sirius left -- he would have been 15 at the oldest, and that's young even by LV's special-case standards. Sirius says his parents probably thought Regulus was a right little hero when he first joined up -- so no, he probably would not have been in contact with his parents by the time they got cold feet about Voldemort (if they in fact did so).

Plainly Potter, my point was not that Snape didn't take another vow, just that the evidence provided could easily be explained by other explanations.

I already agreed that when Snape reached the tower he didn't have a choice, but until he reached the tower he didn't know that so his decision not to kill Flitwick, Luna, and Hermione was sheer prudent. He didn't know until he found Dumbledore weak, wandless, surrounded by Death Eaters, an unwilling Malfoy, and a petrified Harry, that he would HAVE to kill Dumbledore so not killing them is better explained IMO by his intention not to ruin his cover until he has to -- and he didn't know yet that he'd have to.

As for occlumency lessons -- you're the one who argued that Snape didn't kill these people because Harry would need them. Harry's need to learn occlumency was much more apparent in OotP than any need for Flitwick, Hermione, or Luna. My point was that any vow that stopped him from hurting people simply because they might potentially be useful to Harry in the future in some indirect way is a vow that would SURELY have stopped him from failing to equip Harry with something so utterly necessary to his self-defence as Occlumency seemed to be then.

Again , I didn't make myself clear - IMO snape has up until this point acted in his own best interests , not b/c of an unbreakable vow but rather b/c it is to his advantage.
Well, if Snape did make an Unbreakable Vow it would be to his advantage not to break it, and I have to wonder, if you weren't arguing that Snape HAD made an Unbreakable Vow, why you spent such a significant amount of space in your previous post explaining all the seeming contradictions with the theory that Snape had made an Unbreakable Vow to protect Harry?

daisy5
March 28th, 2006, 12:33 pm
Regulus likely didn't join the DEs until after Sirius left -- he would have been 15 at the oldest, and that's young even by LV's special-case standards. Sirius says his parents probably thought Regulus was a right little hero when he first joined up -- so no, he probably would not have been in contact with his parents by the time they got cold feet about Voldemort (if they in fact did so).
I must have misread the person I was quoting. I was refering to the whole racial supremacy stuff.

Hermione Snape
March 28th, 2006, 2:52 pm
I personally believe that there is good in Snape, but you have to delve deeper than most to find it. I think he joined the Death Eaters for misunderstood reasons, as someone said, it was part of his quest for repsect, and perhaps power as well.

Yes he scared the brown stuff out of Neville but he saved Harry's life.

Yes he demeaned Hermione, calls her names. Names by the way everyone else calls her, even Neville! But in front of Bella and Cissy he said she was intelligent, (that comment was definitely about her!)

So he sneers at Ron - So do I does that make me bad?

Personally though I think that Lucius is more evil than Snape! There are certain things about Snape's quest in the Dark Arts that don't quite add up to me! I like Snape, and even if he did turn out bina fide evil I'd still like Snape, Jo has tried so hard to make us look at Snape in a negative way that I kind of feel sorry for him that even the author doesn't like him! But again that could be her throwing red herrings to make sure we are truly surprised at the end of it all.

If it doesn't spoil plot for book 7 why didn't she answer Emerson and Melissa's question straight away? Instead she wanted their opinion, which sent up warning bells in my head, she's not done with Snape yet!

Sorry if this has been said before but I haven't got time to read through 38 pages, and remember it all.

hpfan101
March 28th, 2006, 6:48 pm
Personally though I think that Lucius is more evil than Snape! There are certain things about Snape's quest in the Dark Arts that don't quite add up to me! I like Snape, and even if he did turn out bina fide evil I'd still like Snape, Jo has tried so hard to make us look at Snape in a negative way that I kind of feel sorry for him that even the author doesn't like him! But again that could be her throwing red herrings to make sure we are truly surprised at the end of it all.

If it doesn't spoil plot for book 7 why didn't she answer Emerson and Melissa's question straight away? Instead she wanted their opinion, which sent up warning bells in my head, she's not done with Snape yet!
:agree: Snape has been played up to be evil the entire series. He always remains ambiguous. There are certain scenes that have solidified my belief that he is good, though. Even if I am wrong, I'm with you, Hermione Snape, I will still like Snape's character. He is too intruiging for my peace of mind. There is so much under his facade...he is so cool and collected. There are, of course, times when the volcano errupts, but in general, he is so good at hiding his emotions. I love that...it is so mysterious and sneaky.

I already agreed that when Snape reached the tower he didn't have a choice, but until he reached the tower he didn't know that so his decision not to kill Flitwick, Luna, and Hermione was sheer prudent. He didn't know until he found Dumbledore weak, wandless, surrounded by Death Eaters, an unwilling Malfoy, and a petrified Harry, that he would HAVE to kill Dumbledore so not killing them is better explained IMO by his intention not to ruin his cover until he has to -- and he didn't know yet that he'd have to.
This is quite interesting...and I could almost buy it...except he stunned Flitwick. If Snape didn't know what to expect and might possibly have decided to "play it cool" and keep his cover with Dumbledore, what would stunning Flitwick accomplish, except to make Dumbledore suspicous of him? How could he justify that move? I think from the moment that Flitwick arrived and advised Snape of the situation, he had an inkling that things were going down this evening. I think that he knew he would have to act unfavorably. I personally think that him stunning Flitwick gave Luna and Hermione a reason to stay behind and out of the action. You can argue that Snape didn't know that they were there...but come on! This is Snape. Flitwick walks in and says there are Death Eaters in the Castle...help. If Snape knows that Hermione and Luna are waiting outside, what better way to ensure that they don't follow him back up into the battle? By making sure they have a reason to stay behind. And it worked: Hermione and Luna were safe.

cruplover
March 28th, 2006, 8:02 pm
This is quite interesting...and I could almost buy it...except he stunned Flitwick. If Snape didn't know what to expect and might possibly have decided to "play it cool" and keep his cover with Dumbledore, what would stunning Flitwick accomplish, except to make Dumbledore suspicous of him? How could he justify that move? I think from the moment that Flitwick arrived and advised Snape of the situation, he had an inkling that things were going down this evening. I think that he knew he would have to act unfavorably. I personally think that him stunning Flitwick gave Luna and Hermione a reason to stay behind and out of the action. You can argue that Snape didn't know that they were there...but come on! This is Snape. Flitwick walks in and says there are Death Eaters in the Castle...help. If Snape knows that Hermione and Luna are waiting outside, what better way to ensure that they don't follow him back up into the battle? By making sure they have a reason to stay behind. And it worked: Hermione and Luna were safe.

Well-said, hpfan101. Cover to keep or not, stunning Flitwick crosses a line. Snape's smart. He could have thought of a way to detain all three without stunning a fellow professor. Whatever spell Dumbledore used on Harry would have done nicely, and all three would be frozen there when the battle was over. It might have taken a few minutes for a few of the other professors/Order members to figure out how to reverse Snape's spell, but it would beat stunning.

Flarexx
March 28th, 2006, 8:22 pm
^^; I was told on another thread that I might be able to come here to discuss something about Severus Snape that I found interesting and may help with the discussion of "Is he good or bad?" if my theory proves true. Though it's not completely developed, and I've only skirted the possibilities, I thought the catch was pretty good.

Yesterday I had gone over my studies for school and my eye caught onto this:


Septimus Severus dealt harshly with the Christians around the turn of the century, causing the deaths of many believers in North Africa and Gaul. Ireneaus, bishop of Lyons, was beheaded during this period. Severus, it is believed, became favorable toward the Christians before his death, possibly providing explanation for the decrease in persecutions between A.D. 221 and 235 and later between A.D. 238 and 249.


Now, I know that J.K is a christian (she said so herself.) And that she said it was because of her belief that people could guess the end of the book and stuff, so I thought this was really coincidental to come upon a guy named Septimus Severus who persecuted Christians.

It makes me think a lot about Severus Snape, how people think he's evil. Perhaps J.K based her character after Septimus Severus? Or just a coincidence? Afterall, it's sort of likely, seeing as Severus Snape WAS against the good guys. But it says in the end of the paragraph:

Severus, it is believed, became favorable toward the Christians before his death, possibly providing explanation for the decrease in persecutions between A.D. 221 and 235 and later between A.D. 238 and 249.


This is kinda how Snape came back to Dumbledore after the whole Potter thing. Perhaps he's not completely bad.

Since it says at the end he became "favorable" BEFORE HIS DEATH towards christians, then maybe Snape will redeem himself by dying for Harry, and proving himself good?

I'm trying not to tie this in too much with religion, but I still think it's quite more than a coincidence that these two have so much in common (just on different playing grounds.)

Any ideas? ^_^;

Blood_River
March 28th, 2006, 8:25 pm
He could have pretended (as he did to Hermione and Luna) that Flitwick just fainted, or even justified to Dumbledore (privately) that he needed to be alone to act in a manner as to preserve his cover. I think he could have justified it.

And I agree, hpfan, that he probably DID have an inkling -- but ONLY an inkling. I still think it would have been stupid of Evil!Snape to risk blowing his cover by leaving a dead teacher in his office if there were a chance he wouldn't have to. Or possibly he didn't want to waste the energy -- we've heard repeatedly that a killing curse takes quite a bit of power behind it to work. If he DID know or even suspect he had to be killing Dumbledore soon, possibly he didn't want to waste any of that, but was storing it up to accomplish his goal.

There's just tons of reasons, IMO, why Bad!Snape wouldn't have killed people he didn't need to.

hwyla
March 29th, 2006, 8:08 am
Just a reminder - it is NOT YET CANON that Snape stunned Flitwick. It was assumed that he did, but Flitwick was unconscious during the entire conversation. So, as it stands at the end of the book Flitwick had not told Harry that Snape stunned him, nor had he told Harry that he just tripped and hit his head. And IF Flitwick told Pomfrey what happened when he woke up, no one has bothered to inform Harry one way or the other. Just a reminder. We don't yet know.

Hermione Snape
March 29th, 2006, 9:27 am
Just a reminder - it is NOT YET CANON that Snape stunned Flitwick. It was assumed that he did, but Flitwick was unconscious during the entire conversation. So, as it stands at the end of the book Flitwick had not told Harry that Snape stunned him, nor had he told Harry that he just tripped and hit his head. And IF Flitwick told Pomfrey what happened when he woke up, no one has bothered to inform Harry one way or the other. Just a reminder. We don't yet know.


Is that so? Like I said I really need to read the book again!

As for the Septimus Severus parallel :clap: :clap:

Blood_River
March 29th, 2006, 3:43 pm
Good point, but in this case, I think lack of contradiction can be taken as confirmation. Flitwick was fully conscious and alert by the time they all met in the Headmaster's office. He already seemed to know what had happened, and I just can't see JKR dragging something so minor into book 7. I think it was more that she didn't feel the need to confirm it, like she didn't feel the need to spell out how Harry got the Marauder's Map back from Crouch after book 4, or how she didn't mention Harry going back for the invisibility cloak in book 6 -- though I'm sure he didn't leave Hogwarts without it.

Frenullus
April 19th, 2006, 1:17 am
I have a very important question, if anyone can answer it. Since Snape changed sides BEFORE LV's downfall (ref GOF movie), then Voldemort would have known about it, right? I mean, Karkaroff makes the allegation in front of an entire Wizengamot, a court which has reporters. Surely the reporters would have reported what Dumbledore then said ".....Snape turned spy for us at great personal risk...." If not the reporters then at least someone from the hundred odd people in the packed court. Why, even Barty Crouch Jr was there!!! He heard Dumbledore say the statement that Snape turned spy for the Order. HE must have told Voldemort. So the equally important question is....why did Lord Voldemort trust Snape when he returned??!!

Latisha
April 19th, 2006, 5:09 am
Blimey, everyone is so fascinated about Snape. Which I guess is fair enough, as his character has never really been distinguished until now. Snape has always been a grey area. Well, now as far as I am concerned it is out in the open and just like Mr Worntail said, he's a great big ugly, git and my reasoning is as follows;

1. Snape has never, ever, ever been able to let go of the past, i.e. James and Sirius mainly. Remember when he caught Harry snooping in his memories, well, I think that was a inch that we saw then. Because remember, Snape's character is always detached and this being the first time you actually see any real emotion. So as far as I am concerned there will be no way he would want to join Harry, Hermione, Ron, Lupin, Tonks and the rest of them in fighting Voldemort, his ultimate idol.

2. So this means that if Snape really did not forgive James or Sirius at all, it is most likely story he would have told Dumbledore to prove he was changed, and we all know how Dumbledore believes in 2nd chances. So this being his reason for playing "stooge" to Dumbledore as he soooo, lovingly (not) put it. Well guys, this would more than likely mean he was lying and he really was only using it as a cover to get a job at Hogwarts.

3. I really think that Spinner's End is the real Snape, no mask of deceit, just pure arrogance, self important, lying, traitorous, git.

random_musing
April 19th, 2006, 5:19 am
Because remember, Snape's character is always detached and this being the first time you actually see any real emotion.
We see emotion in Snape a lot more than people assume. He really is a VERY emotional man (another reason why some believe he is very feminine).So as far as I am concerned there will be no way he would want to join Harry, Hermione, Ron, Lupin, Tonks and the rest of them in fighting Voldemort, his ultimate idol.
I actually see him wanting to play on opposite sides of the same playing field.2. So this means that if Snape really did not forgive James or Sirius at all, it is most likely story he would have told Dumbledore to prove he was changed, and we all know how Dumbledore believes in 2nd chances. So this being his reason for playing "stooge" to Dumbledore as he soooo, lovingly (not) put it. Well guys, this would more than likely mean he was lying and he really was only using it as a cover to get a job at Hogwarts.
What does forgiving James or Sirius have to do with him getting the job or gaining Dumbeldore's trust? :huh: One of the reasons Dumbledore trusted him in the first place was because of his REMORSE for telling Voldemort the prophecy, at the time not knowing that Lily and James were targets. Sirius has nothign to do with it.3. I really think that Spinner's End is the real Snape, no mask of deceit, just pure arrogance, self important, lying, traitorous, git.
He may be a git, but lying is ultimately what keeps him alive; its what being a spy is all about.

blackgem
April 19th, 2006, 10:55 am
I have a very important question, if anyone can answer it. Since Snape changed sides BEFORE LV's downfall (ref GOF movie), then Voldemort would have known about it, right? I mean, Karkaroff makes the allegation in front of an entire Wizengamot, a court which has reporters. Surely the reporters would have reported what Dumbledore then said ".....Snape turned spy for us at great personal risk...." If not the reporters then at least someone from the hundred odd people in the packed court. Why, even Barty Crouch Jr was there!!! He heard Dumbledore say the statement that Snape turned spy for the Order. HE must have told Voldemort. So the equally important question is....why did Lord Voldemort trust Snape when he returned??!!

Snape tells the girls that it was Voldermort who told him to go adn pretend to be reformed and on Dumbledore's side. I think then he went and gained Dumbledore's trust and Voldemort assumed it was on his orders. The question that reamains, however, is was he lying to Dumbledore or was he lying to Voldy

Nindy
April 19th, 2006, 11:23 am
Snape had to work with people he hated, with people whom he had been bullied by (the Marauders).
He refused to believe it hadn't been James who put his life at risk in their schoolyears and saw no other motive than James saving his own neck from detention or worse by saving him. Later on he projected this hatred upon Harry; never giving him an honest evaluation, even when acknowledged with his experiences due to teaching him Occlumency. He remained to see Harry's motivations as arrogance and whatnot. (Now Harry didn't really try when taught Occlumency and wasn't as honest about wanting to have the dreams as he had been with Lupin about wanting to hear his parents' voices, but that's for another thread, I'm merely pointing out Snape's unwillingness to see matters objectively regarding the Potters/Marauders.)

Personally and not excluding all other millions of possibilities, I think Snape made the Unbreakable Vow due to what I mentioned above. I don't think Dumbledore accepted this as truth ('Snape would tell those he didn't want to know the truth he made the Unbreakable Vow because of his spying-duties, of course he hadn't truly done it'). He always wanted Snape to overcome his issues and Snape thought he was asking too much of him and told him maybe he didn't want to do it anymore (playing double-agent, spying).
Actually, I don't believe even Snape knows with whom his allegiance lies. With helping the Malfoys (Unbreakable Vow and genuine care), giving Harry (that stupid arrogant prat) some harsh advise and maybe paying his life debt to him at the end of book seven. I don't believe his allegiance lies with Voldemort.
I don't believe he's a nice person and especially not one without biases.
He does as he is told to when Dumbledore gives an order (unlike Harry), but doesn't "take" certain things from Dumbledore and is a conflicted man. In a sense and depending on how harsh you judge; yes he did betray Dumbledore.
He wasn't honest with him except when it came to him 'being sick of it' and cringed with pain because of his inner conflict (his anguish when Harry called him a coward, the comparance to Fang howling in Hagrid's burning hut). I believe Dumbledore's plea was for him not to give in to the dark side once again, and I believe he will redeem himself in due time.

padfootrules
April 19th, 2006, 11:53 am
I think everything boils down to faith. Dumbledore's faith in snape. The thing about dumbledore is that he believes in second chances and he has faith in people. Therefore he has paid his price (sirius's death,snape's betrayal, his own death)Snape is a very complicated character - he has no faith. he is a tormented man who is lives a very twisted sad life. When i finished reading the sixth book I first felt anger towards dumbledore for beliving him and hatred toward snape. Everything sisus had thought about him was true and the fact that dumbledore was wrong was more disturbing to me than his death. On top of all of this i sort of felt sorry for snape "Don't- ' screamed snape and his face suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them,'call me a coward!" The guy was in pain.

Frenullus
April 19th, 2006, 6:03 pm
I think everything boils down to faith. Dumbledore's faith in snape. The thing about dumbledore is that he believes in second chances and he has faith in people. Therefore he has paid his price (sirius's death,snape's betrayal, his own death)Snape is a very complicated character - he has no faith. he is a tormented man who is lives a very twisted sad life. When i finished reading the sixth book I first felt anger towards dumbledore for beliving him and hatred toward snape. Everything sisus had thought about him was true and the fact that dumbledore was wrong was more disturbing to me than his death. On top of all of this i sort of felt sorry for snape "Don't- ' screamed snape and his face suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them,'call me a coward!" The guy was in pain.

LV during his duel with DD says something along the lines of "Only fools would love"; DD is capable of loving and having faith, however we can't expect LV to have faith... in Snape. There is some concrete reason why LV accepted Snape's excuses after his earlier betrayal before LV's downfall. The question is.....what???

nirvanamuse
April 20th, 2006, 11:17 pm
i believe snape is good and was forced to kill dumbledor by dumbledor himmself (dumbledor pleaded for snape,apparently, not to kill him, what if he was actually begging snape to kill him)
snape was then over angry at the coward thing because by doing someting like that and by tricking voldy, he was working his butt off!
poor snape

silver ink pot
April 21st, 2006, 12:42 am
I think everything boils down to faith. Dumbledore's faith in snape. The thing about dumbledore is that he believes in second chances and he has faith in people. Therefore he has paid his price (sirius's death,snape's betrayal, his own death)Snape is a very complicated character - he has no faith. he is a tormented man who is lives a very twisted sad life. When i finished reading the sixth book I first felt anger towards dumbledore for beliving him and hatred toward snape. Everything sisus had thought about him was true and the fact that dumbledore was wrong was more disturbing to me than his death. On top of all of this i sort of felt sorry for snape "Don't- ' screamed snape and his face suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them,'call me a coward!" The guy was in pain.
Interesting post! :tu: :)

Faith is definitely something we have to consider. Harry finds Dumbledore's trust in Snape "nearly unforgiveable." But even though he has seen what happened on the Tower, Harry still has the impulse to somehow get Snape and Dumbledore back together and that would make things right somehow.

I'm not sure Dumbledore was wrong - I still trust him, though I was certainly disturbed by what happened (check out my avatar to see what my reaction was - haha).

Chievrefueil
April 21st, 2006, 2:15 am
LV during his duel with DD says something along the lines of "Only fools would love"; DD is capable of loving and having faith, however we can't expect LV to have faith... in Snape. There is some concrete reason why LV accepted Snape's excuses after his earlier betrayal before LV's downfall. The question is.....what???I agree--Voldemort doesn't care about his Death Eaters. To him they are tools to help him achieve his end. He shows this in how he treats Pettigrew, for example. He even uses Ginny as a tool to open the Chamber of Secrets for him.

So, I also think that Snape had to have offered Voldemort something very concrete when he returned late to the Graveyard. At Spinner's End, he tells Bellatrix that it was 16 years of information on Dumbledore. Not only that, but Dumbledore thought that Snape was his man. Since Dumbledore is "the only one he ever feared," having someone on the inside who could continue to feed him information on what Dumbledore was doing would be very valuable to him.

However, there is a sign that Voldemort doesn't trust Snape--Pettigrew's presence at Spinner's End. It seems likely that Voldemort placed Pettigrew with Snape to keep an eye on him.

Nindy
April 21st, 2006, 2:06 pm
Pettigrew's presence at Spinner's End is suspicious, and it does seem likely Voldemort placed him there to keep an eye on Snape. Maybe Snape was too useful to Voldemort to dispose of, after all, he could give information on 'The Only One He Ever Feared', but didn't take the risk of trusting him entirely since he had to be just as dutiful and willing to give Dumbledore information to maintain his job there. I doubt he'll still need Pettigrew at Spinner's End now though, unless he decides to resent Snape for hiding Draco from his anger or disallowing him to finish the job himself, although the latter does seem unlikely.

dungeonguard
April 21st, 2006, 3:40 pm
Well, I sometimes feel as if Snape is not bad, but not good either. At some times, he seems to protect Harry or someone else that he doesn't like. I really like the dueling lesson part in the second book because it shows how he sometimes treats Malfoy like a slave when he keeps pushing him around and forcing him to duel. Maybe he wants to make Malfoy stronger when he becomes a Death Eater, which brings up another question. Does Snape know that Malfoy is going to be a Death Eater? Anyway, I have very mixed feelings about Snape. Sometimes he is good and sometimes he is bad. It depends on the event. There is the dueling event where he is mean to Malfoy, which is the complete opposite of the event in the sixth book where Harry uses the Sectumsempra spell on Malfoy. This is opposite because he is very harsh towards Harry for casting Sectumsempra on Malfoy and getting him injured. In this event, he is trying to protect Malfoy from injury because he knows that he is a Death Eater to Voldemort. Overall, Snape is neither bad nor good, and his moods change in the events he must endure to keep young wizards, especially in Slytherin, safe from further harm...

Rabia
April 21st, 2006, 6:52 pm
Harry finds Dumbledore's trust in Snape "nearly unforgiveable." But even though he has seen what happened on the Tower, Harry still has the impulse to somehow get Snape and Dumbledore back together and that would make things right somehow.


Thanks for reminding me that Harry thought this about Dumbledoreīs trust in Snape in the end, SIP. Isnīt that interesting? Harry finds so many things unforgiveable Ė quite the opposite of Dumbledore. I would prefer it if Harry was more like Dumbledore in this respect.
Well, if Dumbledore made a mistake in trusting Snape, it really was such a major error that, yes, one could be angry. Not about the fact, but more that it seemed he never even bothered to give the others good reasons.
But I still believe he was right. I think he didnīt tell the real reason for trusting Snape, because this information about Snape was really private.

MoonyJ
April 22nd, 2006, 8:51 pm
I feel Severus Snape is the most misunderstood characters in the Harry Potter series. We do not know for sure where his true allegiance lie. But I feel there have been plenty of hints dropped in the books.

First off why did Dumbledore trust Severus. I think Severus did regret giving the prophacy to Valdomort, when he discovered that the Potters were Voldemort's target. Remember James saved Snape's life and Dumbledore told use that something happens when one wizzard saves anothers life. There is something to this statement. Yes Severus disliked James Potter, but he did not want him dead. Perhaps Snape was indebted to James until he returned the favor and saved James' life. Remember Dumbledore said some one tipped the Order off that Voldemort was hunting the Potters, this is why they went into hidding in the first place. I think it was Snape that tipped the Order off when he knew Voldemort had chosen the Potters as his target. This point is where I believe Severus switched sides.

But since Snape was a good Occlumence and already a trusted servent of Lord Voldemort, Dumbledore decided to use him as a spy. So Severus had to appear to stay evil. And because Dumbledore never believed Voldemort to dead, Snape had to keep his mean demeanor through the years. And because no one is as good at Occlumency as Dumbledore and Snape, no one else could be let in on the secrete without running the risk of discovery.

I believe Dumbledore made Snape promise to kill him. Remember Dumbledore pleading with Snape right before Severus killed him. I do not believe Dumbledore was pleading for his life because he did not fear death, but for Snape to keep his promise. I do not believe Snape wanted to do it, but Harry didn't want to make Dumbledore drink the potion either. But if you are truly loyal to Dumbledore, you will keep your word with him. You may ask why Dumbledore would want to die.........many reasons possibly.

........Maybe Dumbledore knew with his death Voldemort would be more visable. Remember Voldemort feared Dumbledore and with Dumbledore gone he would not stay in hiding any longer. Also with Snape killing Dumbledore, Snape would definately be trusted completely by Voldemort and most likely would be keep close to his "master". Another reason is to protect Draco, remember Dumbledore is full of compassion and would wish to save Dracos life. This would keep Draco safe for now and put Severus in a position to keep a future eye on Draco. And lastly did Severus even kill Dumbledore. Did Avada Kedavra work. Remember you have to mean an unforgivable curse before they will work. Remember Crucio didn't work correctly for Harry, because he didn't truly mean it. So if Snape did not truly mean to kill, would Avada Kedavra work correctly. Just a theory.

My final reason for thinking Snape is truly good is this. The last time we saw Severus he appeard to be fighting Harry OR was he teaching. Look closer. Snape told Harry and I quote from HBP here Pg 602.

"No Unforgivable Curses from you, Potter!" .................."You haven't got the nerve or the ability----"

and then on Pg 603
"Blocked again and again and again until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed, Potter!"

Why would you tell your enemy how to fight, if you really wasn't trying to help him be more effective. No I believe Severus was telling Harry something very important. The Unforgivable Curses will not work for you, because you don't really mean them. And if you intend to defeat the Dark Lord you must master Occlumency and learn to cast all spells nonverbaly.

I believe Severus is totally good and extremely brave. He has had to do somethings that he hates. But it is all for the greater good. Always remember Dubledore said some things are worth dying for.

Swee
April 24th, 2006, 3:11 pm
I'm new to the CoS and didn't know that this thread exists. If anyone wants to see my thory, please look for 'Severus Snape's Severe Style'. Thank You.

RavenLH
April 25th, 2006, 4:40 am
I Have a theory
I think Snape is good I think Dumbledore told him to kill him rather than him to blow his cover and if he didn't he would die and they would lose one of their most vauable members in the order of the Phoneix and because Snape killed him when he did it saved Harry he sacafriced himself to save Harry so Harry should be covred once again by that old magic that saved him as a baby except it is after Voldemort has his blood and he won't know and it gives Harry an enormous advantage Voldemort doesn't know he'll be too Happy that he's dead to consider what he left behind. Which will probley save Harry's life again except Harry will probley have destroyed all of the Horcruxes and he will die instead of becomeing a vapor ghost thingy.

criostoir
April 27th, 2006, 8:45 pm
It seems that the general consensus is that Snape, while not "good" per se, was certainly on the side of Dumbledore. I tend to agree. However, that consensus makes me think that, perhaps, Rowling means to make him as bad as he seems to Harry. Probably not, but it never hurts to be prepared.

For my money, I'm betting that Dumbledore begged to be killed by Snape to free Draco from the responsibility of doing it himself, and eventually freeing Draco to assist Harry in the climactic battle. I just don't see Dumbledore begging for his own life, even weakened as he was by the potion in the goblet.

Tane
May 2nd, 2006, 1:17 pm
I think one of the things that points towards Snape being good and not truely ever wanting to really hurt James is the use of the Sectasempra spell. Snape directs the spell at Jame and it cuts his face, one cut but if Snape wanted to truely hurt James then he would have followed through with the spell like Harry did and cut right across Jame's face, body the whole lot of him because the spell appears to be stopped at will and can last either in a short warning burst or in a frantic, manic long way like Harry showed us.

Death eaters tend not to be fair players, Snape was with James as he gave him a warning shot.

Nindy
May 2nd, 2006, 5:05 pm
Snape did give James a warning shot and I don't want to prove him being either good or bad because all sides have valid arguments, but wouldn't it have been a bit of a give-away for Snape to (if he wanted to) cut right across James' face? Personally I thought he didn't take the spell as far as Harry proved it could to avoid detention, and suspicion for that matter.

staniw
May 3rd, 2006, 11:16 pm
Death eaters tend not to be fair players, Snape was with James as he gave him a warning shot.

Even if this proves anything it will be limited to the knowledge that Snape in his 5th year wasn't a deatheater. That doesn't help much, because we know he would become one. It is the question if his return was genuine in the first place, and if it was, if he turned again...

GinnyRules
May 4th, 2006, 2:00 am
snape just wanted to avoid trouble. he had to be a fair player if he didn't want detention like harry got.

Crookshanks99
May 4th, 2006, 2:55 am
snape just wanted to avoid trouble. he had to be a fair player if he didn't want detention like harry got.

I wouldn't say that was his reason necessarily. We don't know too much about his history at school, maybe that didn't really matter to him.

The way it comes across to me is that the magnitude of the spell is somewhat dependant upon the person's feeling. If that is true, I suppose it doesn't necessarily prove that Snape's a good guy (I think he is) but at least proves that Harry hates Draco more than Snape hated James:D

MalfoysShovel
May 4th, 2006, 5:48 pm
I completely trust Snape..

This may have already been said.. But when I was rereading HBP the other day.. I started to think about Syltherin's Ring (the horcrux) which Dumbley found and destroyed.. Dumbley mentions about how if he hadn't been such a good wizard and if it hadn't been for Snape's potions skills he would be dead. Right. So if Snape did help save Dumbley's life, he would know about the ring.. If not about it's importance, but still he would know that Dumbley nearly died destroying this ring. If he is working for Voldemort, then SURELY he would have told Dumbley about what had happened to Dumbley. Voldey would know immediately that Dumbley knew about the horcruxs.. So, surely Dumbley would have visited all of his remaining horcruxes.. So, you'd expect their to be EXTRA protection around the remaining ones.. Which there obviously wasn't as Volde doesn't know that the locket was gone.. So, because Voldey does't know that some of the hocruxes have been destroyed, that would mean that Snape hasn't told him about the ring incident. Seeing as what Dumbley is up to is important to Volde, Snape, if loyal to voldey, would surely have told him about a near death experience. As Snape hasn't told Voldey, does that not imply which side he is really on?!

abeth
May 4th, 2006, 6:29 pm
I agree with you that Dumbledore is a very human character and he makes very human mistakes. I do think, however, that trusting Snape wasnít one of his mistakes.

I think itís one thing to make the mistake of not telling Harry about the prophecy, or not realising that there was something wrong with Quirrel and Crouch/Moody, and quite another not to realise in 16 years that Snape might be up to no good. He had no reason to suspect Quirrel and Moody, but he had very good reasons to suspect ex-Death Eater Snape. I think he must have had a very good reason to trust Snape, something else than just wanting to see the best in others.

Snape claims in the Spinnerís End chapter in HBP that Dumbledoreís greatest weakness is his insistence on believing the best of people. I do think that Dumbledore sees the best in people, but I think thatís his greatest strength, not a weakness. But if Dumbledore was betrayed and murdered because he thought there is something good in the human nature, then it would seem like trusting people and seeing the best in them is indeed a weakness. I donít think thatís the message JKR intends to send.

:welcome:

Well, I agree with you that Snape is on Dumbledoreís side, but I donít think they were talking about Snapeís spying duties, and that Snape didnít want to be a spy anymore. We see in GoF that he is perfectly willing to risk his life in order to spy for the Order, and we also see that Dumbledore doesnít force him to do anything, he asks Snape if he is ready and prepared. In my opinion Snape refusing to be a spy anymore and Dumbledore telling him that he must do it seems out of character for both Snape and Dumbledore.



Is it possible that Dumbledore suspected Quirrell & Crouch/Moody? Maybe he just wanted Harry to find out on his own that were bad & fight them to get the experince? I beleive that Dumbledore knows all & sees all... I have to beleive that Dumbledore had a very good reason to trust Snape.

Artemis_Fowl_2
May 4th, 2006, 6:34 pm
I completely trust Snape..

This may have already been said.. But when I was rereading HBP the other day.. I started to think about Syltherin's Ring (the horcrux) which Dumbley found and destroyed.. Dumbley mentions about how if he hadn't been such a good wizard and if it hadn't been for Snape's potions skills he would be dead. Right. So if Snape did help save Dumbley's life, he would know about the ring.. If not about it's importance, but still he would know that Dumbley nearly died destroying this ring. If he is working for Voldemort, then SURELY he would have told Dumbley about what had happened to Dumbley. Voldey would know immediately that Dumbley knew about the horcruxs.. So, surely Dumbley would have visited all of his remaining horcruxes.. So, you'd expect their to be EXTRA protection around the remaining ones.. Which there obviously wasn't as Volde doesn't know that the locket was gone.. So, because Voldey does't know that some of the hocruxes have been destroyed, that would mean that Snape hasn't told him about the ring incident. Seeing as what Dumbley is up to is important to Volde, Snape, if loyal to voldey, would surely have told him about a near death experience. As Snape hasn't told Voldey, does that not imply which side he is really on?!
I've heard this argument before and the counter to it is that Severus did not have to know about the ring in order to help Albus. Albus could have just said it was a specific or general curse on an object but would not have to tell Severus that it was one of Voldemort's horcruxes.

MalfoysShovel
May 4th, 2006, 7:38 pm
Even if he hadn't told Snape about it being a horcrux, Snape must have seen the ring.. Because the ring was on when he visited Harry and I'm assuming he had already recieved lifesaving treatment from Snape by then.. I'm sure Snape would have mentioned the ring to Volde if he was disloyal to Dumbley.

harryp31
May 5th, 2006, 4:42 pm
Back?! I don't think Snape was ever good! And I don't think he ever will be, either!

bex93
May 5th, 2006, 7:36 pm
Ooooh!Im so not sure.Im not fully convinced that he is evil but is he good?Lets say he wasn't.But would he come back without Dumbledore?Er.It's hard.

Corvus
May 5th, 2006, 8:38 pm
I still trust in Dumbledores judgement about Snape.

criostoir
May 5th, 2006, 8:46 pm
This is so great! One of the wonderful things about Rowling is that she wrote HBP so well that there's no way to tell for sure what Snape's intentions are. I think he's good, but I'm not certain.

Has anyone discussed his screaming at Harry when the latter called Snape a coward? I interpreted that to mean that he, Snape, had the courage to serve under Voldemort while working as a spy for the Order, to kill Dumbledore which would put the Order against him, etc. In other words, Snape has no allies now because he's against the only one who will accept him (Voldemort) and has made enemies of his allies (the Order) in following Dumbledore's Orders.

Sucks for him! He's one of the saddest characters in the book. Actually, there are many sad characters. Rowling doesn't make the world pretty at all. She writes very much like the old fairy tales in that way.

Dobbyroxmysoxs
May 5th, 2006, 9:00 pm
Well after reading editorials, and all that, I'm pretty sure he's good. I didn't at first though..... i was pretty sure if a person could kill a fictional character with thoughts, it would be me(and many other HP fans I'm sure) but now i'm 50% positive he's good(the other part of me is screaming ARE YOU MAD HE KILLED DUMBLEDORE, HE KILLED HIM, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING!!!!!!!!) :D

Abraxan_angel
May 5th, 2006, 9:05 pm
Snapes definately good-if Dumbledore believes in him so do I!

Lily226
May 5th, 2006, 9:33 pm
ABRACADABRA - ?One of the few words entirely without meaning, this confusing term is still used in a joking way by those making ?magic.? It was first mentioned in a poem by Quintus Severus Sammonicus in the second century.

I just found this on a website
http://www.phrases.org.uk/bulletin_board/19/messages/817.html

I thought it was an interesting little fact. I have never seen it before.

snape (v.)
"to be hard upon, rebuke, snub," c.1300, from O.N. sneypa "to outrage, dishonor, disgrace."

Celestrin
May 6th, 2006, 2:01 am
Is Snape good? I'm going to say yes here but with the preface of this, the world isn't devided into good people and death eaters. I belive in the world of Spy's Snape true alegince was to Dumbledore. So if by good you mean on the good guys side, I think so. I'm gonna have to just say though that my reason for that is the same as Dumbles. I mean, I have 1000 reasons, but it really boils down to, I Turst Snape.

Will he come back, nope, I really see Snape going down in the end. He is a charctor I think wont live out the end of the seires because he needs to die by one hand or the other. Death brings a completeness to this sort of charactor. Hes walked the line for 6 books, and now hes going to have to topple.

He has just had tooo many opertunities to kill Dumbles to be evil. He didn't have to save Dumbledore after they reterieved the ring Horcrux, but he did.

Thats just one off the top of my head. Not to mention, the million little hints Dumbles gives us that he knew he was dying by the end of the year. Off the top of my head here:
1)wraps up things with the dursleys when it could have waited (including specificly giving them information on where #12 is)
2)I don't have a bunch of cannon on this one, but if Dumbles really knew that draco was trying to kill him all year, how'd he find out. Because Snape told him, everything, including the unbreakable.
3) I'm sorry but Albus would not beg for his life. He was beging Snape to do it because he knew at that moment it was either him or snape. And he didn't want it to be Snape.
4) This is my big one becuase I've never seen it discused before:

Dumbles sends Harry to go get his invisabilty cloak before they go get the locket horcux. The same cloak Dumbles told him to have with him at all times. The same cloak Dumbles knew Harry had on him because Harry did have it on him all year, as per directed.

This gave Harry a reason to return to the common room and set things in motion with Ron and Hermione.

He knew what was coming, he always does. Snapes not evil, I know it, and so did Dumbles.

siriusblack20
May 6th, 2006, 3:10 am
I really think Snape is bad. I mean HE KUST KILLED ONE OF THE MOST AMAZING CHARACTER IN THE HARRY POTTER BOOKS!!! But i still think that there is some good left in him. And maybe he is confused just like me. I think he's bad but there's still good in him. He did not really want to kill Dumbledore because Dumbledore cares about Snape and I think no other person cared about Snape maybe not even his parents. :love:

criostoir
May 6th, 2006, 10:54 pm
ABRACADABRA - ?One of the few words entirely without meaning, this confusing term is still used in a joking way by those making ?magic.?

Actually, it means quite a lot more than one would think, and one of the meanings directly connects to Harry Potter. Here is an excellent article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abracadabra)on the word itself.

As for the Harry Potter connection, Avada Kidavra is related to the popular "mumbo-jumbo" magical phrase Abracadabra, which is actually of Aramaic origin: avra (or abara) means "I will create"; kedavra means "as I speak". Thus, abracadabra, "I will create as I speak". Similarly, avada means "I will destroy". So, in Rowling's world, the killing curse literally means "I will destroy as I speak", a pretty fair description of its effects.

Cool, huh?

DarkFlux
May 7th, 2006, 12:26 am
I am certain that snape is still on the side of the order,

1, Dumbledore trusts snape but i don't believe the reason he gave to harry.

2, He only killed dumbledore because he had made the unbreakable vow to protect draco as he carried out voldemorts orders. As everyone knows, if you don't live up to an unbreakable vow, you die.

3, Dumbledore twiced ordered snape to kill him if he had to. The first time was in the forest which hagrid over heard and the second time was on top of the tower.

4, In the first book snape helped to stop quirrell/voldemort from stealing the stone and he went out of his way to protect harry.

5, In the third book he again tried to protect harry even if it wasn't wanted or needed.