Is Snape good? If not, will he come back to the good side? v4

I can't agree with that. I was re-reading Goblet of Fire and in it it talks about how Crouch gave orders to the Aurors that they were allowed to kill people on Voldemort's side. Which suggests at some point the Aurors killed people and they were on the good side.

but I don't think killing can be purely an act that is commited by evil people.

Oh I know, but wasnt the Aurors having the power to kill part of the discussion on Crouch maybe going a little too far? that the Ministry never really know the right course of action for tackling Voldemort and the DEs? Thats what Sirius says in GOF its what Harry says at the end of HBP. Also who made the point of Moody while an Auror always bringing in DEs alive?
I didnt say killing was by evil people but bad people. A subtle difference, some may call it semantics but again, Sirius in OOtP says that the world isnt divided into good and DEs. Its the people who cant choose whats right over whats easy. Its all about the choices we make.

Whether you can take another life and the choices you make are big themes in the series imo and so far Snape isnt showing up too good.

I can't agree with that. I was re-reading Goblet of Fire and in it it talks about how Crouch gave orders to the Aurors that they were allowed to kill people on Voldemort's side. Which suggests at some point the Aurors killed people and they were on the good side.

Plus I all think it comes down to your intentions. If Harry goes out tomorrow and kills Voldemort will he suddenly become a bad person? Sometimes there's a bigger picture involved. It might not be the case here but I don't think killing can be purely an act that is commited by evil people.

I agree. The people out there who kill someone in self-defense aren't bad people. They have no other choice but to kill that person. It's either kill or be killed. Harry's situation is pretty much the same way. Voldemort is going to try to kill him, and the only way for him to survive is if he kills Voldemort first. It's self-defense; but he's also killing Voldemort for the good of the wizarding and muggle worlds. Killing Voldemort won't make Harry a bad person.

Severus did kill Albus, but in doing so, it doesn't make him a bad person. Severus had taken a Vow with Narcissa earlier in the book (which he had to do, or else he would have been seen as a traitor to Voldemort; which I firmly believe is the case), and if he hadn't carried out the task, he would have been killed as well. Now, people will argue that if Severus really was loyal to Albus, that he would have sacrificed himself. While that is a good arguement, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of that night. Severus would have been dead, but Albus would have been killed anyway; just by someone else's hand.

If Severus is loyal to the Order, it wouldn't have been benefical to them to have both Albus and Severus gone, now would it? I know that after killing Albus, Severus has lost all the trust he gained from the Order, but that doesn't mean he won't be able to assist them. Severus is now so far in with Voldemort, that he'll be able to sabatoge Voldemort's plans (and he'll be so trusted by Voldemort, that he won't be suspected when things start going wrong) and gain information that will be very useful to Harry and everyone else. The problem with that, though, is figuring out how to give the information to them; but Severus is a very intelliegent, and resourceful wizard, so it's believable that he could easily find a way around that road block.

Originally Posted By SusanBones111
He is not truly evil. A person is not one thing or the other. There is no black and white. People are not all good or all evil. Snape is not all good or all bad. Trying to put him in one category is impossible.

Exactly! It's as Sirius said one time: The world isn't split between good people and Death Eaters. There has to be a middle ground; a gray area inbetween black and white. Severus has been written very carefully. So far, everything that he's done to be considered evil, has been counteracted by something that is considered good. Severus has been, and still is, the perfect example of that middle ground; that gray area. And we won't know for sure whether he is closer to the black or the white area until Deathly Hallows.

I agree. One would assume Dumbledore's emotions would betray at least an inkling of anger, should one of his most trusted allies have double-crossed him. However, it didn't seem Dumbledore was angry, but rather somewhat sad. We know that he was not afraid of death (in PS, he says that "death is but the next great adventure."). So, therefore, the only possible option that comes to mind is that he is willing Snape to commit an act against Snape's own will.

Obviously it's not the only possible option since we have been discussing all the options. lol :) I'm not sure that we would see DD angry. We've seen him stern on a number of occasions but not angry. The only instance we hear about with DD angry is from Hermione when the Dementors come to the Quidditch game in PoA.

Also let's remember DD emotions when he realizes that the occlumency lessons have gone bad. He was, tired, and saddened even, at the realization that there was too much bad water under the bridge between Snape/Harry and Snape/James for those lessons to work.

Also the reason that DD never gave Snape the Dark Arts job was ostensibly because he didn't want to feed the temptation to turn back to the dark side...

The issue of trust is huge here. Funnily enough JKR gives us two instances of trust on DD part. He says that he trusts Hagrid with his life. He says he trust Snape completely. To me when you trust someone with you life it is all encompassing...you would trust them with any task without a second thought. When you say trust someone completely...it is much easier to narrow down. DD may have indeed completely trusted Snape to protect Harry, but he was well aware that Snape had to be handled carefully so that Snape would fall in line with DD plans.


In PoA, Harry thinks that staring into Snape's eyes is "exactly" like staring into the eyes of a Hippogriff, which is associated with pride, trust and truth. ("Snape's Grudge")

The hippogriff as a whole is associated with pride trust and truth. But when Harry, or any other person , is trying to approach a hippogriff you only focus on one of those aspects...and that is pride. The one thing you don't want to do is insult a hippogriff. I belive that is how Harry views Snape, as very prideful...I know that Harry does NOT associate him with trust OR truth.


Considering how Dumbledore seemed oddly tranquil at his time of death, it must be concluded that he was not flustered by the sudden prospect of death, but rather expected it and was unafraid of its possibilities

There is a simpler reason than everyone thinks as to why DD appeared tranquil and unsurprised at the prospect of sudden death. Let us not forget that DD has taken it upon himself to find and destroy one or more horcruxes from the outset of HBP. Considering the state of his hand it is doubtful that he thought that he would be able to destroy the horcruxes without harm to himself. He probably thought it would be a distinct possibility that he would die during his attempts to destroy the horcruxes. So for anyone saying that DD was expecting to die, that he was making plans for the eventuality of his death, you don't need a convoluted UV theory. Of coursehe was making plans. Because of the horcrux hunt... If Harry had not been in the cave with DD he would not have made it back to Hogwarts and the expected help from Snape to begin with...so you see he WAS prepared for death in some form from the get go..the fact that it was Snape was probably not as shocking as you would think. When faced with Death a man like DD probably had other thoughts on his mnd...jmho.

I can't agree with that. I was re-reading Goblet of Fire and in it it talks about how Crouch gave orders to the Aurors that they were allowed to kill people on Voldemort's side. Which suggests at some point the Aurors killed people and they were on the good side.


Specifically, Alastor Moody was part of a Ministry team that killed Evan Rosier, a Death Eater who resisted arrest. This is the incident in which Moody lost part of his nose, so the killing was likely performed in self-defense or to defend the others present. Nonetheless, I agree it indicates Rowling is not going to advocate the extreme (I mean extreme descriptively, not pejoratively) pacificst position that no killing, ever, under any circumstances, is forgivable. There is also, in HBP, Dumbledore's tacit approval of Harry's resolve to kill Voldemort.

Also who made the point of Moody while an Auror always bringing in DEs alive?

The quote is by Sirius, the italics are mine.


"He takes his Defense Against the Dark Arts seriously, Moody. I'm not sure he trusts anyone at all, and after the things he's seen, it's not surprising. I'll say this for Moody, though, he never killed if he could help it. Always brought people in alive where possible."


If Moody had never been involved in any killings in the line of duty, I don't think Sirius would use the qualifying phrases I highlighted. The Rosier incident was a specific case where killing could not be avoided, presumably without risking others' lives.

The argument is that Snape could not achieve the other goals Dumbledore would want him to achieve, without killing him (for the reason that Snape would be dead).

Because of the horcrux hunt... If Harry had not been in the cave with DD he would not have made it back to Hogwarts and the expected help from Snape to begin with...so you see he WAS prepared for death in some form from the get go..the fact that it was Snape was probably not as shocking as you would think. When faced with Death a man like DD probably had other thoughts on his mnd...jmho.

Dumbledore's death left Harry alone on the Tower with (if you count Snape, since you are assuming he chose for Voldemort in that scene, and Dumbledore knew it) six Death Eaters. I would imagine that would be Dumbledore's paramount concern at the moment he realized he was betrayed. And I don't think he would be calm about it. We've seen his reactions to real threats to Harry a couple of times - in GoF he was in a cold fury over Fake Moody, in OotP he was frightened when Voldemort disappeared. I would expect a likewise uncalm emotion if he died in the belief that he was leaving Harry in dreadful danger and alone.

Of course, if in the instant he died he believed Snape was still on his side, he would believe Harry is not alone. He would still have an ally and protector in Snape.

The issue of trust is huge here. Funnily enough JKR gives us two instances of trust on DD part. He says that he trusts Hagrid with his life. He says he trust Snape completely. To me when you trust someone with you life it is all encompassing...you would trust them with any task without a second thought. When you say trust someone completely...it is much easier to narrow down.

In terms of the dictionary meanings of the words, this is not true. Completely means totally, thoroughly - if you trust someone completely, you trust them with many different things/everything. Trusting with one's life is very narrow and specific. You trust the person with a particular, albeit important, thing. Not that I think Dumbledore trusts Hagrid less than Snape - I think he trusts them both equally. Just that he actually entrusts Hagrid with guarding people and things (like fetching the Stone, or Harry, on a couple of different occasions) because he not only trustworthy, but ideally suited to the role of guardian by his dispostion, size, and physical immunity to a variety of spells. Whereas Snape he entrusts with his mysterious spy duties (which does mean entrusting lives to Snape as well).

However, that is not the way I would expect things to play out. Snape could be useful to the Order without their knowledge. One way would be by acting as a saboteur, wrecking DE plans from the inside, or convincing DEs who may know valuable information to seek asylum with the Order (I think the Malfoy family are prime candidates for this). Another would be by providing information anonymously.

There is a flaw with this plan, however, and that lies in Snape's character. We have seen that Snape - loyalties and allegiances aside - is one that cares greatly about saving his own skin. What benefits would that hold for him? He would neither be rewarded by the Order or praised by the Death Eaters. I do not think that that idea would hold any appeal to him in the least.

This also comes down to another point: Snape has been wholly on one side or the other at points in his life. He was once a Death Eater, but we saw that he got cold feet and attempted to switch sides. It is very easy to see him transferring allegiances because one side appeared to have a leg up on the other. Which, of course, comes back to the fact that he is very self-concerned.

From Yoana:
There are just too many "if he's truly evil, why...?" Such as:
If he's truly evil, why did he alert Dumbledore that the Potters had become Voldemort's target?
If he's truly evil, why didn't he return immediately when he felt the Dark Mark burning? When everyone else returned? He's the greatest Legillimens along with Voldemort and Dumbledore, he could always lie to Dumbledore. If he could so easily fool him with his remorse tale, then he'd hardly have any difficulties lying to him about not having been there. I just don't buy his story how he was concerned about his place as a spy at Hogwarts, and I can't understand how Bellatrix could buy it.

I sort of answered this above.

Firstly, I'd like to clear the air and say that no one is really, truly, honestly evil. Sure, they may be evil-like, or pretty dang close, but no one IS evil. Evil is an intangible concept incapable of physical manifestation, blah, blah, okay. Enough of that.

In answer to your first question, I believe that prior to that event he was already backing out, getting cold feet, preparing to switch sides, because he believed that the "good" side was gaining an advantage. Not necessarily had an advantage, but had the potential...like in football/soccer when the ref doesn't blow his whistle on a nasty play b/c the other team could possibly have an advantage anyway.

In answer to your second series of questions, I suggest you re-read "Spinner's End" a few times. I have re-read that particular chapter a multitude of times, and reading it with an open mind really opens your mind to more possibilites than the complex conspiracy that Snape is the icon of redemption.

Who said that he was the greatest Legilimens in the world besides DD and LV? I thought that he was a skilled Occlumens. But that does not necessarily mean that he is as skilled at Legilimency.

Also, I do not think it is fair to make any assumptions about DD's trust in Snape until we are knowledgeable of the lengths Snape went to to declare loyalty. It is too murky to base any theories from.

So for anyone saying that DD was expecting to die, that he was making plans for the eventuality of his death, you don't need a convoluted UV theory. Of coursehe was making plans. Because of the horcrux hunt...
No one is making up Unbreakable Vow Theories. It's just that you have to accept that as part of the story. Yes, it complicates things - but that is JKR's intention. It makes Dumbledore's death absolutely crucial, but he aslo drank the potion in the cave, and had the withered hand.

So the Horcrux Hunt took it's toll, but Snape reacted with horror at having to kill Dumbledore, and he didn't hurt Harry afterwards. Nor did he hurt Hermione and Luna when he knew the DEs were in the castle. He could have handed all of them to Voldemort on a platter, but he left all the kids behind, and healthy, except Bill Weasley, and that wasn't his fault.

Dumbledore seems to have known all about the UV. Harry told Dumbledore what he knew about it, and Dumbledore seemed to know what was happening.

Oh I know, but wasnt the Aurors having the power to kill part of the discussion on Crouch maybe going a little too far? that the Ministry never really know the right course of action for tackling Voldemort and the DEs? Thats what Sirius says in GOF its what Harry says at the end of HBP. Also who made the point of Moody while an Auror always bringing in DEs alive?
I didnt say killing was by evil people but bad people. A subtle difference, some may call it semantics but again, Sirius in OOtP says that the world isnt divided into good and DEs. Its the people who cant choose whats right over whats easy. Its all about the choices we make.

Whether you can take another life and the choices you make are big themes in the series imo and so far Snape isnt showing up too good.
Let's look at it another way . . . Snape has made some good choices, and let's not forget that before he had to kill Dumbledore in Book 6, he also saved his life in what Dumbledore called a "thrilling tale."

In PoA, Hagrid says a few things that shed light on Snape.

Hagrid is upset about the Ministry wanting to kill Buckbeak, and he would let the creature go free except that he is afraid of going back to Azkaban and he's afraid to "break the law again."

We know that Snape has been in trouble with the Ministry before, but Dumbledore spoke up for him - as with Hagrid. At the time when Snape is threatening Sirius with Dementors, everyone else in the Ministry has been searching for Sirius Black as an escaped criminal. He has also broken into Hogwarts twice and gotten as far as Harry's room with a knife. Dumbledore said that Sirius "hasn't acted like an innocent man."

Snape walks into the Shrieking Shack and sees two people he never liked anyway - one a werewolf about to turn, and one a criminal - apparently holding three children hostage, one of whom has a broken leg. Snape didn't have to go in there himself, but he did and he would have gotten everyone back to the castle safely if the kids hadn't zapped him.

So we can debate killing, but Snape never killed Sirius, and when he could have left him by the lake for the dementors, he put him on a stretcher instead and brought him in the way he was supposed to. If Snape had done anything else, I would be the first to agree that something was fishy.

But right down the line, he does what a logical person would do.

The hippogriff as a whole is associated with pride trust and truth. But when Harry, or any other person , is trying to approach a hippogriff you only focus on one of those aspects...and that is pride. The one thing you don't want to do is insult a hippogriff. I belive that is how Harry views Snape, as very prideful...I know that Harry does NOT associate him with trust OR truth.
That's not true - At the very moment Harry thinks that Snape is like a Hippogriff, Snape's eyes are "boring" into his - a sign of Legillimency.

Snape knows Harry is lying to him, and Harry "tries not to blink" as he did when staring at Buckbeak.

It's not that Harry doesn't trust Snape, but vice versa. Harry is the one lying then, and he is still lying to Snape in HBP. Meanwhile, I don't know of any examples of Snape lying to Harry, but if you know any it would be interesting to read them. :)
Specifically, Alastor Moody was part of a Ministry team that killed Evan Rosier, a Death Eater who resisted arrest. This is the incident in which Moody lost part of his nose, so the killing was likely performed in self-defense or to defend the others present. Nonetheless, I agree it indicates Rowling is not going to advocate the extreme (I mean extreme descriptively, not pejoratively) pacificst position that no killing, ever, under any circumstances, is forgivable. There is also, in HBP, Dumbledore's tacit approval of Harry's resolve to kill Voldemort.
Good point. Of course, Dumbledore wishes that all the kids could stay pure and never have to kill. But it's wartime and they might not have a choice. In HBP, Harry realizes he has to step "into the arena" with his head held high, just as Snape has had to step onto the Tower and do whatever he had to do.
In terms of the dictionary meanings of the words, this is not true. Completely means totally, thoroughly - if you trust someone completely, you trust them with many different things/everything. Trusting with one's life is very narrow and specific. You trust the person with a particular, albeit important, thing. Not that I think Dumbledore trusts Hagrid less than Snape - I think he trusts them both equally. Just that he actually entrusts Hagrid with guarding people and things (like fetching the Stone, or Harry, on a couple of different occasions) because he not only trustworthy, but ideally suited to the role of guardian by his dispostion, size, and physical immunity to a variety of spells. Whereas Snape he entrusts with his mysterious spy duties (which does mean entrusting lives to Snape as well).
Actually, I think he trusts both of them to protect both the school and the children, and I can't think of an instance when Snape doesn't try to do that, at least as well as McGonagall. The kid has an Invisibility Cloak, which makes it more difficult. :lol:

Face it, Snape has ZERO friends in the Order. If he is on the good side he will have to go it alone from here on out...there will be no DD to ask advice of either.
I know I'm behind, and this isn't really the most significant point, but we do not in fact know for sure that Snape now has no friends in the Order. We don't know of any who would take Snape's side, but that doesn't mean there is no one. Aberforth, for example, might know more than most. Snape says in Spinner's End that his information led to the murder of Emmeline Vance. If her death was faked in order to make Snape look more credible to Voldemort, she might know more about Snape or still trust him.

No one is making up Unbreakable Vow Theories. It's just that you have to accept that as part of the story. Yes, it complicates things - but that is JKR's intention. It makes Dumbledore's death absolutely crucial, but he aslo drank the potion in the cave, and had the withered hand.

So the Horcrux Hunt took it's toll, but Snape reacted with horror at having to kill Dumbledore, and he didn't hurt Harry afterwards. Nor did he hurt Hermione and Luna when he knew the DEs were in the castle. He could have handed all of them to Voldemort on a platter, but he left all the kids behind, and healthy, except Bill Weasley, and that wasn't his fault.

Dumbledore seems to have known all about the UV. Harry told Dumbledore what he knew about it, and Dumbledore seemed to know what was happening.


Let's look at it another way . . . Snape has made some good choices, and let's not forget that before he had to kill Dumbledore in Book 6, he also saved his life in what Dumbledore called a "thrilling tale."

In PoA, Hagrid says a few things that shed light on Snape.

Hagrid is upset about the Ministry wanting to kill Buckbeak, and he would let the creature go free except that he is afraid of going back to Azkaban and he's afraid to "break the law again."

We know that Snape has been in trouble with the Ministry before, but Dumbledore spoke up for him - as with Hagrid. At the time when Snape is threatening Sirius with Dementors, everyone else in the Ministry has been searching for Sirius Black as an escaped criminal. He has also broken into Hogwarts twice and gotten as far as Harry's room with a knife. Dumbledore said that Sirius "hasn't acted like an innocent man."

Snape walks into the Shrieking Shack and sees two people he never liked anyway - one a werewolf about to turn, and one a criminal - apparently holding three children hostage, one of whom has a broken leg. Snape didn't have to go in there himself, but he did and he would have gotten everyone back to the castle safely if the kids hadn't zapped him.

So we can debate killing, but Snape never killed Sirius, and when he could have left him by the lake for the dementors, he put him on a stretcher instead and brought him in the way he was supposed to. If Snape had done anything else, I would be the first to agree that something was fishy.

But right down the line, he does what a logical person would do.


That's not true - At the very moment Harry thinks that Snape is like a Hippogriff, Snape's eyes are "boring" into his - a sign of Legillimency.

Snape knows Harry is lying to him, and Harry "tries not to blink" as he did when staring at Buckbeak.

It's not that Harry doesn't trust Snape, but vice versa. Harry is the one lying then, and he is still lying to Snape in HBP. Meanwhile, I know of few examples of Snape lying to Harry, but if you know any it would be interesting to read them. :)

Good point. Of course, Dumbledore wishes that all the kids could stay pure and never have to kill. But it's wartime and they might not have a choice. In HBP, Harry realizes he has to step "into the arena" with his head held high, just as Snape has had to step onto the Tower and do whatever he had to do.

Actually, I think he trusts both of them to protect both the school and the children, and I can't think of an instance when Snape doesn't try to do that, at least as well as McGonagall. The kid has an Invisibility Cloak, which makes it more difficult. :lol:
Bravo Sip, bravo :clap:, great post!! I agree with you on most of it, Dumbledore did know quite a bit about the UV, and I can't wait to see what will happen in Book 7 when it comes to that issue. As for Snape, all that he has done so far (for the most part), he's done out of logic... as for him lying to Harry, Sip, what books were they in :p :lol: , just curious :hmm: :huh:...

as for him lying to Harry, Sip, what books were they in , just curious ...
I should revise my post, Fawkesfan, because I meant to say that I couldn't really think of any time that Snape has lied, so if anyone can tell me one, I'd be surprised.

Mostly what Snape does is withhold information, which isn't lying. In fact, most of the adults withhold information from the kids in every book.

Harry often thinks Snape is lying to him - that's the problem. He thinks Snape is lying about the way James used to act in school, but that is clarified in Book 5 when his own mother says basically the same thing about James.

He thinks Snape is "hiding" something about Voldemort's weapon, and that turns out to be Snape's Worst Memory about the past.

At the end of Book 6, Harry suddenly believes that Snape is "playing up the Pureblood Side" so he can be just like the Dark Lord, and that he gave himself the "title" of Prince to be like "Lord" Voldemort. None of that is true at all.

Snape is a Muggle name, Prince is Snape's mother's name that no one knew about in school (not even Lupin), and his complete name is the "Half-Blood Prince," so what does that have to do with being Pureblood? :rotfl: Hello . . . Harry?

I should revise my post, Fawkesfan, because I meant to say that I couldn't really think of any time that Snape has lied, so if anyone can tell me one, I'd be surprised.

Mostly what Snape does is withhold information, which isn't lying. In fact, most of the adults withhold information from the kids in every book.

Harry often thinks Snape is lying to him - that's the problem. He thinks Snape is lying about the way James used to act in school, but that is clarified in Book 5 when his own mother says basically the same thing about James.

He thinks Snape is "hiding" something about Voldemort's weapon, and that turns out to be Snape's Worst Memory about the past.

At the end of Book 6, Harry suddenly believes that Snape is "playing up the Pureblood Side" so he can be just like the Dark Lord, and that he gave himself the "title" of Prince to be like "Lord" Voldemort. None of that is true at all.

Snape is a Muggle name, Prince is Snape's mother's name that no one knew about in school (not even Lupin), and his complete name is the "Half-Blood Prince," so what does that have to do with being Pureblood? :rotfl: Hello . . . Harry?

Oh I see :lol: ... *hits self upside head* :p, I should have remembered that, guess I'll have to reread the series...

I know... it should be interesting to see how he learns the truth, once again ;), from Snape in book 7 :cool:...

Just sitting -- impatiently on the fence waiting for book 7 to come out!!

No one is making up Unbreakable Vow


Let's look at it another way . . . Snape has made some good choices, and let's not forget that before he had to kill Dumbledore in Book 6, he also saved his life in what Dumbledore called a "thrilling tale."

In PoA, Hagrid says a few things that shed light on Snape.

Hagrid is upset about the Ministry wanting to kill Buckbeak, and he would let the creature go free except that he is afraid of going back to Azkaban and he's afraid to "break the law again."

We know that Snape has been in trouble with the Ministry before, but Dumbledore spoke up for him - as with Hagrid. At the time when Snape is threatening Sirius with Dementors, everyone else in the Ministry has been searching for Sirius Black as an escaped criminal. He has also broken into Hogwarts twice and gotten as far as Harry's room with a knife. Dumbledore said that Sirius "hasn't acted like an innocent man."

Snape walks into the Shrieking Shack and sees two people he never liked anyway - one a werewolf about to turn, and one a criminal - apparently holding three children hostage, one of whom has a broken leg. Snape didn't have to go in there himself, but he did and he would have gotten everyone back to the castle safely if the kids hadn't zapped him.

So we can debate killing, but Snape never killed Sirius, and when he could have left him by the lake for the dementors, he put him on a stretcher instead and brought him in the way he was supposed to. If Snape had done anything else, I would be the first to agree that something was fishy.

But right down the line, he does what a logical person would do.





but nothing of what Snape does in POA is strictly relevant because he's not a double agent at that point. Yes he knows theres some form of Vapormort alive out there, but that doesnt really mean anything then.
Snape in POA is still a regular member of society, playing out the role that he has since Voldemorts downfall. Obviously everything he does in POA is logical, Snape isnt going to put himself on the line at this point in the story, when there is yet to be anything to put himself on the line for. He has to stay within boundaries set by the wizarding society and if he hadnt acted as he had he would have had questions to answer. Plus he had no reason to cross boundaries set, theres no motivation there. It is from voldemorts return that Snapes actions should be questioned, because it is then he has choices to make

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flimsy Cauldron
So for anyone saying that DD was expecting to die, that he was making plans for the eventuality of his death, you don't need a convoluted UV theory. Of coursehe was making plans. Because of the horcrux hunt...

No one is making up Unbreakable Vow Theories. It's just that you have to accept that as part of the story. Yes, it complicates things - but that is JKR's intention. It makes Dumbledore's death absolutely crucial, but he aslo drank the potion in the cave, and had the withered hand.

I didn't say that you were making it up...I was saying that it wasn't needed in the context of DD looking like he was expecting to die, like he was making plans in the eventuality of his death..to me the horcrux explanation is the simpler explanation...

Quote:
Originally Posted by flimseycauldron
The hippogriff as a whole is associated with pride trust and truth. But when Harry, or any other person , is trying to approach a hippogriff you only focus on one of those aspects...and that is pride. The one thing you don't want to do is insult a hippogriff. I belive that is how Harry views Snape, as very prideful...I know that Harry does NOT associate him with trust OR truth.

That's not true - At the very moment Harry thinks that Snape is like a Hippogriff, Snape's eyes are "boring" into his - a sign of Legillimency.

Snape knows Harry is lying to him, and Harry "tries not to blink" as he did when staring at Buckbeak.

It's not that Harry doesn't trust Snape, but vice versa. Harry is the one lying then, and he is still lying to Snape in HBP. Meanwhile, I don't know of any examples of Snape lying to Harry, but if you know any it would be interesting to read them.

Forgive me but I don't see where you're going with this. I'm not sure what the legilemency thing has to do with Snape being pride,trust, and loyalty. If anything it's a sign of Harry's distrust of Snape that Harry would lie to him...but again I don't where you're going...

There is a flaw with this plan, however, and that lies in Snape's character. We have seen that Snape - loyalties and allegiances aside - is one that cares greatly about saving his own skin.


I do not agree with your assessment of Snape's character. It is my view that he switched sides in the first war when Voldemort seemed to be winning, and spied on Voldemort 'at great personal risk' (as Dumbledore testified in GoF). His 'cold feet', in my view, were not caused by fear for himself, but by his 'remorse', as DUmbledore explains. And he has continued this dangerous work since Voldemort's return. He has also taken an Unbreakable Vow, an action which by definition risks his life, and I do not see any personal benefit from these actions. I thus do not think preserving his skin is a major motive for Snape.

Also, I do not think it is fair to make any assumptions about DD's trust in Snape until we are knowledgeable of the lengths Snape went to to declare loyalty. It is too murky to base any theories from.

I disagree. Dumbledore could be wrong about Snape (the evidenmce can be interpreted in several ways, I think) but I think the evidence in the books is overwhelmingly that he DID trust Snape. He has promised to tell Harry the trusth, and he told Harry this. He disnisses Harry's concerns throughout the year. He sent Harry to Snape after he thought the castle was under attack. These are all actions indicative of trust.

Forgive me but I don't see where you're going with this. I'm not sure what the legilemency thing has to do with Snape being pride,trust, and loyalty. If anything it's a sign of Harry's distrust of Snape that Harry would lie to him...but again I don't where you're going...
I'm not "going" anywhere that I know of . . . just somewhere simple.

I was answering the point that Snape is untrustworthy, but it's Harry who is lying in the scene in "Snape's Grudge"/PoA.

Harry is lying because he's a kid and wants to go to Hogsmeade, so he won't tell Snape that Draco saw him there.

It's there in the book about Snape being compared to a Hippogriff, and Harry tries not to blink because he wants Snape to believe him.

This whole thing came up because someone compared Snape to a bat. I didn't pull a hippogriff out of my hat. :) Sorry about that.

This whole thing came up because someone compared Snape to a bat. I didn't pull a hippogriff out of my hat. :) Sorry about that.


oops that'd be me. I just got that from the aesops fable thing and that people used to think Snape was vampire like. vampire - vampirebat - bat - a creature that doesnt pick sides, thats all my train of thought was. didnt think Id cause a spat, sorry. it was just a good analogy for my importance of choices idea

oops that'd be me. I just got that from the aesops fable thing and that people used to think Snape was vampire like. vampire - vampirebat - bat - a creature that doesnt pick sides, thats all my train of thought was. didnt think Id cause a spat, sorry. it was just a good analogy for my importance of choices idea
I looked that up, because I was intrigued by the fable. It is very short, so I'll post it:
The Bat, the Birds and the Beasts


A great conflict was about to come off between the Birds and
the Beasts. When the two armies were collected together the Bat
hesitated which to join. The Birds that passed his perch said:
"Come with us"; but he said: "I am a Beast." Later on, some
Beasts who were passing underneath him looked up and said: "Come
with us"; but he said: "I am a Bird." Luckily at the last moment
peace was made, and no battle took place, so the Bat came to the
Birds and wished to join in the rejoicings, but they all turned
against him and he had to fly away. He then went to the Beasts,
but soon had to beat a retreat, or else they would have torn him
to pieces. "Ah," said the Bat, "I see now,


"He that is neither one thing nor the other has no friends."

didnt think Id cause a spat, sorry.

Spat? What Spat? Silver, were we in a spat???!!?? cupsoftea, trust me you were not the cause of the spat. If there was one...was there?!?!?
Well, I know enough to know that you didn't cause anything so "that's that and no harm done."



I'm not "going" anywhere that I know of . . . just somewhere simple.

I was answering the point that Snape is untrustworthy, but it's Harry who is lying in the scene in "Snape's Grudge"/PoA.

Harry is lying because he's a kid and wants to go to Hogsmeade, so he won't tell Snape that Draco saw him there.

It's there in the book about Snape being compared to a Hippogriff, and Harry tries not to blink because he wants Snape to believe him.

This whole thing came up because someone compared Snape to a bat. I didn't pull a hippogriff out of my hat. Sorry about that.


I think I must be a dunderhead (quite a possibility) but I'm not sure how your comparison works...I should have chosen my words more carefully because I wasn't implying that you were out in left field or anything...I just don't understand what part of the hippogriff you think Harry compares Snape to.

Why do you think, in that particular scene, that Harry makes the comparison? My interpretation of it was from the pride angle. Hippogriffs are very proud creatures. Remember also the scene where Snape yells at Harry for stealing gillyweed. Harry was not lying when he said that he didn't steal the gillyweed. But Snape thought Harry did and was furious. Not only was he furious that the gillyweed was stolen but he was furious because he thought Harry was lying. To Snape it was insulting that Harry would lie when it as so "obvious" what Harry had done. I interpretted the hippogriff scene much in much the same way. Snape being prideful about his abilities to get Potter to confess and the outrage that Harry would dare lie to him.

I just wasn't sure which aspect of the hippogriff you think Harry was comparing Snape to...

About the bat thing. I had never read that fable before. How awesome! Yes, that is definately a fable that Snape should have read!

Oh God. I shouldn't have used "truly evil". I meant working for and being loyal to Voldemort, I thought it was obvious. Sorry about that.

Anyway, to whoever said he'd answered my second question by saying Snape worked for himself - if he did, he would have shown up in the graveyard in GoF immediately. He knows very well what a delay could mean to him. Dumbledore would hardly be a problem - as I said, if he could so easily fool him with a tale of remorse, he'd have no problems telling him he hadn't gone at all, and hiding it with his supreme Occlumency abilities. Even though, he stayed at Hogwarts. Why?

no snape not good. he's been loyal to LV the whole time but he just used DD's weakness of seeing the good in people to keep him outta trouble. but no doubt snape's smart and quite a powerful wizard...there's a chance he would come back to the other side to help harry defeat LV

oops that'd be me. I just got that from the aesops fable thing and that people used to think Snape was vampire like. vampire - vampirebat - bat - a creature that doesnt pick sides, thats all my train of thought was. didnt think Id cause a spat, sorry. it was just a good analogy for my importance of choices idea
Ooooo, I like that! Good observation!

=I think I must be a dunderhead (quite a possibility) but I'm not sure how your comparison works...I should have chosen my words more carefully because I wasn't implying that you were out in left field or anything...I just don't understand what part of the hippogriff you think Harry compares Snape to.


Here's the quote, since the subject seems to be getting a lot of attention:


Snape's eyes were boring into Harry's. It was exactly like trying to stare down a hippogriff. Harry tried hard not to blink.


This, at any rate, establishes that Snape is compared to a hippogriff as SIP says. To answer your question, it appears that Snape's piercing gaze reminds Harry of a hippogriff's, not his pride.

A separate question which may also be asked, though, is that of Rowling's intent in making the comparison. Snape is likened to a bat for his wearing of black and his swooping about in the text. Yet a poster suggested this was a reference to a fable of Aesop which relies on the bat being neither beast nor bird. This aspect of bats is not mentioned in the text, but could still be what Rowling is trying to suggest.

So, what else moight Rowling be trying to suggest with the hippogriff? To address that, we would go beyond Harry's opinions, and consider possible symbolism of the hippogriff as it applies to Snape. I would agree that both Snape and hippogriffs demand respect, for example. They are both dangerous, too. The one hippogriff we meet is protective of Harry. Is Snape? Debatable - he has certainly saved Harry in PS/SS. In PoA, the scene where the comparison is made, Snape is worried about Harry's safety, at least as evidenced by his words. Is that part of Rowling's intent? I think so, certainly. You may not. And there may be more; I am not familiar with the mythology around hippogriffs, so I have limited myself to facts about them gleaned from the text itself.

Thanks, SusanBones111, for posting the fable. It is interesting. I am not actually sure what its meaning is. Why did the bat not join either side? To avoid the battle, or because, for reasons of its nature, it felt an affinity with members of both sides? I can see this saying something about Snape's personality as opposed to his loyalties...

At any rate, this appears not to be Snape's approach. He has taken the alternative and far more dangerous approach of being, at least on the surface, on both sides of a war.

Snape's eyes were boring into Harry's. It was exactly like trying to stare down a hippogriff. Harry tried hard not to blink.

This, at any rate, establishes that Snape is compared to a hippogriff as SIP says. To answer your question, it appears that Snape's piercing gaze reminds Harry of a hippogriff's, not his pride.
I always thought Harry was referring to the tense moment approaching a Hippogriff, when you have to bow and keep eye contact and hope it won't maul you.

I always thought Harry was referring to the tense moment approaching a Hippogriff, when you have to bow and keep eye contact and hope it won't maul you.

That, too, though Harry forgot the bit about bowing, which I suppose is why he was mauled. :lol: (Figuratively, in both instances). Even if Snape were not able to tell Harry is lying by other means, insisting that Draco Malfoy is subject to hallucinations is so blatant as to be insulting.

Severus did kill Albus, but in doing so, it doesn't make him a bad person. Severus had taken a Vow with Narcissa earlier in the book (which he had to do, or else he would have been seen as a traitor to Voldemort; which I firmly believe is the case), and if he hadn't carried out the task, he would have been killed as well. Now, people will argue that if Severus really was loyal to Albus, that he would have sacrificed himself. While that is a good arguement, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of that night. Severus would have been dead, but Albus would have been killed anyway; just by someone else's hand.

If Severus is loyal to the Order, it wouldn't have been benefical to them to have both Albus and Severus gone, now would it? I know that after killing Albus, Severus has lost all the trust he gained from the Order, but that doesn't mean he won't be able to assist them.Let me just say that I think that Snape first promising to do what Voldemort wants and then doing what Voldemort wants is not such a good proof of loyalty to Dumbledore.

Interesting the Draco situation as well. We know what Dumbledore intended to do with Draco. We also know that Snape didn’t do that. Once again this is often explained as being loyal to Dumbledore.

So we have Snape doing what Voldemort wants and not doing what Dumbledore wants. Wherever Snape’s loyalties are they are not with Dumbledore at the tower.
Severus is now so far in with Voldemort, that he'll be able to sabatoge Voldemort's plans (and he'll be so trusted by Voldemort, that he won't be suspected when things start going wrong) and gain information that will be very useful to Harry and everyone else.
Well, we have Dumbledore thinking that Voldemort trusts no one, that those who think that they have his trust are deluded, and that Voldemort works alone. Good reason to die for Dumbledore, to give Snape such coveted position.

Snape is now in the perfect position to do exactly what Voldemort wants him to do. Like killing. Is Dumbledore Ok with that?
Meanwhile, I don't know of any examples of Snape lying to Harry, but if you know any it would be interesting to read them.
There are many things in the department of mysteries, Potter, few of which you would understand and none of which concern you, do I make myself plain?
Probably on orders and things like that, but still, a direct lie. Snape, being a spy for one or two sides, deals in lies of course. In the Harry conversations we usually find Snape asking questions, not giving answers, so it is hardly surprising nor telling that you don’t find many lies. The occlumency lessons is one of the first times that Snape is answering, that he has the possibility to lie, and we see that he does lie.

Dumbledore seems to have known all about the UV. Harry told Dumbledore what he knew about it, and Dumbledore seemed to know what was happening.This is debatable. Harry told Dumbledore that Snape made an unbreakable vow. Whether Dumbledore believed it is another matter. Seeing that Dumbledore claimed to understood more (instead of know more) it is a question what Dumbledore thought he understood more then Harry. Harry was after all correct: Snape did make an unbreakable vow. It is not unthinkable that Dumbledore thought he understood more then Harry, namely that this vow story was just a story Snape told Draco to gain his trust. This interpretation is foreshadowed in the book and confirmed by the “that’s what he would tell you” sentence, once again indicating something that Draco was made to believe but is not actually true in Dumbledore’s mind. There are rather a lot of things in HBP which indicate that Dumbledore thought the vow was just some story Snape told. We have nothing that indicates that Dumbledore believes about the vow to kill him.
At the end of Book 6, Harry suddenly believes that Snape is "playing up the Pureblood Side" so he can be just like the Dark Lord, and that he gave himself the "title" of Prince to be like "Lord" Voldemort. None of that is true at all.

Snape is a Muggle name, Prince is Snape's mother's name that no one knew about in school (not even Lupin), and his complete name is the "Half-Blood Prince," so what does that have to do with being Pureblood? Hello . . . Harry?
Let’s see what JKR says about people who use these terms:
The expressions 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudices].
Harry might be well on the mark. And for what reason would JKR lie about the use of this term in the last chapter of HBP? It’s like she is explaining something to the reader, not something to be dismissed as just another red herring. JKR uses the end of a book to explain things. Usually by Dumbledore, but then he was unavailable.

Reguardless of his current intentions, i am confident he will be good in the end... I just dont think JKR would make him bad

Something curious about the general question, "Is Snape good?" is it's relative vagueness. Everyone assumes that it means now...but couldn't it mean overall, as well?

In one of my earlier posts, I commented on how Snape has a history of flip-flopping sides. We know from the books that Snape became a Death Eater after his graduation, remaining loyal to the Dark Lord until his first "transfer" of sides, which was prior to the prophecy. At that point, Snape IS/WAS bad.

From the murky point at which Dumbledore fully declares Snape's allegiance to the Order to pre-Voldemort's second rising, Snape IS/WAS good. I accept that; it is true.

However, from the point of the second rising of Voldemort onward, I believe Snape is in for another "transfer" of sides...because it appears that the Death Eaters are stronger than the Order at the point of his "ressurection" (if it can be called that). See, Voldemort returning to "life" when everyone thought him actually, mortally dead (besides those privy to other information, ie DD or Hagrid) proved to Snape which side had the most power. In this way, I can almost liken him to a braver, much, much more intelligent and clever Wormtail.

Anyway, I believe that Snape saw Voldemort's moves versus the Order's strategies as actually more perfunctory and proving of greater consequence. So, Snape was BAD. Then Snape was GOOD. And now Snape is HOVERING on the line of GOOD and BAD, his murder of Dumbledore just one more thing pushing him off the brink and back into full, admitted allegiance with Voldemort. Remember, intentions or not, Snape's soul is now split because of what he did. He is not "pure of heart or soul", and therefore cannot possess the same type of "righteousness" that Harry has or even Draco (not to drag that up, but it's a good example) could possibly achieve.

Because of this, learning more of Snape's past, especially pre-LV's downfall and during the First War, is absolutely vital in determining his true strength of character. Snape's slyness allows him the ability to morph into traits necessary to survive...and his current position is molding him back into what he once was.

Harry was after all correct: Snape did make an unbreakable vow. It is not unthinkable that Dumbledore thought he understood more then Harry, namely that this vow story was just a story Snape told Draco to gain his trust.


The story was told just before the Christmas holidays. Not a good time to be telling Draco lies about things he has not promised his mother - all he has to do is ask her when he gets home. If Dumbledore did not in fact know all about the Vow, I think he must have had a different explanation in mind.

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

Something curious about the general question, "Is Snape good?" is it's relative vagueness. Everyone assumes that it means now...but couldn't it mean overall, as well?


Isn't that stated in the title of this thread? If you mean in the past... Then I think that his good deeds (saving harrys life, etc.) overpower the bad ones. Also, when we see snapes worst memory, there is already bitterness towards snape, so what started it? do we know, or am I being a moron?

Harry might be well on the mark. And for what reason would JKR lie about the use of this term in the last chapter of HBP? It’s like she is explaining something to the reader, not something to be dismissed as just another red herring. JKR uses the end of a book to explain things. Usually by Dumbledore, but then he was unavailable.

Unlike Dumbledore in previous books, in the process of his summing up the book's events in the final chapter of the books, Harry gets at least one thing wrong. He insists Snape told Dumbledore he was sorry about the Potters only after they died, and we know Dumbledore believes he returned earlier. This departure from the norm, and especially Rowling's refusal to answer definitively concerning Snape's loyalties (unlike, say, concerning the death of Dumbledore) suggests to me she meant to leave issues unresolved in this one, probably because, as she has indicated, to her mind HBP and DH are like two parts of one book.

If Harry survives, and I do hope he does, what he has to say at the end of DH is far more likely to carry that authority.

There are many things in the department of mysteries, Potter, few of which you would understand and none of which concern you, do I make myself plain?
Probably on orders and things like that, but still, a direct lie. Snape, being a spy for one or two sides, deals in lies of course. In the Harry conversations we usually find Snape asking questions, not giving answers, so it is hardly surprising nor telling that you don’t find many lies. The occlumency lessons is one of the first times that Snape is answering, that he has the possibility to lie, and we see that he does lie.

I was trying to think of a way to say all of that but you have put it far more eloquently. Snape never converses with Harry. He usually interrogates. There is no possible way to aywhether or not he lies to the Order or DD because all that we have to work with his half-heard conversations. There is even some debate after five more books exactly what his dealings with Quirrel were.

This is debatable. Harry told Dumbledore that Snape made an unbreakable vow. Whether Dumbledore believed it is another matter. Seeing that Dumbledore claimed to understood more (instead of know more) it is a question what Dumbledore thought he understood more then Harry. Harry was after all correct: Snape did make an unbreakable vow. It is not unthinkable that Dumbledore thought he understood more then Harry, namely that this vow story was just a story Snape told Draco to gain his trust. This interpretation is foreshadowed in the book and confirmed by the “that’s what he would tell you” sentence, once again indicating something that Draco was made to believe but is not actually true in Dumbledore’s mind. There are rather a lot of things in HBP which indicate that Dumbledore thought the vow was just some story Snape told. We have nothing that indicates that Dumbledore believes about the vow to kill him.

Yeah, what she said! :)

Let’s see what JKR says about people who use these terms:
JKRThe expressions 'pure-blood', 'half-blood' and 'Muggle-born' have been coined by people to whom these distinctions matter, and express their originators' prejudices].

Harry might be well on the mark. And for what reason would JKR lie about the use of this term in the last chapter of HBP? It’s like she is explaining something to the reader, not something to be dismissed as just another red herring. JKR uses the end of a book to explain things. Usually by Dumbledore, but then he was unavailable.

I have mentioned this before but alot of HBP was devoted to making us trust Harry's judgement. I think JKR realized that due to concealing alot of info Harry has been made out to seem woefully underprepared and unintuitive...which is the complete opposite of how he was portrayed in SS. She needs us to trust Harry and trust his judgement in DH, especially now that DD is gone and Harry has taken a stand alone positon. I think it would be doing Harry a disservice to dismiss everything he says. It means that we, as readers, have fallen into the same trap that DD did...

Something curious about the general question, "Is Snape good?" is it's relative vagueness. Everyone assumes that it means now...but couldn't it mean overall, as well?


Actually, we discuss various meanings of the question. The question can also be read as a question about Snape as a person, and we've discussed that too.

"Will he come back to the good side?" is the question of what he'll end up doing in 7, which I am guessing is what you mean by 'overall', that is, in the end, which side will he have helped more?

Remember, intentions or not, Snape's soul is now split because of what he did.

This is debatable. Murder causes the soul to split. People who insist Snape is good now, would not call what Snape did murder. Killing, yes, not murder (killing with malicious intent).

He is not "pure of heart or soul", and therefore cannot possess the same type of "righteousness" that Harry has or even Draco (not to drag that up, but it's a good example) could possibly achieve.

What Harry and Draco retain, in my view, is their innocence - their actions to date have not caused irreparable harm to innocents. Snape, regardless of whether he murdered Dumbledore, killed him, or neither, had already lost that in the first war, if not earlier, then when the Potters died. I don't think it makes him necessarily a bad person, if it is true that he deeply regrets that action and tried to prevent its consequences.

I was trying to think of a way to say all of that but you have put it far more eloquently. Snape never converses with Harry. He usually interrogates. There is no possible way to aywhether or not he lies to the Order or DD because all that we have to work with his half-heard conversations. There is even some debate after five more books exactly what his dealings with Quirrel were.



Yeah, what she said! :)



I have mentioned this before but alot of HBP was devoted to making us trust Harry's judgement. I think JKR realized that due to concealing alot of info Harry has been made out to seem woefully underprepared and unintuitive...which is the complete opposite of how he was portrayed in SS. She needs us to trust Harry and trust his judgement in DH, especially now that DD is gone and Harry has taken a stand alone positon. I think it would be doing Harry a disservice to dismiss everything he says. It means that we, as readers, have fallen into the same trap that DD did...


Well, if jkr really was trying to make us trust harry, It DEFINATELY worked for me!

What Harry and Draco retain, in my view, is their innocence - their actions to date have not caused irreparable harm to innocents. Snape, regardless of whether he murdered Dumbledore, killed him, or neither, had already lost that in the first war, if not earlier, then when the Potters died. I don't think it makes him necessarily a bad person, if it is true that he deeply regrets that action and tried to prevent its consequences.

If anyone can find the quote from DD that I am thinking of I would be greatful...I've mentioned this before but never got a satifactory answer...At some point DD tells Harry something along the lines of "you'll never know how much Professor Snape regretted things when he found out that the Voldemort chose your parent..."

This really bugged me because it implies that something about the Potters (maybe lily maybe not) was unique and THAT'S why Snape regretted his actions. At the time that Snape told what he knew of the prophecy he had NO QUALMS about putting anyone's life in danger, and when Voldemort chose the Potters over the Longbottoms he was upset that it was the Potters. He could have cared a rats behind about the Longbottoms. I would go so far as to say that if Neville had been chosen instead of Harry Snape would be a DE to this day...

If anyone can find the quote from DD that I am thinking of I would be greatful...I've mentioned this before but never got a satifactory answer...At some point DD tells Harry something along the lines of "you'll never know how much Professor Snape regretted things when he found out that the Voldemort chose your parent..."
It is in the HBP, chapter called "The Seer Overheard", page 549-US hardcover:

"Professor Snape made a terrible mistake. He was still in Lord Voldemort's employ on the night he heard the first half of Professor Trelawney's prophecy. Naturally, he hastened to tell his master what he had heard, for it concerned his master most deeply. But he did not know - he had no possible way of knowing - which boy Voldemort would hunt from then onward, or that the parents he would destroy on his murderous quest were people that Professor Snape knew, that they were your mother and father -"
Harry let out a yell of mirthless laugther.
"He hated my dad like he hated Sirius! Haven't you noticed, Professor, how the people Snape hates tends to end up dead?"
"You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized how Lord Voldemort interpretted the prophecy, Harry. I believe it to be the greatest regret of his life and the reason that he returned - " Would Snape have stayed a Death Eater if Voldemort had targeted someone that he didn't know? Did Snape feel remorse because Voldemort was planning on killing an innocent baby? Dumbledore seems to say that the reason Snape felt remorse was because he knew the victims.

I think Snape is on the good side and has been a 'double-agent' for Dumbledore. Dumbledore and Snape, I believe, had a plan so that Snape would kill Dumbledore in order for Snape to appear to still be faithful to Voldemort. Sorry if someone else already posted this idea

If anyone can find the quote from DD that I am thinking of I would be greatful...I've mentioned this before but never got a satifactory answer...At some point DD tells Harry something along the lines of "you'll never know how much Professor Snape regretted things when he found out that the Voldemort chose your parent..."

This really bugged me because it implies that something about the Potters (maybe lily maybe not) was unique and THAT'S why Snape regretted his actions. At the time that Snape told what he knew of the prophecy he had NO QUALMS about putting anyone's life in danger, and when Voldemort chose the Potters over the Longbottoms he was upset that it was the Potters. He could have cared a rats behind about the Longbottoms. I would go so far as to say that if Neville had been chosen instead of Harry Snape would be a DE to this day...

Yeah I agree, I've often wondered about this too. I tend to agree with the theory that Snape loved Lily at some point, and after finding out that his relay of the prophecy to Voldemort caused Lily's death, he felt terrible regret.

Here's the quote:

Harry: "AND YOU LET HIM TEACH HERE AND HE TOLD VOLDEMORT TO GO AFTER MY MUM AND DAD!"
...
Dumbledore: "Professor Snape made a terrible mistake. He was still in Lord Voldemort's employ on the night he heard the first half of Professor Trelawney's prophecy. Naturally, he hastened to tell his master what he had heard, for it concerned his master most deeply. But he did not know - he had no possible way of knowing - which boy Voldemort would hunt from then onwards, or that the parents he would destroy in his murderous quest were people that Professor Snape knew, that they were your mother and father - "
HBP, p 512

Thank you, Sirius and Susan! That was exactly the quote I was referring to! And it is also the reason that I have issues with Snape being redeemed. Had the Potter's not been special in some way that baby could have died and Snape would have cared less.

That is why I believe that there has to be more to the story than that, more to DD trust than just that remorse. And apparently Harry thinks so, too, because he questions DD later on the same subject and Harry is stern with Harry, telling Harry that he has already heard DD thoughts on the matter...

Severus did kill Albus, but in doing so, it doesn't make him a bad person. Severus had taken a Vow with Narcissa earlier in the book (which he had to do, or else he would have been seen as a traitor to Voldemort; which I firmly believe is the case), and if he hadn't carried out the task, he would have been killed as well. Um...what? Not sure i'd agree with that. (a)He should never have taken that vow. (b)To kill Dumbledore because you are afraid you yourself will die is not only evil...its cowardly. :no: It puts Snape in the same catagory as Peter Pettigrew who used the excuse that he turned in the Potters out of fear for his own life. Sorry, I just cant buy this one.

Btw...Dumbledore's calm demeanor (if it was calm) may have been due to him trying to keep Snape busy and leave Harry undetected.


So the Horcrux Hunt took it's toll, but Snape reacted with horror at having to kill Dumbledore, and he didn't hurt Harry afterwards.]So the Horcrux Hunt took it's toll, but Snape reacted with horror at having to kill Dumbledore, and he didn't hurt Harry afterwards.He did??? (Btw...Hi! *Waving*). :wave:

Nor did he hurt Hermione and Luna when he knew the DEs were in the castle. He could have handed all of them to Voldemort on a platter, but he left all the kids behind, and healthy, except Bill Weasley, and that wasn't his fault.Thats all true and it's kinda odd. But he may have also been in a hurry to flee the scene before having to face the Order or the ministry who would surely arrive soon.

I just have a hard time thinking that a good guy would kill Dumbledore even if he had made an unbreakable vow. A truly good guy would have died first (like a Sirius or Lupin). A guy as cunning as Snape likely could have found another way around the vow i think. I'm not cunning enough to think of one, but i suspect he could. ;)

I really hope you are right about Snape. (You supported my theory on Sirius awhile back and i apparently was totally wrong about that). I don't like to think Snape has gone over to Voldemort's side. But I'm afaid that Dumbledore has made a terrible and costly mistake in trusting Snape. I just can't think of a way to rationalize his actions at the end of HBP. :no:

Hi, Dr. Hesper!!! I'm so glad to see you! :welcome:

Of course Snape had to flee, but I was just saying that he didn't cause alot of damage to the kids even though he has alot to say to Harry. He deflects Harry's spells, when we all know he could have hurt him badly in retaliation, and then he stops the other DEs from doing a Crucio on Harry. It just doesn't make sense if he really hates the kid. :) At least that's the way it seems to me - I'm an optimistic fool, I guess. :agree:

So, what else moight Rowling be trying to suggest with the hippogriff? To address that, we would go beyond Harry's opinions, and consider possible symbolism of the hippogriff as it applies to Snape. I would agree that both Snape and hippogriffs demand respect, for example. They are both dangerous, too. The one hippogriff we meet is protective of Harry. Is Snape? Debatable - he has certainly saved Harry in PS/SS. In PoA, the scene where the comparison is made, Snape is worried about Harry's safety, at least as evidenced by his words. Is that part of Rowling's intent? I think so, certainly. You may not. And there may be more; I am not familiar with the mythology around hippogriffs, so I have limited myself to facts about them gleaned from the text itself.
In mythology, the hippogriff is a symbol of "impossible love" because they are a mixture of a Gryffon and a horse which are usually enemies.

Buckbeak is often doing rather disgusting things, such as coughing up ferret bones on Hagrid's bedspread, and we know Sirius fed him rats in the cave and at Grimmauld Place. Both of those things are rather humorous, since Draco turned into a ferret once, and Snape was living with the rat-man at Spinner's End. I think symbolizes the fact that Draco and Peter probably ought to fear Snape more than they do - Snape makes Harry and Ron pickle rats in one of the books. :lol: There is just something fierce in Snape that is like a Hippogriff.

In PoA, we have this:



Buckbeak the hippogriff was lying in the corner, chomping on something that was oozing blood all over the floor.
"I couldn' leave him tied up out there in the snow!" choked Hagrid. "All on his own! At Christmas."
Harry, Ron, and Hermione looked at one another. They had never seen eye to eye with Hagrid about what he called "interesting creatures" and other people called "terrifying monsters."
On the other hand, there didn't seem to be any particular harm in Buckbeak. In fact, by Hagrid's usual standards, he was positively cute.



:rotfl: So JKR actually had Harry comparing Snape to a "positively cute" creature. That's hilarious! :lol:

In thinking of the "bat" comparison, maybe it helps to realize that one of Hagrid's hippogriffs is "Inky Black." :) And Hippogriffs have wings just as bats do. No one thinks it's strange to compare Snape to a bat, so why not comparing him to a hippogriff, who after all has a large hooked "beak" similar to Snape's most famous facial trait.

The other reference Harry makes to Snape as a "sleeping dragon" also mentions his eyes - it "causing mayhem in Snape's class would be like poking a sleeping dragon in the eye." That connects Snape directly with the Hogwarts school motto - it's as if he is seeing Snape as a symbol of the school itself. :)

So - here is a list. :tu:

Snape - black cloak - sharp eyes

bat - black wings - flies in the dark

hippogriff - black wings - sharp eyes that don't blink

dragon - Hebridean Black - bat-like wings in Fantastic Beasts.

That's pretty simple.

Something curious about the general question, "Is Snape good?" is it's relative vagueness. Everyone assumes that it means now...but couldn't it mean overall, as well?I think that most of the discussion about being good is split on being loyal to Dumbledore when he killed him or not. Basically he is seen as good if he is loyal to Dumbledore and not seen as good if he isn’t. That’s why so much of the discussion is centred around the killing on the tower, which is the big split. Killing or murder, that’s the question. I personally see many interesting plotlines if he did murder Dumbledore but is not completely loyal to Voldemort. I don't see that when Snape is revelaed to be Dumbledore's man yet again, like in PS. But who knows.
The story was told just before the Christmas holidays. Not a good time to be telling Draco lies about things he has not promised his mother - all he has to do is ask her when he gets home. If Dumbledore did not in fact know all about the Vow, I think he must have had a different explanation in mind.Well, that depends on whether Draco was actually planning to go home for Christmas, or whether he signed to stay at Hogwarts.
Given Draco’s task I think it is more then a bit unlikely that Draco left Hogwarts at Christmas, and Dumbledore and Snape knew this.
For Snape there was of course no risk involved, Narcissa would confirm that Snape did make a vow. But it doesn’t matter, it was clear that Draco did not confide in Narcissa. This was clear from Draco’s detour and the order knew this since Harry told Arthur. Snape would undoubtedly have told Dumbledore that he couldn’t get any knowledge about the specifics of what Draco was doing from Narcissa. Since that is the truth both Snape loyal to Dumbledore and not loyal to Dumbledore would have had any qualms about telling Dumbledore about this.
This all means that Dumbledore had no reason to suspect that this story Snape told Draco had to be true because it would be checked with Narcissa. Draco probably didn’t go home and there was no trust from Draco to Narcissa concerning Draco’s task, no reason to assume that Draco would wish to check anything with Narcissa.
Unlike Dumbledore in previous books, in the process of his summing up the book's events in the final chapter of the books, Harry gets at least one thing wrong. He insists Snape told Dumbledore he was sorry about the Potters only after they died, and we know Dumbledore believes he returned earlier. This departure from the norm, and especially Rowling's refusal to answer definitively concerning Snape's loyalties (unlike, say, concerning the death of Dumbledore) suggests to me she meant to leave issues unresolved in this one, probably because, as she has indicated, to her mind HBP and DH are like two parts of one book.What Harry tells about Snape’s remorse is however not in the final chapter. The explanation on why Snape used this name however is. The norm is not broken as far as we know and it is unlikely it is.

JKR solved the puzzle of the identity of the Half-Blood Prince in this book. Kind of logical since this book is called the Half-Blood Prince. For all the two halves theories that are out there this is not easily explained as another red herring. After all Snape’s feelings as a teenager on blood issues may not be the same as the adult Snape feelings about blood status. There is certainly a case to be made that they could be different, given that Snape turned at least once.

We may not know Snape’s current loyalties (two halves and all that) but there is no real reason for JKR to lie about Snape’s teenage feelings. Similarly JKR did not need to have Harry and Hermione have this conversation at the end of HBP. Its only purpose is to enlighten the readers on the why of Snape calling himself the HBP. It doesn’t influence Harry’s or Hermione’s feelings about Snape current loyalties, those feelings are determined by Snape murdering Dumbledore.

Yet JKR chooses to explain, via Harry and Hermione, why teenage Snape choose this nickname in the final chapter of this book. Just like she chooses to reveal the identity of the HBP, who was that boy. That particular plotline, the identity of the HBP, was solved in the book called HBP. Having a plotline of a book resolved in that book is JKR’s norm.

For Harry to be wrong we suddenly have the problem that JKR gives us a red herring in the explanatory chapter of this book about teenage Snape with no reason at all, because the continuing plotline is about adult Snape’s loyalties.
On a side note:
He insists Snape told Dumbledore he was sorry about the Potters only after they died, and we know Dumbledore believes he returned earlier.
I don’t think Harry is wrong here: then Snape told Dumbledore he hadn’t realised what he was doing, he was really sorry he’d done it, sorry that they were dead.
I see Harry giving two reasons for Snape being sorry: sorry he told the prophecy and sorry that the Potters were dead. What I don’t see in this sentence Harry even suggesting that Snape was only sorry after the Potters died, as you state. Of course the second part of Snape being sorry has to happen after the Potters died but Harry gives no time frame at all on the first part. He only says that Snape hadn’t realised what he was doing and that he was sorry he’d done it. That is very much in line with what Dumbledore told Harry in the seer overheard, where Dumbledore gives no time line as well.

On the hippogriff thing: Harry compares Snape with a hippogriff. But in HBP an actual hippogriff turns on Snape and drives him from Hogwarts. Could it be that Snape wishes to be like a hippogriff but faced with the real thing he turns and runs? Don’t know where she is going with that if she is going anywhere at all. The resemblance between Sirius and Snape comes to mind, there is a proud streak in those two characters. And there is a resemblance between Sirius being Harry’s godfather and Snape acting like Draco’s godfather.

But they can’t stand each other of course and it is Sirius’ pet which protects Harry from Snape’s curse and drives Snape away. Snape’s façade (the hippogriff) is unmasked by a real hippogriff comes to mind.

Something I just thought of... Remember the inerview where Jo said she was a Christian and was glad people didn't dig into that, because it would be a give-away. On the other hand we have Snape's remorse over his "old ways" - he's been a very good specimen of wht you would call "a sinner" and then he (according to Dumbledore) is hurled into a state of deep regret. So my thought was, what if Snape's story is a story of redemption - a key topic in Christianity - even the greatest sinner can redeem himself through sencere repention. This could be Snape's story - once he realized what he was doing, via the horrible revelation that he people he knew would die becuase of his actions, he turned, at great personal risk, despite all dangers to himself, and tried to make up for his harmful actions. I believe he is still trying, and helping Harry vanquish Voldemort is the ultimate good he can do. I think this is his goal, and in him is set the theme of redemption and forgiveness.

So my thought was, what if Snape's story is a story of redemption - a key topic in Christianity - even the greatest sinner can redeem himself through sencere repention. This could be Snape's story - once he realized what he was doing, via the horrible revelation that he people he knew would die becuase of his actions, he turned, at great personal risk, despite all dangers to himself, and tried to make up for his harmful actions. I agree with what you said. Snape's story in DH will be of redemption. But in order for it to be a story of redemption, it has to have been a story of "sin" or wrongdoing in HBP. Snape has already redeemed himself from the Godric's Hollow involvement. He has led the life of an Order member, doing very dangerous things to help the good side. But in Spinners End he "pulled a Wormtail" and choose what was easy rather than what was right. His fear of Voldemort exceeded his willingness to risk Voldemort's wrath. He needs to redeem himself from the wrong of murdering the leader of the good side. His role will be very small, but key to Harry's success.

This all means that Dumbledore had no reason to suspect that this story Snape told Draco had to be true because it would be checked with Narcissa. Draco probably didn’t go home and there was no trust from Draco to Narcissa concerning Draco’s task, no reason to assume that Draco would wish to check anything with Narcissa.

I don't see any evidence that Dumbledore knew Draco did not trust his mother (in fact, I see no evidence Draco did not trust his mother). I do see evidence that Dumbledore knew already that Draco had outside help. (The necklace was given to Katie by someone while Draco was serving a detention to McGonagall). His mother would certainly be one possible source of such help. I also believe that Draco did go home for Christmas. It seems to me that the text suggests Draco met with Voldemort at some point after the start of the school year, when the threat against his parents was made - it was a new development, not something Draco was already facing when he boasted to his fellow Slytherins on the train to school. Christmas is the obvious time for this to have occured.

What Harry tells about Snape’s remorse is however not in the final chapter. The explanation on why Snape used this name however is. The norm is not broken as far as we know and it is unlikely it is.

The 'explaining what happened' bits in the HP books do not all take place in one chapter. In GoF, they begin with "Veritaserum", when Crouch Jr. reveals to Harry and us the full extent of the plan. In OotP they begin with (I believe) "The Lost Prophecy" (I mean the chapter in which Harry arrives at Dumbledore's office from the Ministry.) Similarly, the explaining what happened phase of HBP started in "The Phoenix Lament" when the various participants filled each other in on the night's events and Harry started to explain it all.

We may not know Snape’s current loyalties (two halves and all that) but there is no real reason for JKR to lie about Snape’s teenage feelings. Similarly JKR did not need to have Harry and Hermione have this conversation at the end of HBP. Its only purpose is to enlighten the readers on the why of Snape calling himself the HBP. It doesn’t influence Harry’s or Hermione’s feelings about Snape current loyalties, those feelings are determined by Snape murdering Dumbledore.

This is the conversation in which Harry calls Snape a 'murderer', and Hermione hesitates before agreeing. And then tells Harry (in reference to Snape/the HBP) that evil is a strong word. Like everything else in HBP that touches on Snape, it is written ambiguously/weakly. If we are all to jump on the Snape was an evil racist teen bandwagon because this, at least, Rowling wishes us to believe is incontrovertible, why not make it clear to us by having Hermione join in enthusiastically? Especially when she has been the one in the book most suspicious of the Prince to date.

Yet JKR chooses to explain, via Harry and Hermione, why teenage Snape choose this nickname in the final chapter of this book.

Yes. Because he was a half-blood, and his mother was a Prince. I expect neither of these facts to be overturned.

On the hippogriff thing: Harry compares Snape with a hippogriff. But in HBP an actual hippogriff turns on Snape and drives him from Hogwarts. Could it be that Snape wishes to be like a hippogriff but faced with the real thing he turns and runs?

Oh, would your opinion of Snape rise if he had killed Bucky with another Killing Curse? This seems to have been an option for Snape, he was armed and had just proved his facility with that spell. ;) Since Snape has also just acted to protect Harry, this symbol too is ambiguous. First Snape protects Harry from torture at the hands of the other Death Eaters, then Bucky protects Harry from whatever that spell was Snape cast (and yet another hippogriff analogy, that spell was thrown in response to an insult that hit home, after a long string of defensive moves by Snape.)

Originally Posted by silver ink pot
Nor did he hurt Hermione and Luna when he knew the DEs were in the castle. He could have handed all of them to Voldemort on a platter, but he left all the kids behind, and healthy, except Bill Weasley, and that wasn't his fault.

Thats all true and it's kinda odd. But he may have also been in a hurry to flee the scene before having to face the Order or the ministry who would surely arrive soon.

Again I believe that easier explanation is the correct one. Why would Snape hurt any of the children? Just cuz? To Voldemort the children are just peons. Why bother with them and risk injury, however minor, when you have bigger fish to fry? Remember that the point of the DE at the school was NOT to take it over. It wasn't to kill Harry. It was to bait DD into coming back to the school and kill him. And let's not forget, Snape didn't know Draco's plan, he had no way of knowing if this was Draco's work or another plot of Voldemorts. It would be a waste of his time to deal with students when he wan't even 100% sure of the situation.

I think that most of the discussion about being good is split on being loyal to Dumbledore when he killed him or not. Basically he is seen as good if he is loyal to Dumbledore and not seen as good if he isn’t. That’s why so much of the discussion is centred around the killing on the tower, which is the big split. Killing or murder, that’s the question.

Okay, I am going to answer this in true Policy debate style. According to Webster's Intermediate Dictionary, the definition of "murder" is as follows: "the intentional and unlawful killing of a person." According to the same source, the definition of "kill" or "killing" is as follows: "to deprive of life: put to death." Farther down in the same definition from the same source, it reads: 'kill' implies nothing about the manner of death and applies generally to the death of anything that dies." The standard of my definitions is common-man, so therefore my definition is superior to a legal/improvised/etc. definition b/c of its ability to be understood by all. (Sorry, but that is true Policy form. And read in any Policy handbook: common-man trumps).

The impact of what I'm saying? By definition, Snape did KILL Dumbledore by the sheer act of depriving him of life. Also, we cannot gather any hidden, deep motives from the word 'kill', because in fact the definition states that it implies nothing more than the fact that something has been "deprived of life." By this same logic, Snape did MURDER Dumbledore, becase (a) Snape meant to kill Dumbledore, there can be no disputes; we saw the results, and (b) Snape's manner of killing was indeed unlawful...he used an Unforgivable Curse, aptly named because they are an 'unforgivable' criminal act. Therefore, Snape both killed AND murdered Dumbledore.

The impact of what I'm saying? By definition, Snape did KILL Dumbledore by the sheer act of depriving him of life. Also, we cannot gather any hidden, deep motives from the word 'kill', because in fact the definition states that it implies nothing more than the fact that something has been "deprived of life." By this same logic, Snape did MURDER Dumbledore, becase (a) Snape meant to kill Dumbledore, there can be no disputes; we saw the results, and (b) Snape's manner of killing was indeed unlawful...he used an Unforgivable Curse, aptly named because they are an 'unforgivable' criminal act. Therefore, Snape both killed AND murdered Dumbledore.
And to further back up the somewhat legal description of murder, this murder was premeditated. A premeditated murder is one that has been planned. A premeditated murder cannot by definition be considered anything other than murder.

Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.

State laws in the United States vary as to definitions of "premeditation." In some states, premeditation may be construed as taking place mere seconds before the murder. Premeditated murder is usually defined as one of the most serious forms of homicide, and is punished more severely than manslaughter or other types of murder. from Wikipedia-so take it any way you like.

And to further back up the somewhat legal description of murder, this murder was premeditated. A premeditated murder is one that has been planned. A premeditated murder cannot by definition be considered anything other than murder.

Yes, thank you! We know that the murder was premeditated because of the Unbreakable Vow - he knew that it would have to come to him killing Dumbledore. Narcissa herself knew that Draco was doomed to fail.

(To those still wary: legal definitions aside, it still pays to look back at my common-man standard definition in my previous post.)

And to further back up the somewhat legal description of murder, this murder was premeditated. A premeditated murder is one that has been planned. A premeditated murder cannot by definition be considered anything other than murder.



from Wikipedia-so take it any way you like.[/QUOTE]

Premeditated murder is the crime of wrongfully causing the death of another human being (also known as murder) after rationally considering the timing or method of doing so, in order to either increase the likelihood of success, or to evade detection or apprehension.

Snape's killing of Dumbledore was not premeditated. He did not choose, rationally or otherwise, the timing of the act. If he knew that night was the night, I cannot believe that he would have been sitting in his office when things started happening. That he needed to be summoned to action suggests to me he had no idea.

The weapon he used was the one he, like all wizards, carries with him habitually. His flight with the Death Eaters eliminated any possibility of escaping detection - it made him at the least an accessory after the fact, in legal terms (though, since I believe he knew Harry was present on the Tower, he knew already he could not evade detection.)

Snape's killing of Dumbledore was not premeditated. He did not choose, rationally or otherwise, the timing of the act. If he knew that night was the night, I cannot believe that he would have been sitting in his office when things started happening. That he needed to be summoned to action suggests to me he had no idea.

I have two qualms with this:
(a) In fact, his murder of Dumbledore was premeditated, in that he was aware that he would have to complete the deed as soon as he took that Unbreakable Vow. He was aware that he would have to commit murder for months prior to the actual event. In that aspect, it was, in all actuality, premeditated.
(b) Where in the text does it say he was summoned? The Order went to him, but instead of joining in with them in the fight against the Death Eaters, it is said that Harry was shocked when Snape "burst through the door" and immediately bellowed "Avada Kedavra!". This also proves that the murder was 'premeditated'...Snape would not have ignored his supposed allies, and randomly decided to take a hike up into the tower, where he shouldn't have known people were had he not been involved with the Death Eaters, and killed his supposed allies' leader, had he not thought it out beforehand. It is completely illogical to assume otherwise.

Okay, I am going to answer this in true Policy debate style. According to Webster's Intermediate Dictionary, the definition of "murder" is as follows: "the intentional and unlawful killing of a person."

The use of the word 'unlawful' is problematic for me. A mercy killing of a terminally ill, suffering patient with his consent by a doctor in the Netherlands today would not be a murder; the same action done under the same circumstances in the US would be by your definition, since it is not legal.

Does this mean that in the Potterverse, the way to avoid splitting your soul is to choose the right jurisdiction? I highly doubt it. The criterion ought to be something that applies in all times and places, since people in all times and places have (I presume) had souls. (Actually, I don't, as I am an atheist personally, but I would imagine that Rowling, who is a believer and chose to include this element in her fictional universe, does).

The use of the word 'unlawful' is problematic for me. A mercy killing of a terminally ill, suffering patient with his consent by a doctor in the Netherlands today would not be a murder; the same action done under the same circumstances in the US would be by your definition, since it is not legal.

Does this mean that in the Potterverse, the way to avoid splitting your soul is to choose the right jurisdiction? I highly doubt it. The criterion ought to be something that applies in all times and places, since people in all times and places have (I presume) had souls. (Actually, I don't, as I am an atheist personally, but I would imagine that Rowling, who is a believer and chose to include this element in her fictional universe, does).

No! I do not believe that there is a way to prevent splitting your soul because of your intentions. Murder is murder. And I most definitely do NOT consider the Avada Kadavra, and Unforgivable Curse, a humane way to kill someone. Although it is fast and easy, in the Muggle world, shooting someone in the head - fast and easy - is not considered humane in the least.

I'm sure that, in the Wizarding World, there is a humane way to kill someone (a mercy killing) like a painless poison, etc. In that respect, if Dumbledore's murder was a mercy killing, Snape could have just handed him a poisoned goblet. That is much more humane.

Also, I would venture to say that having a cold-blooded murder be okay and good would undermine Jo's morals on death...it would also undermine the philosophies on killing that the books have presented thus far.

I think the existence of Dumbledore's portrait proves that Snape's killing of Dumbledore was not part of the Headmaster's plan, or at least that Snape is working for Voldemort at the end of HBP. If Dumbledore is really still in control of Snape's actions, then his portrait will let Harry in on the plan and assure him of Snape's allegiance the first time they talk. That would make DH Snape boring; or, if he then betrays Harry, it would make him implausible. Neither is terribly likely.

I think the existence of Dumbledore's portrait proves that Snape's killing of Dumbledore was not part of the Headmaster's plan, or at least that Snape is working for Voldemort at the end of HBP. If Dumbledore is really still in control of Snape's actions, then his portrait will let Harry in on the plan and assure him of Snape's allegiance the first time they talk. That would make DH Snape boring; or, if he then betrays Harry, it would make him implausible. Neither is terribly likely.

Good point, in all the other theories, I'd almost forgotten about the portrait. I do think that, in the end, Dumbledore wanted to be killed by snape, so that he could remain a spy for the order, but I agree that it was not likely to be part ot the original plan.

zgirnius Quote:
Originally Posted by padfoot_rox
Okay, I am going to answer this in true Policy debate style. According to Webster's Intermediate Dictionary, the definition of "murder" is as follows: "the intentional and unlawful killing of a person."


The use of the word 'unlawful' is problematic for me. A mercy killing of a terminally ill, suffering patient with his consent by a doctor in the Netherlands today would not be a murder; the same action done under the same circumstances in the US would be by your definition, since it is not legal.

Does this mean that in the Potterverse, the way to avoid splitting your soul is to choose the right jurisdiction? I highly doubt it. The criterion ought to be something that applies in all times and places, since people in all times and places have (I presume) had souls. (Actually, I don't, as I am an atheist personally, but I would imagine that Rowling, who is a believer and chose to include this element in her fictional universe, does).

I don't want to be nitpicky, again, but I am having a hard time understanding your problem with the word "unlawful". :huh: Padfoot quoted from the dictionary but because certain wordings went against your belief you refuted Padfoots evidence. In other words you can't abide by the dictionary only when it suits. See below.

In terms of the dictionary meanings of the words, this is not true. Completely means totally, thoroughly - if you trust someone completely, you trust them with many different things/everything.

The above quote was taken from our brief discussion on different kinds of trust. I hope I am not appearing rude or anything (totally not my intention) but I feel that we ought to have an even playing field as it were. If the word "unlawful" is problematic for you, then you ought to be able to see how the word "completely" could be interpreted differently by me.:eyebrows:

I agree with Padfoot that what Snape did on the roof was not a mercy killing. There has been no mention of the AK curse being used in a humane, decent, or good way. In fact, it earns you a "one way ticket to Azkaban." that is why it is called Unforgivable, not "Unforgivable unless you have a darn good reason".

:love: :love: :huggles: :huggles:

I'm sure that, in the Wizarding World, there is a humane way to kill someone (a mercy killing) like a painless poison, etc. In that respect, if Dumbledore's murder was a mercy killing, Snape could have just handed him a poisoned goblet. That is much more humane.

First, there wasn't a goblet of an instant-action, painless poison available when Snape became aware of the need. All he seems to have had with him is his wand. Second, I don't see why poison is more humane than a spell that kills instantly. At any rate, what makes the difference to me is my opinion that Dumbledore consented to the course of action taken by Snape, for the reasons I have already outlined.

GKHufflepuff, an intresting point. As far as Dumbledore's portrait is concerned - would it be able to give specifics, and convincingly? I can picture a discussion in which the portrait insists it trusts Snape, for example. ;) I am not sure. The portrait we have seen the most of to date is that of Phineas Nigellus Black, who never discusses facts from his life in our presence. Just general opinions (about his family, and the annoyihjng habits of schoolchildren) and facts of his portraitly existence.

GKHufflepuff, an intresting point. As far as Dumbledore's portrait is concerned - would it be able to give specifics, and convincingly? I can picture a discussion in which the portrait insists it trusts Snape, for example. ;) I am not sure. The portrait we have seen the most of to date is that of Phineas Nigellus Black, who never discusses facts from his life in our presence. Just general opinions (about his family, and the annoyihjng habits of schoolchildren) and facts of his portraitly existence.

I believe there's an interview where JKr clarifies what portrait can and cannot do, and I believe she makes clear that this is not the kind of information they can convey - they can only repeat the kind of general life mottoes they had in life, not communciate secret knowledge of specific events. I'm too lazy to look it up, though.

I don't want to be nitpicky, again, but I am having a hard time understanding your problem with the word "unlawful". :huh: Padfoot quoted from the dictionary but because certain wordings went against your belief you refuted Padfoots evidence. In other words you can't abide by the dictionary only when it suits.


A simple question for you and/or padfoot:

In the Potterverse, does the soul of a Muggle split when the Muggle commits a murder? (My opinion is, yes, murder is murder, and it is bad for the soul. The soul is an item Muggles must also have, since they are equally human, otherwise the Malfoys' views would have some basis in reality).

As a follow-up: does this mean that a Muggle doctor living in the Potterverse, specifically in the US, can avoid splitting his soul by shipping himself and his terminally ill patient to Amsterdam and killing him there?
(In my opinion, the answer cannot be yes; that makes a farce of the idea of the soul being split only by the most evil of acts - where an act is committed can't affect its evilness, as far as I see. )

At any rate, there are many definitions of murder, not all of which reference human law as does the one posted. A dictionary I checked gives one definition like padfoot's, but with the added phrase "especially with malice aforethought" (so Snape's murder was not 'especially' one to my mind), and gives the alternate definition of a particularly heinous or brutal killing (very much in the eye of the beholder, alas).

Personally, I think that the sense of murder Rowling had in mind was not one with reference to the laws of any human jurisdiction, but that used in the Sixth Commandment, translated variously into English from the original Hebrew as "Thou shalt not kill" or "Thou shalt not murder". Yes, I realize this is religious - but then Rowling has stated she is a Christian believer, and the soul is a religious idea anyway. I think it makes a lot more sense for the religious sense of the word to apply.

What is the sense of that word in religion? That rather depends on the flavor of religion to which one adheres, I am afraid. I would imagine the ultimate judge is God, in a religious setting. And I think this may be the root of our inability to reach a consensus. If my version of what Snape did and why is true, I don't care whether it was legal or not. It is my personal judgment that he acted morally. And you may very well disagree with me, because reasonable people have disagreed about sticky issues like this throughout human history. It's a judgment call, about the balance between not taking life, and taking active steps to save life.

The above quote was taken from our brief discussion on different kinds of trust. I hope I am not appearing rude or anything (totally not my intention) but I feel that we ought to have an even playing field as it were. If the word "unlawful" is problematic for you, then you ought to be able to see how the word "completely" could be interpreted differently by me.:eyebrows:

I would have no objection if you wanted to elaborate on why you think 'completely' is intended by Dubledore to suggest something narrow. (Not that you have to, you have made it clear you disagree). This is why I illustrated my problems with padfoot's definition with an example, and am discussing the ideas further. I'm not saying she is wrong, I am saying I see things differently, and trying to explain why. Rowling may see things her way, or my way, or some third way no one has mentioned yet (and that, of course, is what matters). I tend to think she would not take the hard line, simply because it seems to me she has left Snape deliberatly mysterious at this point. Which, if she really believed noone could reasoably think what Snape did was excusable, would be impossible. If Snape is 'bad', I expect clarification about his motives at some point in DH; likewise if he is 'good'.

I agree with Padfoot that what Snape did on the roof was not a mercy killing.

By padfoot's definition, it would be a murder even if it was a mercy killing. The use of the AK would render it 'unlawful'. But the common sense elements of a mercy killing are that:

1) the victim is suffering unbearably,
2) the victim cannot be saved, and
3) the victim gives consent.

All three of these elements could be present on the Tower (or not, it depends on facts not currently known to us, namely the exact effects and nature of the green potion and whether or not Dumbledore was asking Snape to kill him when he said 'please').

I believe there's an interview where JKr clarifies what portrait can and cannot do, and I believe she makes clear that this is not the kind of information they can convey - they can only repeat the kind of general life mottoes they had in life, not communciate secret knowledge of specific events. I'm too lazy to look it up, though.

You are right.


Q: All the paintings we have seen at Hogwarts are of dead people. They seem to be living through their portraits. How is this so? If there was a painting of Harry’s parents, would he be able to obtain advice from them?

JKR: That is a very good question. They are all of dead people; they are not as fully realised as ghosts, as you have probably noticed. The place where you see them really talk is in Dumbledore’s office, primarily; the idea is that the previous headmasters and headmistresses leave behind a faint imprint of themselves. They leave their aura, almost, in the office and they can give some counsel to the present occupant, but it is not like being a ghost. They repeat catchphrases, almost. The portrait of Sirius’ mother is not a very 3D personality; she is not very fully realised. She repeats catchphrases that she had when she was alive. If Harry had a portrait of his parents it would not help him a great deal. If he could meet them as ghosts, that would be a much more meaningful interaction, but as Nick explained at the end of Phoenix—I am straying into dangerous territory, but I think you probably know what he explained—there are some people who would not come back as ghosts because they are unafraid, or less afraid, of death.

OK, well I'm glad that's the case-- a portrait with Dumbledore's knowledge, even if it were limited, would be an irritating plot element. (Thanks for digging it up!) But I think my point still applies, because we can assume that if the Headmaster were really in control, part of his plan would have been to leave complete instructions for Harry to read upon his death. I had thought the portrait would be the most obvious means of doing so, but with that struck down, the Pensieve or a similar device seems the best bet.

Regardless of the instrument, it doesn't seem plausible that Snape should be a chesspiece in Dumbledore's hand, but that the Headmaster wouldn't plan to pass on everything he knew once he died. Harry is going to find out what Dumbledore was up to, and he has to find it out early on in DH; but sure knowledge of Snape's status can't be part of what Harry learns, for reasons I outlined earlier. This means, in my opinion, that Dumbledore must have been at least partly wrong about Snape.

Harry is going to find out what Dumbledore was up to, and he has to find it out early on in DH; but sure knowledge of Snape's status can't be part of what Harry learns, for reasons I outlined earlier. This means, in my opinion, that Dumbledore must have been at least partly wrong about Snape.You make a good point here. Snape's motives for killing Dumbledore won't make any difference to Harry. His job is the same, find the horcruxes, destroy them, then go for Voldemort.

My point is this: Harry can't be permitted to learn that Snape really is loyal to Dumbledore, because such knowledge would eliminate all kinds of tension between the two characters, and in a really boring way to boot. It's a safe assumption that Harry will have to be let in on Dumbledore's plans; if Snape's murderous behaviour was actually loyal, then Harry would find out about it with the rest. But that can't be. So Snape can't have been acting loyally.

I think Harry will be given Dumbledore's plans, and will be forced to conclude that Snape really did betray the Headmaster (though of course there'll be more to it than that). This means that Harry is basically on the right track at the end of HBP. It's not that Snape's motives are irrelevant, but that Harry's present opinion of them is correct in its essentials and won't need to radically change. I think he'll end up forgiving or reconciling with Snape in spite of, not because of, the truth about Snape's actions in HBP and before.

My point is this: Harry can't be permitted to learn that Snape really is loyal to Dumbledore, because such knowledge would eliminate all kinds of tension between the two characters, and in a really boring way to boot. It's a safe assumption that Harry will have to be let in on Dumbledore's plans; if Snape's murderous behaviour was actually loyal, then Harry would find out about it with the rest. But that can't be. So Snape can't have been acting loyally.

No, it means that Harry cannot have proof that Snape was acting loyally. I don't believe that Dumbledore was planning to die that night, or even later that year. But I also don't think he had any plan in place for dealing with the situation in which he found himself: badly weakened by a potion he had drunk, while alone, disarmed, and surrounded by four hostile Death Eaters with a Petrified Harry, either. I believe it is clear from the text that Snape was neither aware of, nor responsible for, any of the aforementioned circumstances.

So, even though I do not believe Dumbledore planned in advance to have Snape kill him, I believe that was his wish on the Tower, and that he communucated that wish to Snape. Snape does bear some responsibility anyway, because of the Vow. While the mess on the tower was not of his making, his decision to take the Vow tied his hands and made an attempt at rescue by him impossible. (Dead men can't rescue anyone.)

I think he'll end up forgiving or reconciling with Snape in spite of, not because of, the truth about Snape's actions in HBP and before.

I would say this is true regardless of Snape's motives in HBP, because Snape was the Death Eater who sent Voldemort after the Potters - there is something real and important to forgive/overlook even without HBP.

I think Harry will be given Dumbledore's plans, and will be forced to conclude that Snape really did betray the Headmaster (though of course there'll be more to it than that). I think he already knows that Snape betrayed Dumbledore. He won't need convincing. This means that Harry is basically on the right track at the end of HBP. It's not that Snape's motives are irrelevant, but that Harry's present opinion of them is correct in its essentials and won't need to radically change. I think he'll end up forgiving or reconciling with Snape in spite of, not because of, the truth about Snape's actions in HBP and before.I agree with you about some form of reconciliation or forgiveness, but I am not sure how it will happen.

I also had a thought about mercy killing. I don't think that a plea of mercy killing by Snape would be believed. Harry was the only living witness to the potion that Dumbledore drank. Rosmerta could say that she saw a sick Dumbledore. The Death Eaters saw the same thing. But since Snape did not know what Dumbledore drank, no one would believe him if he claimed he only killed a dying man.

If you go to accio-quote.org and look through JKR's actual quote's she says that Dumbledore will not pull a gandolf. He is dead and gone. And we know for sure that Snape killed him. I don't think we need anymore proof than that. Snape is evil. He pretended to be loyal to Dumbledore until he could show his true colors. I hope Harry karate chop's his nose off!

I do think that, in the end, Dumbledore wanted to be killed by snape, so that he could remain a spy for the order, but I agree that it was not likely to be part ot the original plan.

See this is the part I have the biggest problem with, why why why would DD think it is worth sacreficing himself in favour of his spy? Especially if it be at the hand of the spy? I just cant get my head around that...it makes no sense to me.

I honestly believe what we are supposed to get from HBP is that it is Harrys and not DDs intution we should have faith in. Harry is our protagonist after all, when are people going to start listening to what he's saying?

No, it means that Harry cannot have proof that Snape was acting loyally. I don't believe that Dumbledore was planning to die that night, or even later that year. But I also don't think he had any plan in place for dealing with the situation in which he found himself: badly weakened by a potion he had drunk, while alone, disarmed, and surrounded by four hostile Death Eaters with a Petrified Harry, either. I believe it is clear from the text that Snape was neither aware of, nor responsible for, any of the aforementioned circumstances.

So, even though I do not believe Dumbledore planned in advance to have Snape kill him, I believe that was his wish on the Tower, and that he communucated that wish to Snape. Snape does bear some responsibility anyway, because of the Vow. While the mess on the tower was not of his making, his decision to take the Vow tied his hands and made an attempt at rescue by him impossible. (Dead men can't rescue anyone.)
Good point, I hadn't thought of that. Still, though, even this doesn't leave much room for a good Snape: it requires that Dumbledore's wish on the tower have been something of a snap decision, one that he hadn't foreseen as a likely outcome. This would mean that, whatever his previous plans with regard to Snape had been, they've gone wrong somehow. At any rate, I have a hard time seeing how Dumbledore could have had knowledge of the Vow without seeing his own death as a likely necessity well beforehand. And if Dumbledore wasn't party to the Vow, I have a hard time seeing it as an innocent manoeuvre on Snape's part.

See this is the part I have the biggest problem with, why why why would DD think it is worth sacreficing himself in favour of his spy? Especially if it be at the hand of the spy? I just cant get my head around that...it makes no sense to me.
What if, by making a huge public declaration of support to Voldemort, said spy had just put himself in a position where he could do great things for the Order? We saw in Spinner's End that some of the DEs mistrusted Snape (and were probably jealous of him for escaping Azkaban). But killing Dumbledore in front of witnesses, all doubt as to Snape's loyalty was swept away! And I think Dumbledore was dying from the moment the cursed ring Horcrux destroyed his hand.

Good point, I hadn't thought of that.

Thanks!

At any rate, I have a hard time seeing how Dumbledore could have had knowledge of the Vow without seeing his own death as a likely necessity well beforehand. And if Dumbledore wasn't party to the Vow, I have a hard time seeing it as an innocent manoeuvre on Snape's part.

I agree. If Snape is loyal to Dumbledore and took the Vow with loyal intentions, he would have told Dumbledore about it. In my opinion, he did, and Snape and Dumbledore together planned a way around it.

In conversations with Harry, Dumbledore claims full understanding of what Draco is up to, and tells Harry it is not his concern. Ditto regarding Snape's Vow. On the Tower, he offers Draco the option of hiding, with his family, from Voldemort. It is my opinion that were this plan for Draco carried out, Snape would not be obligated to act under the terms of the Vow. Draco would not be trying to carry out the Dark Lord's will; he would be safe; therefore it would not prove necessary for Snape to act, not would Draco seem to fail.

I think Snape started to worry this plan would not work when Draco proved unwilling to accept his help, and especially as the year wore on and he could not figure out what Draco was planning. This, in my opinion, was the subject under discussion in the Forest. Snape did not want to go with the hands-off plan any more, fearing he would be forced into a corner by some unexpected plan of Draco's - that's what Dumbledore was 'taking for granted', the ability to control Draco. And Dumbledore told him he'd agreed to it, and suggested he conduct further investigations.

None of this is any sort of proof, just the way I see the prelude to an unplanned killing by a loyal Snape.

My main reason for believing loyal Snape is not the factual evidence for it, (though some evidence is there, as is evidence for a variety of different positions) but impressions of characters and events. Spinner's End Snape screamed spy among enemies to me, and the Vow, with its ominous imagery and that twitch, seemed a fateful mistake, not an evil plot. Dumbledore's reactions in the tower suggested to me he trusted Snape to the very end, even after the expression of hatred and revulsion appeared, because that expression produced no corresponding change in demeanor. And finally, Snape seemed anything but pleased with the outcome.

Hi, Dr. Hesper!!! I'm so glad to see you! :welcome:

Of course Snape had to flee, but I was just saying that he didn't cause alot of damage to the kids even though he has alot to say to Harry. He deflects Harry's spells, when we all know he could have hurt him badly in retaliation, and then he stops the other DEs from doing a Crucio on Harry. It just doesn't make sense if he really hates the kid. :) At least that's the way it seems to me - I'm an optimistic fool, I guess. :agree:I see your point. He did let the kids slide and has done a lot to help them and protect them from harm over the years. Thats what makes him so difficult to figure. Even though a complete berk, he did so much good. Only to turn around a kill Dumbledore. It doesnt figure. Perhaps Snape sees himself as an agent who only does what he must to get the job done, rather than a mass murderer? And there may be some good reason that Harry was to be left alive (ie...Voldemort wanted the pleasure of killing him). I think Snape has underestimated Harry for years anyway. I wonder if Voldemort feels Harry must die at his hands for some special reason...like the casting of a spell? Or perhaps its just arrogance, I dunno. :lol:

And I'm not ready to buy the idea of a mercy killing as a few have suggested. Though somewhat plausable, that falls into the realm of assisted suicide and thats some pretty heady stuff to lay on the kids. Not sure Jo would go that far.

Again I believe that easier explanation is the correct one. Why would Snape hurt any of the children? Just cuz? To Voldemort the children are just peons. Why bother with them and risk injury, however minor, when you have bigger fish to fry? Remember that the point of the DE at the school was NOT to take it over. It wasn't to kill Harry. It was to bait DD into coming back to the school and kill him. this may have been explained ... and maybe you guys can remind me. Why would the DE's feel strong enough to take on Dumbledore when he is known to be the most powerful wizard in the realm? Iow, why would they feel they could kill him now? Why should they figure a punk like Draco could do what even Voldemort coudnt? Did they know something about Dumbledore's shriveled hand? Did they feel he was weaker than before? Why and how would they know?

During the battle it seemed that Snape was able to take over and coordinate the retreat pretty effectively. This indicates to me that the rest of the DE's knew Snape and had no trouble taking orders from him. So it appears to me that Snape had been working with them for some time and planned the attack.

During the battle it seemed that Snape was able to take over and coordinate the retreat pretty effectively. This indicates to me that the rest of the DE's knew Snape and had no trouble taking orders from him. So it appears to me that Snape had been working with them for some time and planned the attack.

I agree with your first conclusion - they knew him and accepted his authority. But not the second. As far as we know, Snape had no idea what was happening. He was sent for by McGonagall, of all people - until that time, he had been in his office, apparently oblivious. Given that he could die as a result of a failure by Draco, I can't imagine he would have stayed out of the action if he knew it was happening.

And I'm not ready to buy the idea of a mercy killing as a few have suggested. Though somewhat plausable, that falls into the realm of assisted suicide and thats some pretty heady stuff to lay on the kids. Not sure Jo would go that far.

Another idea that has been suggested is that Snape did not kill Dumbledore; rather, the (somewhat anomalous, you may agree if you used to believe Dumbledore was still alive) "AK" he cast was a fake. Dumbledore landed on the ground still alive, and died of the effects of the green potion. In which case the death was self-inflicted, though for a very good reason (the need to get a Horcrux), and Snaep did not murder because he did not even kill.

this may have been explained ... and maybe you guys can remind me. Why would the DE's feel strong enough to take on Dumbledore when he is known to be the most powerful wizard in the realm? Iow, why would they feel they could kill him now? Why should they figure a punk like Draco could do what even Voldemort coudnt?

The conversation of Snape and Cissy at Spinner's End suggests that Voldemort expected Draco to fail. He wanted to punich the Malfoys in this way, either by having Draco die trying, or by then punishing him for his failure. Snape also says in Spinner's End that he thinks Voldemort wants him to do it in the end. This, I think, was the plan Voldemort's money was on. Snape could do it because he was trusted - he could do it with a poison in Dumbledore's food, or strike when Dumbledore's back was turned, or what have you.

I also had a thought about mercy killing. I don't think that a plea of mercy killing by Snape would be believed. Harry was the only living witness to the potion that Dumbledore drank. Rosmerta could say that she saw a sick Dumbledore. The Death Eaters saw the same thing. But since Snape did not know what Dumbledore drank, no one would believe him if he claimed he only killed a dying man.
Harry knows - he fed the potion to Dumbledore. Don't you think that would make a difference to the plot?

Plus Harry knows that Snape saved Dumbledore's life when the ring horcrux was destroyed. Why would he save him earlier so he could kill him later in the book?

JKR said Dumbledore was definitely "dead." She never said definitely what he died from. :)


See this is the part I have the biggest problem with, why why why would DD think it is worth sacreficing himself in favour of his spy? Especially if it be at the hand of the spy? I just cant get my head around that...it makes no sense to me.
Because Dumbledore cares about Snape and wants him to live, while Dumbledore himself has already led a long long life. :)

Another idea that has been suggested is that Snape did not kill Dumbledore; rather, the (somewhat anomalous, you may agree if you used to believe Dumbledore was still alive) "AK" he cast was a fake. Dumbledore landed on the ground still alive, and died of the effects of the green potion. In which case the death was self-inflicted, though for a very good reason (the need to get a Horcrux), and Snaep did not murder because he did not even kill.I'd love to believe that one! :lol: Seriously, i want Snape to be a good guy after all. But man...a fake AK spell? Is there such a thing (in the wizarding world)? Either way, imo, Snape's action did cause Dumbledore to fall over the side. this may not be murder one, but it doesn't let him off the hook either. No, I'm afraid Snape has some responsibility in Dumbledore's death. Just my opinion mind you). :)

The conversation of Snape and Cissy at Spinner's End suggests that Voldemort expected Draco to fail. He wanted to punich the Malfoys in this way, either by having Draco die trying, or by then punishing him for his failure. Snape also says in Spinner's End that he thinks Voldemort wants him to do it in the end. This, I think, was the plan Voldemort's money was on. Snape could do it because he was trusted - he could do it with a poison in Dumbledore's food, or strike when Dumbledore's back was turned, or what have you.This, i can definately go along with. I can envision Voldemort setting up Draco in order to punish the Malfoys and i think Draco's mom knew this. So in your opinion, you dont think Voldemort felt the assasination plan at Hogwarts would actually work? I suspect if this was so, then Voldemort knew at least he would be able to harass Dumbledore and disrupt the goings on in Hogwarts and whithin the Order.

:)

JKR said Dumbledore was definitely "dead." She never said definitely what he died from. :)

I'm confused. Are you implying that Harry actually killed Dumbledore?

:no:

Snape couldn't have allowed Dumbledore to die without killing himself per the vow. When Draco seemed to fail, he had to 'complete Draco's task', to avoid dying himself.

JKR said Dumbledore was definitely "dead." She never said definitely what he died from.

I'm confused. Are you implying that Harry actually killed Dumbledore?

Snape couldn't have allowed Dumbledore to die without killing himself per the vow. When Draco seemed to fail, he had to 'complete Draco's task', to avoid dying himself.
No, I'm not saying Harry killed Dumbledore, though Dumbledore said the potion was "no health drink" and that Voldemort wouldn't have wanted him to die too quickly, so he was expecting death.

I'm saying there are at least three factors in Dumbledore's death - the withered hand, the potion in the cave, and Snape's Avada Kedavra.

Dumbledore was already asking for "Severus" before he ever got to the Tower - something was wrong with him! Even the DEs could see he was failing fast, and Harry saw him sliding down the wall.

I'm not saying it was a "mercy killing" either. My good friend "Olwen" put it best when she theorized that perhaps Snape had "stoppered death" after the ring horcrux episode - that Snape had somehow kept the curse from killing Dumbledore for a time - but after the cave, Dumbledore wanted to be released from it, so he asked for Harry to go get Severus only, and no one else. That's because only Snape could know about the horcrux hunt, and also about stoppering death.

Olwen described it as Dumbledore having a "living will," which tells a doctor at what point a person wishes to be removed from Life Support. I think Olwen may have been right that Dumbledore's pleas were for Snape to let him pass on - to "unstopper death," but due to circumstances, having to do it as Avada Kedavra in front of the DEs, Draco, and Harry was a worst case scenario.

The reason that a plea of mercy killing would never work is because there was no effort to give Dumbledore an antidote. Mercy killing is only considered after all other efforts have failed and death is evitable. There was no diagnosis made to determine what was making Dumbledore sick. It just doesn't fit the definition of mercy killing.

Well, I'm sure we all agree that Dumbledore was the greatest wizard in the world, with vast knowledge and keen insight.

Either way, I don't think it matters whether or not they knew, were guessing or neither (Snape and Dumbledore) had any idea what was causing Dumbledore to suffer.

It would be that Dumbledore was requesting that Snape "unstopper" death. Dumbledore knew, believed that it was best all round that he die and that Snape kill him. Making the best of a really bad situation. He knew about Snape's vow, he knew the DEs were looking for something to rat about Snape to LV in hope of gaining trust and "honor" or "favour" with LV.

Originally Posted By cupsoftea
See this is the part I have the biggest problem with, why why why would DD think it is worth sacreficing himself in favour of his spy? Especially if it be at the hand of the spy? I just cant get my head around that...it makes no sense to me.

It's like anabel said, by killing Albus, Severus is now in the position where he can do great things for the Order. From the moment Voldemort got his body back in GOF, up until now, Severus hasn't really been in a position to do anything very important. None of the other DE's trusted him, except for the possibility of Lucius, and I'm sure Voldemort had started believeing the whispers of his other DE's. But, now that he has shown public 'support' of Voldemort, he will be trusted by everyone. That inables him to gain information that he had before been incapable of learning. Of course, the Orders lack of trust in him makes it hard for him to give the information to them; but Severus is brilliant, so I'm sure he will find a way to achieve it. Also, he is now in a better position to cause problems for Voldemort from the inside. He's sneaky enough, and smart enough, to be able to cause some descension in the ranks and to put DE's against each other if he needs to. Sabatoge is something that Severus could easily achieve from his position.

While Albus as an important figure in the war, and an important window into Voldemorts mind; he knew that Severus was more important. I know that you're probably saying, "Well that's not correct. There's no way that Severus is more important than Albus", but I must say that he is. Albus may have had information that was important to the war, but it's not like he was able to march into Voldemort's inner circle and gather information that way. He only had information from his past experiences with Voldemort and from what his spies have told him (and I said 'spies' and not 'spy' because in POA Fudge says that Albus had reliable 'spies' gaining information for him), which shows that without his spies he wouldn't have had as much information on Voldemorts plans as he did. The spies are an important link between Albus and Voldemort; and Albus knew that Severus was going to be a more important player in the battle than he was. If he had had Severus try and rescue him instead of kill him, the Vow would have been activated and Severus would have been killed, because rescueing the object of the Vow would be completely against the reason the Vow was made in the first place. With Severus dead, the Order would have lost their most important spy; and in the end Albus would have still been killed, so the Order would have lost two important people rather than just one.

Originally Posted By zgirnius
My main reason for believing loyal Snape is not the factual evidence for it, (though some evidence is there, as is evidence for a variety of different positions) but impressions of characters and events. Spinner's End Snape screamed spy among enemies to me, and the Vow, with its ominous imagery and that twitch, seemed a fateful mistake, not an evil plot. Dumbledore's reactions in the tower suggested to me he trusted Snape to the very end, even after the expression of hatred and revulsion appeared, because that expression produced no corresponding change in demeanor. And finally, Snape seemed anything but pleased with the outcome.

I agree. While some people find the answers to Bellatrix's questions as an indicator of his loyalty to Voldemort, I see them as an indicator of a traitor trying to move all suspicion away from him in one swift move.

There are two people in front of him. One is a petrified mother, who desperately needs his help; the other is a criminally insane DE who just wants to hassle him over his loyalties. Now, if he was loyal to Voldemort, he wouldn't really care what Bellatrix thought, because he would know in his head and heart what side he was truly on; and he would know that Voldemort believes him to be loyal, and so it doesn't matter what the others say about him as long as he has Voldemort's 'trust'. Also, we can tell that Bellatrix has an extreme feeling of dislike towards Severus, and it seems to be equal to Severus's feelings towards her. With that said, why would Severus bother explaining things to someone he dislikes? He dislikes Harry, and we never see him explain his actions to him; so why do it with her?

As I said above, that scene, to me, is of a traitor trying to move all suspicion from themselves. He seemed to be trying too hard to get Bellatrix to believe that he was still loyal to Voldemort. That's what people tend to do when they are lying about something. If you have done something that has serious consequences and you are lying about having done it, you tend to overexaggerate about your innocence. That seems to be what Severus is doing in that chapter. He is trying to dispell her distrust, because if she doesn't trust him then that means that she's going to be keeping an extremely close eye on him, and no matter how good he is at keeping himself guarded, there is still a chance of him letting that guard down. That could be disasterous, especially if Bellatrix is watching him like a hawk finding her prey.

No, I'm not saying Harry killed Dumbledore, though Dumbledore said the potion was "no health drink" and that Voldemort wouldn't have wanted him to die too quickly, so he was expecting death.


In addition, as we all know, Dumbledore drank the first several goblets on his own, with no assistance from Harry. He only needed that to empty the bowl. If the potion was a poison, then quite possibly those first few would have been enough to kill him, and Harry's contribution simp0lyt ensured the locket could be retrieved.

I agree. If Snape is loyal to Dumbledore and took the Vow with loyal intentions, he would have told Dumbledore about it. In my opinion, he did, and Snape and Dumbledore together planned a way around it.

In conversations with Harry, Dumbledore claims full understanding of what Draco is up to, and tells Harry it is not his concern. Ditto regarding Snape's Vow. On the Tower, he offers Draco the option of hiding, with his family, from Voldemort. It is my opinion that were this plan for Draco carried out, Snape would not be obligated to act under the terms of the Vow. Draco would not be trying to carry out the Dark Lord's will; he would be safe; therefore it would not prove necessary for Snape to act, not would Draco seem to fail.

I think Snape started to worry this plan would not work when Draco proved unwilling to accept his help, and especially as the year wore on and he could not figure out what Draco was planning. This, in my opinion, was the subject under discussion in the Forest. Snape did not want to go with the hands-off plan any more, fearing he would be forced into a corner by some unexpected plan of Draco's - that's what Dumbledore was 'taking for granted', the ability to control Draco. And Dumbledore told him he'd agreed to it, and suggested he conduct further investigations.

None of this is any sort of proof, just the way I see the prelude to an unplanned killing by a loyal Snape.

My main reason for believing loyal Snape is not the factual evidence for it, (though some evidence is there, as is evidence for a variety of different positions) but impressions of characters and events. Spinner's End Snape screamed spy among enemies to me, and the Vow, with its ominous imagery and that twitch, seemed a fateful mistake, not an evil plot. Dumbledore's reactions in the tower suggested to me he trusted Snape to the very end, even after the expression of hatred and revulsion appeared, because that expression produced no corresponding change in demeanor. And finally, Snape seemed anything but pleased with the outcome.
Excellent post, I fully agree. I had already thought of most of it. That last paragraph, though, I found particularly insightful. I think I agree, and had thoughts like that only partially formed in my head, so I had one of those, "Wow, YEAH!" experiences.

There's another big thing that isn't really evidence in the books that makes me feel like Snape must be good. To me, it's inconsistent with JKR's themes if Dumbledore was wrong to trust Snape and everyone who seems bad turns out to actually be bad. I don't think there's another opportunity in the story for her to show a story of redemption, and to show that some people deserve a second chance. I definitely do feel like she's going for that sort of message, though.

And of course, I also think the evidence points to Snape being good. Most significantly for me, as I periodically bring up, he alerted the Order to go to the Ministry in OotP. There's just no way that Voldemort would want him to do that, since it would risk losing the prophecy, which was Voldemort's top priority in OotP.

During the battle it seemed that Snape was able to take over and coordinate the retreat pretty effectively. This indicates to me that the rest of the DE's knew Snape and had no trouble taking orders from him. So it appears to me that Snape had been working with them for some time and planned the attack.


Yes, Snape was clearly in a position of respect among the Death Eaters.Another idea that has been suggested is that Snape did not kill Dumbledore; rather, the (somewhat anomalous, you may agree if you used to believe Dumbledore was still alive) "AK" he cast was a fake. Dumbledore landed on the ground still alive, and died of the effects of the green potion. In which case the death was self-inflicted, though for a very good reason (the need to get a Horcrux), and Snaep did not murder because he did not even kill.

This is an interesting theory, but I don't think I'm the only reader who would feel deeply cheated if Snape killing Dumbledore, the most shocking and unpredictable event of HBP, turned out to be a bluff. At any rate, Jo would owe me a sleepless night for that one! No, I'm not saying Harry killed Dumbledore, though Dumbledore said the potion was "no health drink" and that Voldemort wouldn't have wanted him to die too quickly, so he was expecting death.
Coca cola is no health drink - the term doesn't have to mean a lethal poison. Dumbledore appears to have been preparing for his own death all through HBP, but I don't think the potion in the cave would have killed him. He had to die at Snape's hand, if Draco failed to kill him. This was the basis of the Unbreakable Vow. If neither Draco or Snape killed Dumbledore, Snape would die himself.

There was no diagnosis made to determine what was making Dumbledore sick. It just doesn't fit the definition of mercy killing.
As I said, I don't call it a mercy killing, but Dumbledore requesting to have his "life support" removed.

As far as the "diagnosis" ~ Snape is a legillimens and we have this line:

"Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face."
"Severus . . . please . . . "

Their eyes must have met. Snape surely saw something in Dumbledore's mind as far as what was going on and what Dumbledore wanted him to do.In addition, as we all know, Dumbledore drank the first several goblets on his own, with no assistance from Harry. He only needed that to empty the bowl. If the potion was a poison, then quite possibly those first few would have been enough to kill him, and Harry's contribution simp0lyt ensured the locket could be retrieved.
Thank you! I was trying to remember earlier if Dumbledore drank some of it on his own, and he did. And Dumbledore tells Harry before he starts drinking:



"You remember . . . the condition on which I brought you with me?"

Harry hesitated, looking into the blue eyes that had turned green in the reflected light of the basin.

"But what if --"
"You swore, did you not, to follow any command I gave you?"
"Yes, but--"
"I warned you, did I not, that there might be danger?"
"Yes," said Harry, "but--"
"Well then," Dumbledore said, shaking back his sleeves once more and raising the empty goblet, "you have my orders."
"Why can't I drink the potion instead?" asked Harry desperately.
"Because I am much older, much cleverer, and much less valuable," said Dumbledore. . . .

. . . "Your word, Harry."
"I -- all right -- but --"

Before Harry could make further protest, Dumbledore lowered the crystal goblet into the potion.


I think that's clear that if Dumbledore trusts someone, he makes sure they will follow his orders no matter what they are. I believe Dumbledore had a similar conversation with Snape in the forest, which is what Hagrid overheard. Just as Harry doesn't really want to follow through with the Potion, Snape doesn't want to follow through with protecting himself from the Unbreakable Vow. But Dumbledore makes them both promise.

(Edited to fix syntax problem. :) )

I think that line about being "less valuable" also applies to the Snape situation.

This may answer the question for those who believe Dumbledore wanted to live on the Tower. If he considers himself "less valuable" in the cave, to the point that he will risk drinking an unknown killer potion, then why would he suddenly believe he was "more valuable alive" on the Tower? :huh:

Finally, there is one more really interesting phrase in that passage.

Dumbledore blue eyes appear green in the light of the potion.

This goes to another theory I have - that the "jet of green light" which apparently killed Dumbledore wasn't Avada Kedavra, even though Snape said the words.

The top of the tower is bathed in the green light from the Dark Mark. There is a green glow over everything before Snape arrives, and there is smoky light in the air. Snape could have thrown a white light spell at Dumbledore, and the light still would have appeared green.

And that would explain why Fawkes didn't appear to "swallow" the Avada Kedavra as he did in OotP. We know Fawkes is around because Harry hears him "lamenting" later. But why wouldn't Fawkes show up to sacrifice himself again for Dumbledore, when he is so loyal to him? Because maybe that wasn't a "death spell" that Snape threw at him, but only appeared so in the green light of the dark mark?

I have no doubt that Dumbledore is dead and that he "needed" to die for the story to continue. However, there are huge questions surrounding that night that I make me believe Snape is still on the good side, and did nothing more than follow orders.

That last paragraph, though, I found particularly insightful. I think I agree, and had thoughts like that only partially formed in my head, so I had one of those, "Wow, YEAH!" experiences.


Thanks! :blush:

This is an interesting theory, but I don't think I'm the only reader who would feel deeply cheated if Snape killing Dumbledore, the most shocking and unpredictable event of HBP, turned out to be a bluff. At any rate, Jo would owe me a sleepless night for that one!


Not to mention poor Harry! Harry, at least, can expect her to buy him dinner, should they ever meet...

As far as the "diagnosis" ~ Snape is a legillimens and we have this line:

"Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face."


A poster at another group I frequent made an interesting proposal regarding the diagnosis and how it might have been made so quickly by Snape on the Tower. If RAB is Regulus, there is some possibility that the present-day protections on the locket were put in place during the first war, after Regulus' schooldays. If so...who made the potion? Her suggestion was that Voldemort might have delegated that to a particularly gifted potionmaker among his Death Eaters - Snape. Snape would not have had to know where the potion would be used, or for what purpose, so it would not have been such a big secret to entrust to him.

And obviously, if he made the potion, he could know Dumbledore's prognosis completely based only on a short attempt at Legilimency in which he saw a memory of Dumbledore drinking the Potion. There has been reference made in the text (by Snape, I believe, incidentally) to poisons without antidotes, and poisons not curable via bezoar. If he made it and knew it was such a potion, he would not need to perform any examinations or attempt any treatment to ascertain Dumbledore was truly dying.

I'm not insisting on it, just tossing it out there since I do think it is a clever idea worth sharing. It would be another instance of an action taken by Snape in his loyal Death Eater days coming back to haunt him in a way he could not have imagined. It would beautifully explain the hatred and revulsion (Oh no, he's dying of that potion I made!!) in an unexpected way.

And obviously, if he made the potion, he could know Dumbledore's prognosis completely based only on a short attempt at Legilimency in which he saw a memory of Dumbledore drinking the Potion. There has been reference made in the text (by Snape, I believe, incidentally) to poisons without antidotes, and poisons not curable via bezoar. If he made it and knew it was such a potion, he would not need to perform any examinations or attempt any treatment to ascertain Dumbledore was truly dying.

I'm not insisting on it, just tossing it out there since I do think it is a clever idea worth sharing. It would be another instance of an action taken by Snape in his loyal Death Eater days coming back to haunt him in a way he could not have imagined. It would beautifully explain the hatred and revulsion (Oh no, he's dying of that potion I made!!) in an unexpected way.
Well, you know me - I would hate for Snape to have one more thing to regret, though I do think that Snape might feel responsible for Regulus since he was a younger student from his own House and he surely knew him. Since they obviously both went back to the good side, there is a clue they might have worked together.

I agree, though, that Snape would see the potion in Dumbledore's mind, as well as seeing the symptoms, and would know what it was, no doubt.

Isn't the matter of what killed Dumbledore irrelevant to the story? The Death Eaters think that Snape killed Dumbledore. The good guys via Harry think that Snape killed Dumbledore. Even if it was the potion that did it, would it make any difference? Everybody thinks Snape killed him and will act accordingly. The only difference that I can see would be the matter of splitting your soul. And that only matters to Snape.

Isn't the matter of what killed Dumbledore irrelevant to the story? The Death Eaters think that Snape killed Dumbledore. The good guys via Harry think that Snape killed Dumbledore. Even if it was the potion that did it, would it make any difference? Everybody thinks Snape killed him and will act accordingly. The only difference that I can see would be the matter of splitting your soul. And that only matters to Snape.

The matter of what killed Dumbledore is inextricably linked to the matter of who killed Dumbledore. If it was the potion, then Snape did not kill him. This is not some technicality; it is an important statement that would radically alter the opinions of the characters in the story, and of the readers, about Snape.

If the Ministry realized it, it might lose interest in arresting him. If Voldemort realized it, he might decide he'd had enough of Snape. If Harry realized it, he might be forced to reexamine his opinion of Snape. Any or all of these would affect the story.

The fact in itself, with no additional impact on other characters, would affect many readers drastically as well. If a reader thinks all he needs to know about Snape is that he killed Dumbledore (as a number of posters to this thread have stated), how different would the story seem to them, knowing that Snape did not?

Would it matter if DD knew Snape would kill him but not harm Harry, that he would live to protect Harry even if DD was no longer around? Has the possibility of Snape making the unbreakable vow with Harry as a baby been discussed? DD was convinced Snape was on his side, or that he would not harm Harry so it would not matter if he killed DD in the long run.

I think sometimes it is easy to read into somthing a little to much. Lets keep things simple:
Dumbledore is dead. Snape killed DD because he is very bad and is not ever going to be good.

This is just my opinion but consider that Harry has never trusted Snape. Harry has always had a bad feeling about Snape since book 1.

I think sometimes it is easy to read into somthing a little to much. Lets keep things simple:
Dumbledore is dead. Snape killed DD because he is very bad and is not ever going to be good.

This is just my opinion but consider that Harry has never trusted Snape. Harry has always had a bad feeling about Snape since book 1.

Harry has made a lot of mistakes. Lots. Harry having a bad feeling about him is no indication.

I, on the other hand, think that we should try to look beneath the surface. Yes, Snape is glaringly "bad" now. The book named after him started with his explanation of how he's been "bad" all along and he still is - avery careful, meticulously calculated explanation that leaves no holes - and ends with him killing the ultimately "good" character. So he's on the wrong side, then? Yes, but we know there is still a lot about Snape to be revealed. We were shown on page that the reason for Dumbledore's trust is still not to be revealed. Why? If Snape's been revealed,if HBP is the book that gives the answer about Snape's ambiguity, why does he remain ambiguous after it? There must be some reason for that, and a serious one, seeing as it's beeing kept for last.

we know there is still a lot about Snape to be revealed. We were shown on page that the reason for Dumbledore's trust is still not to be revealed. Why? If Snape's been revealed,if HBP is the book that gives the answer about Snape's ambiguity, why does he remain ambiguous after it? There must be some reason for that, and a serious one, seeing as it's beeing kept for last.The reason that Dumbledore trusted Snape has been hidden for a good reason. I think it would endanger Snape if it was known. Snape was Dumbledore's spy. He couldn't risk Voldemort finding out the real reason Dumbledore trusts Snape. It will come out at in the final book.

What if, by making a huge public declaration of support to Voldemort, said spy had just put himself in a position where he could do great things for the Order?
It's like anabel said, by killing Albus, Severus is now in the position where he can do great things for the Order. Snape is now in an even better position to do what Voldemort orders him to do. That’s a big problem with all these theories. Voldemort is someone who might order murder. And how would Dumbledore feel about other people being murdered for this great position as spy?

You do make a great argument for Snape possibley being good Yoana. But I still think Snape is a stinker.

I would like to start my own thread on this, but I am quite certain the Mods would either close it or move it here anyway. So, here it goes...

A KEY REASON SNAPE MUST BE GOOD!!!


There is something that we have not really associated with Severus Snape; Nagini.

We all know by now that Nagini is probably a horcrux. We know this because Dumbledore said so explicitly. It is his suspicion that Nagini is a horcrux, and will be a difficult one to reach, because where one finds Nagini, so will one find Voldemort.

The question remains, how does Dumbledore know so much about Nagini to begin with?

We know that Harry told Dumbledore about Nagini's presence at the murder of poor Frank Bryce in Harry's vision, but he really didn't get into much detail. Dumbledore couldn't have known too much about her, other than she was a snake of some size, and Voldemort talks to her. But this is hardly evidence that she is a horcrux, because Voldemort's ability to speak Parseltongue is well known. It is also assumed that he would keep a snake as a pet. But a horcrux is a stretch.

So, therefore someone with more knowledge of the abilities and purpose of this snake would have to tell Dumbledore. That would be Severus Snape. He has been working as spy for the Order, and must have discussed this with Dumbledore. Something this important is not something that a Triple Agent would reveal to the likes of Dumbledore.

Yet somehow Dumbledore surmised that Nagini is a horcrux. How would he do that if all the information he had to go on was from a brief acknowledgement that a snake was in Voldemort's presence? He had to have received more descript information from someone who knows well about this particular snake. My only conclusion is that Severus Snape told him.

No, I'm not saying Harry killed Dumbledore, though Dumbledore said the potion was "no health drink" and that Voldemort wouldn't have wanted him to die too quickly, so he was expecting death.

I'm saying there are at least three factors in Dumbledore's death - the withered hand, the potion in the cave, and Snape's Avada Kedavra.

Dumbledore was already asking for "Severus" before he ever got to the Tower - something was wrong with him! Even the DEs could see he was failing fast, and Harry saw him sliding down the wall.

I'm not saying it was a "mercy killing" either. My good friend "Olwen" put it best when she theorized that perhaps Snape had "stoppered death" after the ring horcrux episode - that Snape had somehow kept the curse from killing Dumbledore for a time - but after the cave, Dumbledore wanted to be released from it, so he asked for Harry to go get Severus only, and no one else. That's because only Snape could know about the horcrux hunt, and also about stoppering death.

Olwen described it as Dumbledore having a "living will," which tells a doctor at what point a person wishes to be removed from Life Support. I think Olwen may have been right that Dumbledore's pleas were for Snape to let him pass on - to "unstopper death," but due to circumstances, having to do it as Avada Kedavra in front of the DEs, Draco, and Harry was a worst case scenario.:) SIP, my friend...i find myself in a some what unusual and awkward situation here and hope you dont feel we are all ganging up on you. :blush: In truth, i find myself confused mainly and am looking for clarification.

Is it your position that Prof Dumbledore was in so much pain that he actually wanted to die?

Do you feel that his withered hand was terminal and he was using Snape merely to delay his own death?

And do you feel that the potion Dumbledore drank was enough to kill him?

I think that Dumbledore was probably failing fast and that the potion was probably gonna do him in if he didnt get help soon. And i think he felt that Prof. Snape was the one who could and would help restore him.

Furthermore I cannot imagine that Dumbledore, regardless of his own pain, would want to die given the times and given the crisis that his beloved Hogwarts was in at the time. I don't think he would want relase from death while trying to talk his attackers out of pulling the trigger. And I thought thats what he was doing when he said "Severus....please....".

I think he was wanting help from Prof. Snape. I think that, while he didnt want Draco to commit murder and lose himself in the evil side, he also was either stalling for time or trying to talk the kid out of killing him.

But regardless of what Dumbledore may have meant...Snape did fire off an AK spell. And when Snape fired off an AK spell...it wasnt a fake one (if there is such a thing). Snape cast an unforgivable curse that was unblockable and with no counter curse and some of us are trying to forgive the guy for this. Snape pulled the trigger knowing that Dumbledore would not survive the attack. I know Snape is great and all, but he'd gonna have to be Houdini to get out of this one. :lol:

So where am I going wrong with these thoughts?

;)

I think sometimes it is easy to read into somthing a little to much. Lets keep things simple: Dumbledore is dead. Snape killed DD because he is very bad and is not ever going to be good. ROFL!! I like your way of thinking! Sometimes a cigar is actually a cigar! He's evil and by Gawd that's all there is to it! :clap:

Dumbledore was probably dying from the hand injury. He may not have had that much time left to begin with. The potion was the final stroke. He didn't want Snape to die from the Unbreakable Vow because Snape's position as a spy with Voldemort was too valuable. Nor did he want Draco to become a murderer. He had probably had a conversation with Snape about killing him if it came to that. That's what the pleading was about.

Dumbledore was probably dying from the hand injury. He may not have had that much time left to begin with. The potion was the final stroke. He didn't want Snape to die from the Unbreakable Vow because Snape's position as a spy with Voldemort was too valuable. Nor did he want Draco to become a murderer. He had probably had a conversation with Snape about killing him if it came to that. That's what the pleading was about.

I agree. Dumbledore was not afraid of death, but nor was he afflicted with false modesty. He knew that he was unique and important in the battle against Voldemort, so if there was a chance of survival, I'm sure he would have grasped it. But if he was dying anyway, and his death at that moment and in that way could do more good than his survival, I'm sure Dumbledore wouldn't hesitate. The pleading (in conjunction with the argument in the forest) has to mean that he wanted Snape to keep his part of the agreement and do what had to be done.

Dumbledore was probably dying from the hand injury. He may not have had that much time left to begin with. The potion was the final stroke.
Let’s see what Dumbledore says bout the ring and the sacrifice he made:
Had it not been – forgive me for my lack of modesty – for my own prodigious skill, and for Professor’s Snape timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to tell the tale. However, a withered hand does not seem an unreasonable exchange for a seventh of Voldemort’s soul.
Here we have Dumbledore explaining why he didn’t die of the ring. To learn in DH that he did die of the ring seems very much reader cheating to me. And more: Dumbledore explains what sacrifice he made for a seventh of Voldemort’s soul. A withered hand. If the ring was killing him this would be a direct lie, because he didn’t give a withered hand for a seventh of his soul but his whole life.

Therefore I feel that positions that the ring was killing Dumbledore has no canon support at all and is contradicted by the canon we have. So is this about the potion, we have Dumbledore naming its effects and death wasn’t one of them. To suddenly turn around in the next book and say Dumbledore was wrong or he lied to Harry is a little bit over the top, just as this “I forgot to tell you but Dumbledore was dying all year, that rather dramatic scene on the tower is just a little trick on the readers and Harry. The big thing in Dumbledore’s death was the ring which just wasn’t important enough to show on page.”

We can all see that there is more on Snape to come, that not all is explained.

But I don’t see any reason on basis of this argument to assume he is loyal to Dumbledore (planned death), which is the conclusion of a lot of posters. That’s something which I find a little bit incomprehensible. Just because not everything is revealed the whole solution of HBP is some sort of joke, nothing is what it seems? Great twist for those who passionate study the books but a simple case of reader cheating for those who just read the books. I don’t think JKR went that way. I feel she respects her casual readers and her young readers and having the solution of one book completely turned around in the next is not really much respect for those readers. Others, I assume, do feel differently about this but I think it is not something which can be overlooked.

There are of course a lot of possibilities with Snape murdering Dumbledore but not completely loyal to Voldemort. Indeed the most common reasons for Dumbledore’s trust in Snape have not much to do with Dumbledore himself. Love for Lily, life debt etc. have all one thing in common: not much to do with Dumbledore but with feelings against Voldemort, for James etc.
This creates the scenario for Snape murdering Dumbledore and more to come on his feelings for Voldemort.
But usually the discussion is that Snape acted on Dumbledore’s orders because not everything is explained and there is more to come. That does not seem to fit with JKR’s pattern. A more logical conclusion seems to me that given that not everything is explained, given that Snape murdered Dumbledore what is there more to come on Snape?

SIP, my friend...i find myself in a some what unusual and awkward situation here and hope you dont feel we are all ganging up on you. In truth, i find myself confused mainly and am looking for clarification.
No problem ~ I'm not that easily overwhelmed. :lol:

Is it your position that Prof Dumbledore was in so much pain that he actually wanted to die?
No. I think his death was inevitable and he knew it, pain or not.

Do you feel that his withered hand was terminal and he was using Snape merely to delay his own death?
Yes, I've come to that conclusion. I wouldn't say he was "using" Snape, but rather, Snape was using his skill to keep Dumbledore alive after the ring horcrux affected his hand. Dumbledore says the withered hand was a small price to pay for destroying the horcrux. Somehow, Snape stopped the withering just at the hand, so that it didn't kill Dumbledore.

And do you feel that the potion Dumbledore drank was enough to kill him?
Eventually, yes. I think Dumbledore knew he was dying anyway, but if Snape didn't kill him and finish Draco's "task," then Snape would die from the Unbreakable Vow.

I think that Dumbledore was probably failing fast and that the potion was probably gonna do him in if he didnt get help soon. And i think he felt that Prof. Snape was the one who could and would help restore him.
I agree that Dumbledore believed that before they went up on the Tower. But once Draco was surrounded by DEs, Dumbledore knew the deck was stacked against both he and Snape, and they had to go to plan B, which was for Snape to follow orders whatever they were. I don't pretend to have it all figured out, but I'm certain Snape was following orders similar to the oath Harry took with Dumbledore in the cave.

I don't think Dumbledore could be "restored" back to normal at that point. Between the withered hand and the potion in the cave, he would have died soon anyway.

Furthermore I cannot imagine that Dumbledore, regardless of his own pain, would want to die given the times and given the crisis that his beloved Hogwarts was in at the time. I don't think he would want relase from death while trying to talk his attackers out of pulling the trigger. And I thought thats what he was doing when he said "Severus....please....".
There's where I totally disagree. If Dumbledore was dying anyway, and he knew his death would kill Severus - his friend - why would someone like Dumbledore, a "great soul" who thinks Death is the "next great adventure," want to live while his trusted friend died?

The foreshadowing of Dumbledore's death is plain when Harry enters his office that night and sees him watching the sunset. I believe Dumbledore knew he might not survive the cave, and he knew that Draco was going to confront him and try to kill him, if not that night, then soon. And on top of all that, the withered hand had already taken a toll.

I think he was wanting help from Prof. Snape. I think that, while he didnt want Draco to commit murder and lose himself in the evil side, he also was either stalling for time or trying to talk the kid out of killing him.
Of course he was trying to talk Draco out of killing him, but not because Dumbledore was afraid of Death. He didn't want Draco to tear his own soul by becoming a murderer.

Stalling for more time wouldn't work once the DEs were on the Tower. Draco "appeared" to have failed in his task, which meant that Snape had to finish it or die. Dumbledore knew about the Vow - he wasn't asking Snape to die in his place, though.

Again, Dumbledore knew how the UV would work if Snape saved him in front of all those DEs. Dumbledore would live, while Snape would die. But Dumbledore couldn't live due to the potion, so what is the point? They would both be dead, and Draco and Harry would be on their own. And I don't think Dumbledore wanted that, anymore than he wanted Snape to die.

But regardless of what Dumbledore may have meant...Snape did fire off an AK spell. And when Snape fired off an AK spell...it wasnt a fake one (if there is such a thing). Snape cast an unforgivable curse that was unblockable and with no counter curse and some of us are trying to forgive the guy for this.
There has been discussion elsewhere about the fact that on the Tower, Dumbledore doesn't react to Avada Kedavra the way we have seen others react. Usually, the AK is instant and the person just falls down. In this case, Dumbledore flies up over the tower, hangs there like a rag doll, and then falls. That isn't your typical AK. :) Also, he bleeds from the fall, which means his heart might have been pumping after he went over the tower. Not likely with AK.

But that's just the way I see it, and I'm not trying to convince anyone. :)

Snape pulled the trigger knowing that Dumbledore would not survive the attack. I know Snape is great and all, but he'd gonna have to be Houdini to get out of this one.
But he is Houdini! :lol: Don't you think JKR has one more trick up her sleeve to pull Snape out of the fire? I have the faith of an idiot. :p

Draco made a choice. He made a choice to become a Death Eater. This is a book about choices. Dumbledore believes that it is your choices that make you what you are. We have the examples of RAB and Karkarov to show us what happens to people who try to leave Voldemort's side. Once a Death Eater, always a Death Eater, or death. Draco cannot be saved by Dumbledore's death. And the number one question that I have is why should Dumbledore die because one of his students made a choice? People make choices all the time. Many of these choices are bad, but they have to live with the consequences. You can't run around trying to straighten out people's lives for them. Life doesn't work that way.

Again, Dumbledore knew how the UV would work if Snape saved him in front of all those DEs. Dumbledore would live, while Snape would die. But Dumbledore couldn't live due to the potion, so what is the point? They would both be dead, and Draco and Harry would be on their own. And I don't think Dumbledore wanted that, anymore than he wanted Snape to die.

I agree. Albus knew he was dying because of the potion. We see it as well, because as time went on he was getting weaker and weaker. Albus needed Severus's help to reverse the effects of the potion; but that would have been impossible if Severus was dead. Albus knew of the Vow made between Severus and Narcissa, and he knew that if Severus tried to rescue him, that he would die as well. That would remove both of the adults that are best suited to help Harry and Draco in the final book, and Albus wasn't stupid enough to allow that to happen. Albus knows that Severus is the only person, besides him, that is best suited to watch over them and protect them, even though Harry wouldn't welcome his help at the moment. Severus is a Slytherin, which means that he can hide in the shadows and still protect Harry, without him knowing it.

So, he decides to have Severus kill him. He was dying from the potion anyway, and even if there had been a way for him to get off the tower it still would have been too late to save him. His death, besides keeping Severus alive and Draco's soul intact, removed the last person in Harry's life that prevented him from stepping up to the plate. If Albus had lived, Harry would have fallen on him for help and guidance in the final book, and that wasn't going to help Harry at all. Harry needs to stand on his own in the last book, and Albus knew that.

But he is Houdini! :lol: Don't you think JKR has one more trick up her sleeve to pull Snape out of the fire? I have the faith of an idiot. :p

I also have the faith of an idiot:lol: I'm so sure, to the point of stupidity, that Jo is going to turn around and prove to everyone that Severus is good. She's going to find a way, as you say, to pull Severus out of the fire that he's put himself in.

And if i end up being completely wrong about his character, then I'll eat my socks:sigh:

Draco made a choice. He made a choice to become a Death Eater. This is a book about choices. Dumbledore believes that it is your choices that make you what you are. We have the examples of RAB and Karkarov to show us what happens to people who try to leave Voldemort's side. Once a Death Eater, always a Death Eater, or death. Draco cannot be saved by Dumbledore's death.
Perhaps not. But Dumbledore's death meant that Draco still has a whole soul, just like Harry, and Dumbledore thought that was very important.

And Snape told Harry not to do the Unforgivables, too, even though Harry "chose" to try them. Trying Cruciatus or Avada Kedavra, or even Sectumsempra, which could also kill, is not evil in itself if someone learns to control their "righteous anger."

Sirius said that no one ever stops being a Death Eater, but his own brother turned away from Voldemort and stole a horcrux - a very brave thing to do. Regulus knew he was going to die soon, but that didn't stop him.

People can "choose" to die for the good of someone else. Isn't that what Lily did? It's possible that Dumbledore also made that choice.

And the number one question that I have is why should Dumbledore die because one of his students made a choice? People make choices all the time. Many of these choices are bad, but they have to live with the consequences. You can't run around trying to straighten out people's lives for them. Life doesn't work that way.
To me, Dumbledore was great because he never gave up on people, and he "believed in second chances" as Hagrid said.

People can "choose" to die for the good of someone else. Isn't that what Lily did? It's possible that Dumbledore also made that choice.You are right that people can choose to die for the good of someone. Lily died for her son, but the person killing her was bad. Sirius said that he would die for his friends, but we would assume that the person who would have killed Sirius in that situation would have been a Death Eater or Voldemort. Both Lily and Sirius made a choice. I know that you will say that Dumbledore made a choice, too, but unfortunately, in HBP we do not see Dumbledore making that choice. You have to forgive me if I want to see it on page before I believe it.

To me, Dumbledore was great because he never gave up on people, and he "believed in second chances" as Hagrid said.You are right again. He offered Tom Riddle a clean slate when he came from the orphanage to Hogwarts. I believe he kept Tom's past behavior a secret in order to do that. He gave Draco an excellent choice, too, the only one that would have worked. Dumbledore was a great man.

PS - I don't mean the forest scene or the "Severus, please..." from the Tower. That isn't proof, it is interpretation.

Perhaps not. But Dumbledore's death meant that Draco still has a whole soul, just like Harry, and Dumbledore thought that was very important.
No, this isn’t correct. We can’t take the decent thing Draco does away just to give Snape another reason to kill Dumbledore. That’s messing with the choices theme and with Draco’s own sense of morality when he decides not to kill Dumbledore.

It is not Dumbledore’s death that meant Draco still has a whole soul; it was Draco’s decision not to kill Dumbledore which means he still has a whole soul. And we see that decision when Draco lowered his wand. And for all the pressure the other deatheaters subsequently put on Draco he still wasn’t contemplating killing Dumbledore. JKR has even commented on this.

Whatever the reasons were that Snape killed Dumbledore saving Draco’s soul wasn’t one of them. Nor was saving Harry because the other deatheaters had no idea that Harry was there.

But Snape did save a life when he killed Dumbledore: his own. But that’s the only one.

It comes with a price of course, a split soul. Wonder why Dumbledore didn’t save Snape from this by jumping from the tower.

There’s another price to pay: Draco’s wellbeing. Dumbledore had a plan with Draco: show him that he is not a killer and separate him from Voldemort. Dumbledore took care of the first part, Snape took care that the second part wasn’t fulfilled. I still wonder about us being shown that Dumbledore didn’t fulfil Dumbledore’s plans with Draco as another sign of Snape’s loyalties.

And “the Snape on the tower couldn’t act different” theory just chooses to disregard all the choices Snape made before he entered alone on the tower. That’s peculiar because JKR describes what Snape did before he entered the tower for a reason.

What is the reason that we hear that Snape choose to stun Flitwick, choose to prevent Hermione and Luna from joining the battle, choose to leave the order fighting and ducking AK curses, choose to leave the barrier standing, choose not to stun the single deatheater who guarded the barrier without knowing anything about Dumbledore’s health status because some potion Dumbledore drank?

That’s a lot of choices Snape made which we are shown. It’s hard to believe that all this choices mean that Snape couldn’t act different. If that is true why are we told about all this decisions Snape made before he arrived at the tower, before he knew Dumbledore drunk the potion, before he even knew Dumbledore was at the castle?

No, this isn’t correct. We can’t take the decent thing Draco does away just to give Snape another reason to kill Dumbledore. That’s messing with the choices theme and with Draco’s own sense of morality when he decides not to kill Dumbledore.

It is not Dumbledore’s death that meant Draco still has a whole soul; it was Draco’s decision not to kill Dumbledore which means he still has a whole soul. And we see that decision when Draco lowered his wand. And for all the pressure the other deatheaters subsequently put on Draco he still wasn’t contemplating killing Dumbledore. JKR has even commented on this.

Whatever the reasons were that Snape killed Dumbledore saving Draco’s soul wasn’t one of them. Nor was saving Harry because the other deatheaters had no idea that Harry was there.


Then why did Snape make the unbreakable vow in the first place? Was it not to help a mother in need, so that her child would not have to do something awful?

Then why did Snape make the unbreakable vow in the first place? Was it not to help a mother in need, so that her child would not have to do something awful?
Snape made the unbreakable vow to benefit the Malfoy family.

Then why did Snape make the unbreakable vow in the first place? Was it not to help a mother in need, so that her child would not have to do something awful?That’s not the point on the tower is it? The reasoning was that Dumbledore’s death saved Draco’s soul. But that’s not true, it was Draco’s choice to lower his wand and not kill Dumbledore that saved his soul.

Draco’s actions were not the best in this book but this is the one decent thing he does after Dumbledore convinced him. He didn’t kill Dumbledore nor was he planning to do so according to JKR. His choice, his responsibility, his own action saved his soul. It’s a powerful moment which shows us that not all hope is yet lost for Draco.

Thus whatever reason Snape had to kill Dumbledore saving Draco’s soul isn’t one of them; Draco had taken care of that himself.

And I disagree that Snape took the vow to prevent Draco from doing something awful. The first two clauses took care of that. Draco got his chance to do something awful, Snape even promised not to intervene before Draco had failed to do something awful. So I find it hard to argue that Snape took the vow to prevent Draco from doing something awful, nor was that Narcissa’s intention with the vow. Narcissa’s intention was to help Draco doing something awful and to assure that Draco didn’t face grim consequences if he failed. But nothing in the vow to prevent Draco from doing something awful.

The contrast with Lily is striking. Lily is willing to die to save her son; Narcissa is willing to murder to save her son. And Snape promised to help. I just don’t see that in Dumbledore’s line of thinking, and I don’t think a loyal to Dumbledore Snape would do such a thing. Helping a distressed mother by promising to murder is not really a positive action.

I think Snape took the Vow because he clearly had no other options. Was he to say no to the Vow and listen to Bellatrix criticize him and say how unloyal he was to Voldemort? Bella comments on Snape's "empty words" and that is just what the Vow was, until the third clause. "Will you, Severus, watch over my son, Draco, as he attempts to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes?"
<snip>
"And will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from harm?"
<snip>
"And, should it prove necessary...if it seems Draco will fail..." whispered Narcissa (Snape's hand twitched within hers, but he did not draw away), "will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?"The first two clauses are empty promises nothing that Snape has to physically do, however, when it comes to an actual thing Snape must do, his hand twitched. This is drawing a parallel to Draco starting to drop his wand at the tower scene. Snape made the Unbreakable Vow because he had no other options.

I agree that Snape had no choice but to take the vow because he was backed into a corner but I also believe he felt real pity for Narcissa and her situation. I also believe that Snape along with Dumbledore did not want Draco to ruin his life and do a horrible thing.

Technically, staniw is correct. Snape took a vow which guaranteed, at the cost of his own life, that he would facilitate Draco killing Dumbledore. If Snape wanted to prevent Draco having to kill, he would have killed Dumbledore himself immediately instead of allowing Draco so many chances to succeed in killing even random victims, if not Dumbledore. He would have refused the Vow and risked the consequences.

Also:

And Snape told Harry not to do the Unforgivables, too, even though Harry "chose" to try them.

Did he really?

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

This is obvious taunting. A "you can't do that, you're lame", not a "don't do that, its bad". I see him trying to enrage Harry and ensure he stays unable to control his magic until he, Snape, escapes.

He would have refused the Vow and risked the consequences.
Instead, he took the Vow. Whether intending to carry it out, or intending to risk its consequences, we really don't know. I see more potential benefit from taking the Vow than refusing to, if one is willing to risk the consequences.

I agree that Snape had no choice but to take the vow because he was backed into a corner but I also believe he felt real pity for Narcissa and her situation. I also believe that Snape along with Dumbledore did not want Draco to ruin his life and do a horrible thing.

I agree, AlwaysMe. I think Dumbledore and Snape are on the same page about Draco and Narcissa right down the line, and how can that be "bad"?



Snape made the unbreakable vow to benefit the Malfoy family.

Isn't that the same thing Dumbledore was trying to do? Dumbledore offers to hide Draco and Narcissa, and before that he tells Harry that he pities Lucius because he probably feels safer in jail.

There is nothing "wrong" with showing pity for people, even if they are your enemies. Dumbledore is a symbol of that sort of higher ethical approach.

Isn't that the same thing Dumbledore was trying to do? Dumbledore offers to hide Draco and Narcissa, and before that he tells Harry that he pities Lucius because he probably feels safer in jail.

There is nothing "wrong" with showing pity for people, even if they are your enemies. Dumbledore is a symbol of that sort of higher ethical approach.Yes and no. Snape benefited the Malfoy family by taking a vow to kill Dumbledore if Draco failed to do it. Dumbledore attempted to benefit the Malfoy family by offering to hide them. Both actions help the Malfoy family. Dumbledore is clearly highly ethical. But one of the ways to benefit the Malfoy family also benefited Voldemort. The other way of benefiting the Malfoy family benefited the good side by removing Draco from Voldemort's influence and keeping the "Only One He Ever Feared" and the leader of the good side alive.

I think Dumbledore and Snape are on the same page about Draco and Narcissa right down the line, and how can that be "bad"?Since we see Snape not doing with Draco what Dumbledore wanted to do with Draco I find this statement very difficult to follow. If Dumbledore and Snape are on the same page shouldn’t we see them acting in the same way?

Snape’s way of helping Draco is to help him to become a murderer, if he fails do the murder himself, and thus safe him from Voldemort’s wrath. Dumbledore’s way of helping Draco is to help him not to become a murderer and, when Draco decides he isn’t a murderer, hide him from Voldemort’s wrath. Not on the same page at all regarding Draco.

I agree that Snape had no choice but to take the vow because he was backed into a corner but I also believe he felt real pity for Narcissa and her situation. I also believe that Snape along with Dumbledore did not want Draco to ruin his life and do a horrible thing.
are you saying that snape is not a death eater??

Scenario #1:Snape does NOT know of the plan to kill DD

So what the heck is he doing making unbreakable vows!? Its pretty dumb to risk your life over something that you have no knowledge of. He can't be protecting Draco's soul if he doesn't even know what Draco is doing.

Scenario #2:Snape does know of the plan to kill DD

So what the heck is he doing making Unbreakable Vows!? So what if Bella was needling him, saying he slithers out of things. Big deal. He talks to people like that all the time..He knows it is an intimidation tactic. I doubt Snape would be worried about Draco's soul. I expect that he would think as Voldemort did and expect Draco to die TRYING to kill DD. I doubt either Voldy OR DD much less Snape thought he would actually succeed. In fact NO ONE, not even his own mother, thought Draco would succeed. So Draco's soul really isn't a priority and certainly is not a reason for taking a Unbreakable Vow.

Plus I'm not even sure that Snape knows how to pity anyone. I'm sure that he knows how to feign pity pretty well, though, if he thought it would get him what he wanted.

Isn't that the same thing Dumbledore was trying to do? Dumbledore offers to hide Draco and Narcissa, and before that he tells Harry that he pities Lucius because he probably feels safer in jail.

There is nothing "wrong" with showing pity for people, even if they are your enemies. Dumbledore is a symbol of that sort of higher ethical approach.

I agree.


are you saying that snape is not a death eater??

My belief is that Snape is a double agent but his loyalty is for Dumbledore and the Order.

Scenario #2:Snape does know of the plan to kill DD

So what the heck is he doing making Unbreakable Vows!? So what if Bella was needling him, saying he slithers out of things. Big deal. He talks to people like that all the time..He knows it is an intimidation tactic. I doubt Snape would be worried about Draco's soul. I expect that he would think as Voldemort did and expect Draco to die TRYING to kill DD. I doubt either Voldy OR DD much less Snape thought he would actually succeed. In fact NO ONE, not even his own mother, thought Draco would succeed. So Draco's soul really isn't a priority and certainly is not a reason for taking a Unbreakable Vow.

Plus I'm not even sure that Snape knows how to pity anyone. I'm sure that he knows how to feign pity pretty well, though, if he thought it would get him what he wanted.

Scenario 2 is the one I believe, though I would rephrase it, "Snape knows of Draco's ORDERS to kill Dumbledore". The evidence suggests he does not know by what specific means or plan Draco hopes to accomplish his orders. It is my opinion that when Snape discusses his knowledge of the plan, he is telling the simple truth.


"He intends me to do it in the end, I think. But he is determined that Draco should try first."


OK, so what happens when, one day in the not too distant future, Voldemort says to Snape, "My most favored servant, that Malfoy kid has bungled long enough. Kill Dumbledore for me."?

Either Snape does, or he fails/refuses. The outcome of the second possibility seems highly likely to be Snape's death. In other words, before anyone ever knocks on his door in that chapter, Snape is looking at a situation where, if he is to remain a spy, he must kill Dumbledore or die. So his situation as regards a need to kill Dumbledore is not materially altered by the Vow.

If he is a spy, what might he have gained? Possibly, though it did not play out, the trust of the Malfoys, so that he could learn Draco's plans. Possibly also a cessation of Bella's whispering campaign, which might help him learn more as a spy (this, I think he did gain. Draco is steadfast in his conviction that Snape is a true DE, he is just upset that Snape wants to steal his 'glory'). Other DEs are more likely to confide in him if there aren't rumors flying about his lack of dedication to the cause. Certainly, an ironclad excuse for asking all about Draco's plans, since if Draco bungles or gets himself hurt, Snape's life is on the line.

So why not make one, if that seems to be what is wanted?

[OK, so what happens when, one day in the not too distant future, Voldemort says to Snape, "My most favored servant, that Malfoy kid has bungled long enough. Kill Dumbledore for me."?

Either Snape does, or he fails/refuses. The outcome of the second possibility seems highly likely to be Snape's death. In other words, before anyone ever knocks on his door in that chapter, Snape is looking at a situation where, if he is to remain a spy, he must kill Dumbledore or die. So his situation as regards a need to kill Dumbledore is not materially altered by the Vow.

If he is a spy, what might he have gained? Possibly, though it did not play out, the trust of the Malfoys, so that he could learn Draco's plans. Possibly also a cessation of Bella's whispering campaign, which might help him learn more as a spy (this, I think he did gain. Draco is steadfast in his conviction that Snape is a true DE, he is just upset that Snape wants to steal his 'glory'). Other DEs are more likely to confide in him if there aren't rumors flying about his lack of dedication to the cause. Certainly, an ironclad excuse for asking all about Draco's plans, since if Draco bungles or gets himself hurt, Snape's life is on the line.

So why not make one, if that seems to be what is wanted?


zgirnius, I should have been more clear in my response. It was directly related to the "Snape made the Vow to save Draco's Soul" arguement. However, now that you bring it up, I must respectfully disagree. (Like you're surprised, right? LOL)

The whole "why not" is something that we have discussed before. To put it simply a UV does not serve Snape's best interests unless Snape is on Voldy's side. I highlight "best" because, as you pointed out there are benefits to taking it. But Snape has better options if he can effectively keep up his double spy routine.

i wanna believe that snape is really a good guy...but since he killed dumbledore..i don't know what to believe...i guess i'll wait for DH

I don't think Snape is good or bad. He has helped out both sides quite a bit as of yet. I think that he is currently on Voldemort's side because he is safest there especially after plan to kill Dumbledore. I think he's playing the field and waiting for his opportunity to make a big impact. But most likely I think he would go against Voldemort and try to help in his defeat, even though after killing Dumbledore he is pretty much going to go to prison regardless of what he does. Well, if he is caught anyways. He's just too bad to be good and he's not bad enough to be evil.

Scenario 2 is the one I believe, though I would rephrase it, "Snape knows of Draco's ORDERS to kill Dumbledore". The evidence suggests he does not know by what specific means or plan Draco hopes to accomplish his orders. It is my opinion that when Snape discusses his knowledge of the plan, he is telling the simple truth.


"He intends me to do it in the end, I think. But he is determined that Draco should try first."


OK, so what happens when, one day in the not too distant future, Voldemort says to Snape, "My most favored servant, that Malfoy kid has bungled long enough. Kill Dumbledore for me."?

Either Snape does, or he fails/refuses. The outcome of the second possibility seems highly likely to be Snape's death. In other words, before anyone ever knocks on his door in that chapter, Snape is looking at a situation where, if he is to remain a spy, he must kill Dumbledore or die. So his situation as regards a need to kill Dumbledore is not materially altered by the Vow.

I think that it would be. If he does not take a vow, he could claim that he had failed, or fake Dumbledore's death. By taking the vow, it becomes essential, a matter of life or death, to ensure that Dumbledore is dead. He cannot fake Dumbledore's death once Draco has failed, he must do it or suffer death.

If he is a spy, what might he have gained? Possibly, though it did not play out, the trust of the Malfoys, so that he could learn Draco's plans. Possibly also a cessation of Bella's whispering campaign, which might help him learn more as a spy (this, I think he did gain. Draco is steadfast in his conviction that Snape is a true DE, he is just upset that Snape wants to steal his 'glory'). Other DEs are more likely to confide in him if there aren't rumors flying about his lack of dedication to the cause. Certainly, an ironclad excuse for asking all about Draco's plans, since if Draco bungles or gets himself hurt, Snape's life is on the line.

What if he had not taken the vow, and made it seem that he had murdered Dumbledore when Draco failed? That too, would have the same effect afterwards, wouldn't it? Dumbledore told Draco that they could fake his death, so why not his own Death?

Scenario 2 is the one I believe, though I would rephrase it, "Snape knows of Draco's ORDERS to kill Dumbledore". The evidence suggests he does not know by what specific means or plan Draco hopes to accomplish his orders. It is my opinion that when Snape discusses his knowledge of the plan, he is telling the simple truth.


"He intends me to do it in the end, I think. But he is determined that Draco should try first."


OK, so what happens when, one day in the not too distant future, Voldemort says to Snape, "My most favored servant, that Malfoy kid has bungled long enough. Kill Dumbledore for me."?

Either Snape does, or he fails/refuses. The outcome of the second possibility seems highly likely to be Snape's death. In other words, before anyone ever knocks on his door in that chapter, Snape is looking at a situation where, if he is to remain a spy, he must kill Dumbledore or die. So his situation as regards a need to kill Dumbledore is not materially altered by the Vow.

I think that it would be. If he does not take a vow, he could claim that he had failed, or fake Dumbledore's death. By taking the vow, it becomes essential, a matter of life or death, to ensure that Dumbledore is dead. He cannot fake Dumbledore's death once Draco has failed, he must do it or suffer death.

If he is a spy, what might he have gained? Possibly, though it did not play out, the trust of the Malfoys, so that he could learn Draco's plans. Possibly also a cessation of Bella's whispering campaign, which might help him learn more as a spy (this, I think he did gain. Draco is steadfast in his conviction that Snape is a true DE, he is just upset that Snape wants to steal his 'glory'). Other DEs are more likely to confide in him if there aren't rumors flying about his lack of dedication to the cause. Certainly, an ironclad excuse for asking all about Draco's plans, since if Draco bungles or gets himself hurt, Snape's life is on the line.

What if he had not taken the vow, and made it seem that he had murdered Dumbledore when Draco failed? That too, would have the same effect afterwards, wouldn't it? Dumbledore told Draco that they could fake his death, so why not his own Death?

The other two memories Snape hid from Harry:
- Him hearing part of the prophecy and telling Voldemort?
- Him showing remorse to Dumbledore and telling him, he loved Lily?

- The redemptive pattern of Snape we will learn more about in DH
- The importance of Harry's eyes/glasses

=> Snape will have a moment of redemption when he looks into Harry's eyes (without the glasses).

What if he had not taken the vow, and made it seem that he had murdered Dumbledore when Draco failed? That too, would have the same effect afterwards, wouldn't it? Dumbledore told Draco that they could fake his death, so why not his own Death?

The fake death is an option with the Vow as well. Just not one that could be exercised while four other Death Eaters were watching. Get Draco to agree to go into hiding, make it look like he died in the attempt and Snape took care of Dumbledore, and all is well.

What if he had not taken the vow, and made it seem that he had murdered Dumbledore when Draco failed? That too, would have the same effect afterwards, wouldn't it? Dumbledore told Draco that they could fake his death, so why not his own Death?
Because faking Dumbledore's death wasn't Draco's task.

Also, I don't believe we can deal in "what ifs" about the Vow once that became canon in Book 6. We have to accept that Snape made the Vow and worked from there. All these "what if" scenarios are just confusing and really don't get us anywhere. Snape took the Vow, and I don't think Dumbledore could "fool" the Vow by faking his own death.

They could "fake" Draco and Narcissa's death, however, since those deaths had nothing to do with the Vow.

About Pity:

I see Snape's reaction to Narcissa as very similar to the way Lupin reacts in "The Woes of Mrs. Weasley." We find out her boggart is to see her family dead one by one, and she is nearly hysterical, just like Narcissa in Book 6. In Book 5, Lupin gets rid of the boggart and then comforts Mrs. Weasley, saying that the Order would help protect her children. She doesn't require an Unbreakable Vow from Lupin or anyone else because she trusts the other Order members to help her children.

It's clear in "Spinner's End" that Narcissa only trusts Snape to show her any pity at all. She tells Bella that Snape is "the only one" who will help her, because she knows he isn't this pitiless Death Eater, though he puts on a good show for Bella and Peter.

Narcissa isn't as good of a person as Mrs. Weasley, so she requires a Vow before she truly trusts Snape. It's not a good thing to do, and it's asking too much, but Snape gambles on what she is going to ask of him. The first two aren't really "throw away" things, but things Snape always does - he protects the students. I don't believe he was expecting the last one and it was a gamble that turned sour right away I'm sure. By Christmas, Draco has decided Snape is his enemy and won't tell him anything.

But we can't forget that in GoF, "The Pensieve," Dumbledore says that Snape is "now no more a Death Eater than I am." That's an important line.

Because faking Dumbledore's death wasn't Draco's task.

Also, I don't believe we can deal in "what ifs" about the Vow once that became canon in Book 6. We have to accept that Snape made the Vow and worked from there. All these "what if" scenarios are just confusing and really don't get us anywhere. Snape took the Vow, and I don't think Dumbledore could "fool" the Vow by faking his own death.

.

I don't think he could either. But why would a good Snape have to take the vow? He didn't need to take it. If he wasn't sure, and I'm sure he wasn't--how could good snape be sure killing dumbledore was the right option--then he could have always consulted with dumbledore and then called narcissa back if he decided to take the vow. i think the what ifs are helpful. we can think about what else snape might have done if he was indeed good or bad, and whether his actions fit with the good or bad character.

A bad Snape would never take a vow on his life. DE are selfish, they don't willingly put thier lives in the hands of others as a favor for a friend. I don't think that Snape knew what the vow was if it was indeed Snape at that scene.

Besides Snape does not think himslef capable of defeating Dumbledore. Remember that he told harry not to say Voldermort's Name, then Harry says the DD say is. He then says Well DD is a very powerful wizard, while he may feel comfortable saying his name, then rest of us....." He he was absentmindedly rubbing his arm, where the dar mark was burnt.

If VOLDY can't kill DD. He has no reason to assume that he can, and me so bold enough to make a promise on his life that he would do it.

That would have been very stupid.

Then you may ask why Cissy would ask him: Well she was desperate and she thought he was the second person in line behind Voldy who would be able to kill DD.

DD would have been able to do some quick thinking and decided to take the vow.

I think snape took the vow because he knew it meant killing Dumbledore and was happy to do it. He like all the other pathetic Death Eaters want to be Voldemorts favortie. I think he never intended to allow Malfoy to do the task, once he made the vow he was waiting for the right time to do it himself.

He is not good, He is a voldemort wanna be.

I think snape took the vow because he knew it meant killing Dumbledore and was happy to do it. He like all the other pathetic Death Eaters want to be Voldemorts favortie. I think he never intended to allow Malfoy to do the task, once he made the vow he was waiting for the right time to do it himself.

Then why bother to take the Vow?

okay everything to me says that Snape is good, but what about the fact that You need to have true hate for the person on whom you are performing the AK? He hates Dumbledore if that's true

okay everything to me says that Snape is good, but what about the fact that You need to have true hate for the person on whom you are performing the AK? He hates Dumbledore if that's true

It is not a fact. This is not necessary for the AK. Otherwise, it would not be possible to kill someone with it by accident, right? But someone did, in HBP, that very night-a Death Eater killed another Death Eater with 'friendly fire' while trying to hit Lupin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thewordpassers
okay everything to me says that Snape is good, but what about the fact that You need to have true hate for the person on whom you are performing the AK? He hates Dumbledore if that's true

It is not a fact. This is not necessary for the AK. Otherwise, it would not be possible to kill someone with it by accident, right? But someone did, in HBP, that very night-a Death Eater killed another Death Eater with 'friendly fire' while trying to hit Lupin.

An astout point to make... well taken

okay everything to me says that Snape is good, but what about the fact that You need to have true hate for the person on whom you are performing the AK? He hates Dumbledore if that's true

Everything I've read tells me Snape is Good. Anyway, to answer this question, YES, you do have to "Hate" the person in order to cast the Unbreakable Vow. At that moment, I do believe Snape HATED Dumbledore. Dumbledore is the guy who can fix anything, get you out of sticky situations. Snape probably knew that Dumbledore offered Draco a way out. I STILL say Snape and Dumbledore were arguing about Snape wanting a way out of the Unbreakable Vow. Dumbledore REFUSED to lend Snape this option. So for that reason, I think Snape HATED Dumbledore for not helping him like he had before.

It's clear in "Spinner's End" that Narcissa only trusts Snape to show her any pity at all. She tells Bella that Snape is "the only one" who will help her, because she knows he isn't this pitiless Death Eater, though he puts on a good show for Bella and Peter.

Narcissa isn't as good of a person as Mrs. Weasley, so she requires a Vow before she truly trusts Snape. It's not a good thing to do, and it's asking too much, but Snape gambles on what she is going to ask of him. The first two aren't really "throw away" things, but things Snape always does - he protects the students. I don't believe he was expecting the last one and it was a gamble that turned sour right away I'm sure. By Christmas, Draco has decided Snape is his enemy and won't tell him anything.

But we can't forget that in GoF, "The Pensieve," Dumbledore says that Snape is "now no more a Death Eater than I am." That's an important line.
I agree with you!! Especially your last statement.
The other two memories Snape hid from Harry:
- Him hearing part of the prophecy and telling Voldemort?
- Him showing remorse to Dumbledore and telling him, he loved Lily?

- The redemptive pattern of Snape we will learn more about in DH
- The importance of Harry's eyes/glasses

=> Snape will have a moment of redemption when he looks into Harry's eyes (without the glasses).
I'm not sure what other two memories Snape is hiding from Harry. I do agree that one of them might be that Severus loved Lily and that they were Friends at one point in time. One of them may very well be the reason Dumbledore unflinchingly trusts Snape. I agree the redemptive pattern of Snape will be answered in DH.

Everything I've read tells me Snape is Good. Anyway, to answer this question, YES, you do have to "Hate" the person in order to cast the Unbreakable Vow. At that moment, I do believe Snape HATED Dumbledore. Dumbledore is the guy who can fix anything, get you out of sticky situations. Snape probably knew that Dumbledore offered Draco a way out. I STILL say Snape and Dumbledore were arguing about Snape wanting a way out of the Unbreakable Vow. Dumbledore REFUSED

By Unbreakable Vow you mean Unforgiveable curse or avada kedavra right?

Well your assuming that he killed DD.

I STILL say Snape and Dumbledore were arguing about Snape wanting a way out of the Unbreakable Vow. Dumbledore REFUSED to lend Snape this option.


I have never seen the reasoning behind this arguement. There is nothing DD can do about the Vow once it is taken. Even if Snape wanted to break the Vow by sacrificing himself (which is the theory behind the forest scene) I can't see DD being harsh with Snape. DD was big on choices, I would have thought he would show compassion in that scene, been more gentle....and realistically if Snape really wanted to sacrifice himself he would have done so on the tower, despite DD wishes.

It is not a fact. This is not necessary for the AK. Otherwise, it would not be possible to kill someone with it by accident, right? But someone did, in HBP, that very night-a Death Eater killed another Death Eater with 'friendly fire' while trying to hit Lupin.


This may be true. But it is still an evil curse. I've said it before and I'll say it again. It's Unforgivable. Not "Unforgivable unless you have a darn good reason." If this was indeed a plan between Snape and DD I'm positive DD didn't give his okay for the use of an unforgivable.

Cedric was killed by Wormtail, so that shows that you don't have to know the person you are trying to kill, you just have to know how to cast the spell. Snape knew how to cast the spell.

Snape took the unbreakable vow willingly. Once he had done it, he was committed to fulfilling it or die. It makes no sense to have Dumbledore yelling at Snape in the forest about the vow. If Dumbledore was yelling at him to fulfill the vow, then he was telling him he had to become a murderer. That doesn't sound very Dumbledore-like to me.

Exactly. I'm sure Bella doesn't particularly hate foxes.

I have wondered if Snape was saying there that he no longer waned to be a double agent.

then he was telling him he had to become a murderer. That doesn't sound very Dumbledore-like to me. Albus effectively tells Harry the same thing about Voldemort, a precedent to the forest 'discussion' with Severus. So it isn't exactly out of character for him. :shrug:

Albus effectively tells Harry the same thing about Voldemort, a precedent to the forest 'discussion' with Severus. So it isn't exactly out of character for him.

Harry's case and Snape's case are totally different. Harry's case is about him and an enemy. According to the Snape is good camp Snape and DD are friends. It is one thing to murder a enemy who will never stop hunting you and quite another to murder someone who has been your protector, mentor, and friend.

Albus effectively tells Harry the same thing about Voldemort, a precedent to the forest 'discussion' with Severus. So it isn't exactly out of character for him. :shrug:
Are you referring to the fact that the most evil wizard in existence will relentlessly pursue Harry until he kills him, therefore Harry may have to kill Voldemort first?

I don't quite think it is a similiar situation.

I don't quite think it is a similiar situation. I agree about the situation, but not the "speech". Albus has told a young man he has to kill someone. So IF Albus told Severus that he (Sev) would have to kill someone, it's the same speech he's given to Harry. Just because the victims would be different doesn't mean saying, "you have to kill someone" is out of character for Albus. (And I'm not saying Albus did say it to Sev; I'm only disputing the remark that it would be 'unDumbledore-like' for Albus to do so. :) )

Harry's case and Snape's case are totally different. Harry's case is about him and an enemy. According to the Snape is good camp Snape and DD are friends. It is one thing to murder a enemy who will never stop hunting you and quite another to murder someone who has been your protector, mentor, and friend.

Either murder is murder, and therefore Dumbledore would never recommend it (but he approves it in the case Nicole mentions), or murder is a bad thing that may sometimes be necessary, in which case we are back to the specific circumstances. If Dumbledore was willing to die on the Tower himself for whatever reasons, those reasons must have been important. Thus, potentially, important enough to ask Snape to help him by killing him.

Either murder is murder, and therefore Dumbledore would never recommend it (but he approves it in the case Nicole mentions), or murder is a bad thing that may sometimes be necessary, in which case we are back to the specific circumstances. If Dumbledore was willing to die on the Tower himself for whatever reasons, those reasons must have been important. Thus, potentially, important enough to ask Snape to help him by killing him.

In Harry's case Voldemort will relentlessly persue him. There is no other option for Harry. It is kill or be killed. In Harry's case it is self-defense in the face of an enemy. I would never suggest that DD would say to Harry "Don't defend yourself if someone is trying to kill you."

It is kill or be killed.

This is my theory about why Snape killed Dumbledore. I think he had to keep himself alive for the sake of his double-act. And I think Dumbledore knew this was going to happen.

Snape didn't want to kill Dumbledore, I think. But he had to.

In any sense, I think Snape will die doing something heroic, something redeeming.

Although it would be terrible if he died before being cleared, I think that's what will happen. He'll die before he can really "Go back to the good side"

This is my theory about why Snape killed Dumbledore. I think he had to keep himself alive for the sake of his double-act. And I think Dumbledore knew this was going to happen.

Snape didn't want to kill Dumbledore, I think. But he had to.

In any sense, I think Snape will die doing something heroic, something redeeming.

Although it would be terrible if he died before being cleared, I think that's what will happen. He'll die before he can really "Go back to the good side"

I agree with you completely, I have absolutely no proof of this, but, I think Snape will die helping Harry in some way.

In the discussion about the Avanda Kedavra spell: it is understood that you have to 'really mean it'. You have to really want to cause pain or death. True, a death eater was killed by friendly fire -but - the person saying the spell still "meant it" .

I think snape "meant it" when he looked at Dumbledore with "revulsion and hatred"( pg595 book 6) and then without mercy killed him.

There is no halo above mr half-blood-princes head.

I think snape "meant it" when he looked at Dumbledore with "revulsion and hatred"( pg595 book 6) and then without mercy killed him.


I agree. But what does it mean to 'mean it'? In the case of Cruciatus, it means you want to cause someone agony, I presume, since it is the torture curse. In the case of Avada Kedavra, it means that you intend the target of your curse to die, since it is the killing curse.

We do not know what feelings Snape had about the killing. He does not say a word about it, and the narrator never lets us in on what is happening inside his head (or that of any other major character bseide Harry, for that matter.)

If Dumbledore's "Severus, please", was a request that Snape kill him, and Snape agreed with the necessity of Dumbledore's request, he would presumably have intended Dumbledore to die when he cast the spell. ButI could not condemn his choice much more than Dumbledore's choice to ask he do it. (And, since I see the possibility that Dumbledore made the best available choice by asking Snape, I would not condemn either of them for making it and carrying it out.)

A quote from HBP:

"Their eyes met over the basin, each pale face lit with that strange, green light. Harry did not speak. Was this why he had been invited along?-- so he could force-feed Dumbledore a potion that might cause him unendurable pain?

"You remember," said Dumbledore, "the condition on which I brought you with me?"

Again, I'll just point out that Harry is in the same position there that Snape is in on the Tower. Dumbledore likely made Snape promise he would follow orders "no matter what" and then Dumbledore begged him to follow the order to kill him.

Harry knew what he was doing might lead to Dumbledore's death - he is told the potion might paralyze Dumbledore or something worse. Yet he follows orders because he is Dumbledore's man.

The way Harry feels with the potion is described:

"Hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing, Harry forced the Goblet back to Dumbledore's mouth and tipped it. . . . "

The way Snape is described on the Tower:

"There was a look of revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face. . . . "

The parallel structure of those statements is not a coincidence, but a careful clue put there by the author to show the similarity, not the difference, between Harry's and Snape's situations.

Eventually, yes. I think Dumbledore knew he was dying anyway, but if Snape didn't kill him and finish Draco's "task," then Snape would die from the Unbreakable Vow.Ok, here's something I don't understand. You said that Dumbledore says the withered hand was a small price to pay for destroying the horcrux. This indicated to me that whatever happened with his hand....Dumbledore's loss was merely the hand. His life was in no danger, at least not anymore. Later, when he drinks the potion, while I initially felt Dumbledore may have been poisoned, I dont know this for sure. So I cant say with any degree of certainty that Dumbledore was doomed to die. Only that he was in pain. So i dont see how we can say Dumbledore knew he was dying.

I agree that Dumbledore believed that before they went up on the Tower. But once Draco was surrounded by DEs, Dumbledore knew the deck was stacked against both he and Snape, and they had to go to plan B, which was for Snape to follow orders whatever they were. I don't pretend to have it all figured out, but I'm certain Snape was following orders similar to the oath Harry took with Dumbledore in the cave.Ok, but arent we merely guessing that there was a plan B? And because of this, arent we also guessing that Snape did not murder Dumbledore? Yet the facts so far that we know are that Snape cast an unforgivable spell against our lovable Headmaster. :eyebrows: And its unforgivable because....?

I don't think Dumbledore could be "restored" back to normal at that point. Between the withered hand and the potion in the cave, he would have died soon anyway.Perhaps. But then perhaps not. I dont know that the wizard cops would see it that way. :lol:

There's where I totally disagree. If Dumbledore was dying anyway, and he knew his death would kill Severus - his friend - why would someone like Dumbledore, a "great soul" who thinks Death is the "next great adventure," want to live while his trusted friend died?Again, this is only a guess on my part. But what I think is that Dumbledore saw this war as greater than his own desires. I think Dumbeldore would feel that Harry would need all the help he could get and all the answers Dumbledore could give him. I remember people criticizing me for suggesting that Sirius might have pretended to die in order to go underground and make the De's think he was dead. Folks said he'd never do Harry that way. They also said Dumbledore would never ask Sirius to hurt Harry this way because it was so cruel. So why then would Dumbledore die in order to save the one guy (Snape) Harry Hates (probably as much as ) Voldemort? Merely because he sees death as the next great adventure? I mean, if its cruel for Sirius to do that to Harry, isnt it also cruel for Dumbledore to do the same? For me, (unfortunately) the bottom line seems to be that Snape cast an unforgivable spell at a weakened, compromised Dumbledore and killed him. Thats a nice long trip to Azkaban in my book.
Seriously, In the end, I think Dumbledore would try to stay alive in order to help Harry. :)

Dumbledore knew about the Vow - he wasn't asking Snape to die in his place, though.Remind me again...how did Dumbledore know about the vow? :hmm:

There has been discussion elsewhere about the fact that on the Tower, Dumbledore doesn't react to Avada Kedavra the way we have seen others react. Usually, the AK is instant and the person just falls down. In this case, Dumbledore flies up over the tower, hangs there like a rag doll, and then falls. That isn't your typical AK. :) Also, he bleeds from the fall, which means his heart might have been pumping after he went over the tower. Not likely with AK.Yeah...that was weird. :agree: It was a spectacle, which initially made me think Dumbledore wasnt dead after all. Also remember that we never actually saw what Hagrid carried down to the tomb at the funeral, only something wrapped up in a robe or shroud or something. But when JKR said Dumbledore was indeed dead...well, you can imagine my shock! :wow:

But he is Houdini! :lol: Don't you think JKR has one more trick up her sleeve to pull Snape out of the fire? I have the faith of an idiot. :pOf course she does! She's the greatest! :lol: And i'm sure this is all gonna make sense in a coupla months. (I'm still holding out for time travel personally, but I cant see how it would bring Dumbledore back....even if his symbol is the phoenix.)

:)

I think Snape took the Vow because he clearly had no other options. Was he to say no to the Vow and listen to Bellatrix criticize him and say how unloyal he was to Voldemort? Bella comments on Snape's "empty words" and that is just what the Vow was, until the third clause. "Will you, Severus, watch over my son, Draco, as he attempts to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes?"
<snip>
"And will you, to the best of your ability, protect him from harm?"
<snip>
"And, should it prove necessary...if it seems Draco will fail..." whispered Narcissa (Snape's hand twitched within hers, but he did not draw away), "will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?"The first two clauses are empty promises nothing that Snape has to physically do, however, when it comes to an actual thing Snape must do, his hand twitched. This is drawing a parallel to Draco starting to drop his wand at the tower scene. Snape made the Unbreakable Vow because he had no other options.Yeah, he was definately pressured into making that Vow. But imo, he could have declined and faced the consequences. He should have known this vow would come to no good. Heck...even I knew that and I'm pretty thick when it comes to figuring out this story. :lol: the 3rd part..."will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?... what did he think Voldemort wanted Draco to do? Put cherry Bombs in the toilets? He surely knew that anything LV wanted Draco to do would harm someone. And Snape could have declined to make that part of the vow...but he didnt. And when Draco failed on the tower to kill Dumbledore, Snape cast an unforgivable curse at the weakened, injured headmaster. Thats it...call up the paddy wagon coz Snape's headed for Azkaban. :lol:

So i dont see how we can say Dumbledore knew he was dying.

We also can't say he did not know that. He might, for example, have known the potion he was drinking and all its effects, even if he did not choose to share this information with Harry. Or, he may have known that only Snape among the people at Hogwarts would be able to help (dual skill in Dark Arts/Potions), and he may have known that unfortunately, an attempt by Snape to save him after Draco 'seemd to fail' woulc lead to Snape's death.


Perhaps. But then perhaps not. I dont know that the wizard cops would see it that way. :lol:

I can't speak for silver ink pot, but under Wizarding law as it has been presented to us so far, if Snape killed Dumbledore with the AK, he acted illegally and might, if he is apprehended, find himself serving a life sentence in Azkaban. No argument. This does not mean that he is not good, at least as I understand the word.

So why then would Dumbledore die in order to save the one guy (Snape) Harry Hates (probably as much as ) Voldemort? Merely because he sees death as the next great adventure?

As I see it, his sacrifice saved the lives of Harry and Draco too. Surely Harry is sufficiently important?

Remind me again...how did Dumbledore know about the vow? :hmm:

There is no hard evidence one way or the other about whether Dumbledore knew of the Vow. The evidence on the subject that exists can reasonably be interpreted in a variety of ways, one of which is that Snape told him all about it immediately. This would explain why Dumbledore says he knew from the start what Draco was after, and why he was not at all concerned to hear from Harry that Snape had taken an Unbreakable Vow.

We also can't say he did not know that. He might, for example, have known the potion he was drinking and all its effects, even if he did not choose to share this information with Harry.

Yes, in my view he almost certainly did. Why else would he tell Harry beforehand to make sure he kept drinking it, even if he begged to stop, unless he knew exactly what was in that basin and what it would do?

Originally posted by Dr Hesper
Ok, but arent we merely guessing that there was a plan B? And because of this, arent we also guessing that Snape did not murder Dumbledore? Yet the facts so far that we know are that Snape cast an unforgivable spell against our lovable Headmaster. And its unforgivable because....?

Isn't any interpretation of the books (particularly of ambiguous passages and clues) guesswork to a certain extent until we have DH? Aren't those of you who believe Snape is bad in a sense just guessing that Dumbledore was mistaken in believing he had an iron-clad reason to trust him?

I may be completely wrong about this, because GoF is the book I know the least well (I've just started re-reading it for the first time in nearly 2 years), but doesn't Dumbledore allow "Moody" to cast unforgivables in class? I'm on shaky ground here, because obviously "Moody" was actually a DE, and he may have just been pretending to have DD's permission to cast unforgivables for educational purposes, I can't remember if this was made clear or not. However, as the school was buzzing with stories about what "Moody" did in class, I find it difficult to believe that DD didn't know that real unforgivable curses were being cast in DADA class. Doesn't this suggest that DD believes that "Unforgivables" are not actually unforgivable under certain circumstances, if being used for a good purpose?

Aren't those of you who believe Snape is bad in a sense just guessing that Dumbledore was mistaken in believing he had an iron-clad reason to trust him?Absolutely not. This is my biggest gripe about people who assume things about other people in the forum.

Dumbledore's iron clad reason to trust Snape has nothing to do with Snape deciding to take a vow to kill him.

As far as I'm concerned, Snape will still keep his promise to Dumbledore.

I may be completely wrong about this, because GoF is the book I know the least well (I've just started re-reading it for the first time in nearly 2 years), but doesn't Dumbledore allow "Moody" to cast unforgivables in class? I'm on shaky ground here, because obviously "Moody" was actually a DE, and he may have just been pretending to have DD's permission to cast unforgivables for educational purposes, I can't remember if this was made clear or not. However, as the school was buzzing with stories about what "Moody" did in class, I find it difficult to believe that DD didn't know that real unforgivable curses were being cast in DADA class. Doesn't this suggest that DD believes that "Unforgivables" are not actually unforgivable under certain circumstances, if being used for a good purpose?
I think that Dumbledore was certainly aware of what Moody was doing in lessons, and may even have suggested it. It fits in with his own concern that Voldemort had returned, and also with Umbridge's complete reform of DADA when she arrived at Hogwarts. Dumbledore allowing the demonstration of Unforgivable curses would appear to confirm Fudge's suspicions about him training an army of students! But what has this got to do with Snape? Apart from the word "Unforgivable", I don't see a connection between allowing students to practice throwing off the Imperius curse, and using Avada Kedavra to kill someone.

Doesn't this suggest that DD believes that "Unforgivables" are not actually unforgivable under certain circumstances, if being used for a good purpose?No it doesn’t. It shows us that Dumbledore felt it was wise that students knew what they were up against. You must know the worst or something like that is what the students are told.

The worst. And that’s the theme JKR has built up in the books. The three unforgivable are the worst a human can do to another human. Slavery, torture, murder. You have to mean them to be successful. These are built as the most powerful dark magic. Even Harry's partially successful casting of the Cruciatus Curse relies on some of the most powerful hatred we've seen from him so far. But even then he wasn’t completely successful; we were told the successful Cruciatus relies on revelling in the infliction of pain. Simple logic suggests that successful casting of the Advada Kedavra requires a revelling in the act of murder. You have to build your hatred to the most powerful point imaginable, to the place where you take joy in the extinguishing of a human life.

This fits with JKR’s own views on murder. Have you any idea how terrible it is to take a human life is what she asks. And then she tells in her books you do. She knows where to draw the line.

Only this theory just assumes that JKR is not serious when she creates themes like this, that she suddenly doesn’t know where to draw the line. Evil is not evil when Dumbledore orders it.

With a lot of assumptions based on other assumptions one can create a scenario where Snape kills Dumbledore on his orders. But JKR themes, her feelings about murder as it is laid out in the books, the importance of choices are too simple thrown away with solutions like this.

Snape bears no real responsibility for his choices because Dumbledore, above moral reproach, absolves him. Snape didn’t have a real choice because Dumbledore choose for him. Never mind the importance of choices as themes in the books, because Dumbledore said so.

There are themes and morality in the books. JKR could so easily had Snape kill Dumbledore in another way, not with the darkest of curses. But she didn’t. And that’s telling.

A quote from HBP:

"Their eyes met over the basin, each pale face lit with that strange, green light. Harry did not speak. Was this why he had been invited along?-- so he could force-feed Dumbledore a potion that might cause him unendurable pain?

"You remember," said Dumbledore, "the condition on which I brought you with me?"

Again, I'll just point out that Harry is in the same position there that Snape is in on the Tower. Dumbledore likely made Snape promise he would follow orders "no matter what" and then Dumbledore begged him to follow the order to kill him.

Harry knew what he was doing might lead to Dumbledore's death - he is told the potion might paralyze Dumbledore or something worse. Yet he follows orders because he is Dumbledore's man.

The way Harry feels with the potion is described:

"Hating himself, repulsed by what he was doing, Harry forced the Goblet back to Dumbledore's mouth and tipped it. . . . "

The way Snape is described on the Tower:

"There was a look of revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face. . . . "

The parallel structure of those statements is not a coincidence, but a careful clue put there by the author to show the similarity, not the difference, between Harry's and Snape's situations.
I agree :agree: Sip, there is just no way that either of those statements could possibly be a coincidence... I think that she (JKR) had them say those things in order to show how much alike the situations that both Harry and Snape went through, even though Snape's situation was much more dire than Harry's was.

You have to build your hatred to the most powerful point imaginable, to the place where you take joy in the extinguishing of a human life.

This is quite poetic, but I don't see the canon for it. Noone has stated that this is what is necessary to cast the Killing Curse, that is your supposition. The fact that a collegaue of Moody's, or he himself, has killed (Rosier) in self-defense, suggests to me that this is not necessary at all, that it rather takes the will/intent to take a life, with or without emotional enjoyment of the act itself. Further, the two killings of human beings with the Killing Curse that we were shown on page involve killers who showed no sign of this joy in my reading. If Pettigrew had this moment of elation as he killed Cedric, it evaporated very quickly, to be replaced by abject fear for Voldemort. I would think rather that this was the emotion Peter felt throughout (and that provided the motivation for the killing, the reason he really 'meant it'). Snape, likewise, showed no enjoyment for what he did either, no sneering, lip curling, or horrible smiles in sight. What his motive was instead seems less clear (though I certainly have an opinion... ;) )

Snape bears no real responsibility for his choices because Dumbledore, above moral reproach, absolves him. Snape didn’t have a real choice because Dumbledore choose for him. Never mind the importance of choices as themes in the books, because Dumbledore said so.

This is not the argument. Snape is responsible for his choices; this one just happens to be the right choice. Illegal, but done to further the greater good. It does tie in with Dumbledore, in the sense that if Dumbledore is right to want it (and it is the standard 'good' position that Dumbledore did), then for the same reasons Snape is right to go along with it. However, it is not right because Dumbledore wanted it, Dumbledore wanted it because it was right.

JKR could so easily had Snape kill Dumbledore in another way, not with the darkest of curses. But she didn’t. And that’s telling.

I disagree that she could have. It is what a true Death Eater would have used; for Snape to reveal himself at that moment as anything less, would throw away a part of the advantage Dumbledore sacrificed his life to gain.

Absolutely not. This is my biggest gripe about people who assume things about other people in the forum.

Apologies - I shouldn't have made a sweeping statement about everybody who thinks Snape is bad, or assumed that you all believe the same things.

But I suppose my biggest gripe about this forum is people alleging that people who agree with them are "interpreting the evidence" in the books, while people who disagree with them are "just guessing" or (even worse) "ignoring the text and just seeing what they want to happen". My real point is that, as "Severus, please" is ambiguous, the idea that Snape didn't murder Dumbledore but killed him on his orders is a valid interpretation of the text - it may turn out to be completely wrong, but it's an interpretation, based on textual evidence, not a "guess" or an "assumption".

Originally posted by anabel
Apart from the word "Unforgivable", I don't see a connection between allowing students to practice throwing off the Imperius curse, and using Avada Kedavra to kill someone.

I may have been mistaken about this, but I thought that Dr Hesper's point was that Dumbledore would never, under any circumstances, have asked anyone to perform an unforgivable curse and/or that anyone choosing to use an unforgivable curse is automatically marked by JKR as being unforgivably bad. These are radically different circumstances, I agree, but Dumbledore's permission for the use of unforgivables for DADA teaching purposes shows that neither of these things is always the case.

Originally posted by staniw
This fits with JKR’s own views on murder. Have you any idea how terrible it is to take a human life is what she asks. And then she tells in her books you do. She knows where to draw the line.

Only this theory just assumes that JKR is not serious when she creates themes like this, that she suddenly doesn’t know where to draw the line. Evil is not evil when Dumbledore orders it.

With a lot of assumptions based on other assumptions one can create a scenario where Snape kills Dumbledore on his orders. But JKR themes, her feelings about murder as it is laid out in the books, the importance of choices are too simple thrown away with solutions like this.

Snape bears no real responsibility for his choices because Dumbledore, above moral reproach, absolves him. Snape didn’t have a real choice because Dumbledore choose for him. Never mind the importance of choices as themes in the books, because Dumbledore said so.

There are themes and morality in the books. JKR could so easily had Snape kill Dumbledore in another way, not with the darkest of curses. But she didn’t. And that’s telling.

I very much appreciate what you are saying here. My belief in Snape performing the Avada Kedavra on Dumbledore's orders has always been based purely on the ambiguity of the language that JKR uses at the denouement of HBP (and on the fact that on every previous occasion I can recall when JKR has used markedly ambiguous language, the "obvious" meaning of the words has been deliberately misleading), not on any thematic, character-based or moral reasoning, so I have no real answer to your argument. I am prepared to concede that you may well be right.

We good-Snapers, however, are not trying to absolve Snape of choice. If we are right in interpreting the conversation that Hagrid overhears as Snape voicing his extreme reluctance to go through with the "plan", and right in interpreting the "hatred and revulsion" on Snape's face as disgust for what he has had to do, he has indeed made a choice - a choice to do something he hates doing and which he knows will attract widespread condemnation rather than to be disloyal to Dumbledore and the forces of good. This would not be inconsistent with his behaviour at the end of GoF, where he is prepared to roll up his sleeve and show his Dark Mark to the Minister of Magic in front of Harry, aware that this acknowledgement of his past will arouse disgust. Both would be actions of a man who is concerned to do what will help the cause of the Order, even if it makes him hated and shunned by his own side.

In any case, as I see it, we do not definitely see Snape kill Dumbledore with an Avada Kedavra at the end of HBP. We see him utter the words "Avada Kedavra" and we see Dumbledore die. This still leaves two alternate possibilities:

(a) Dumbledore died from other causes (i.e. the potion from the cave) at the moment when Snape cast the apparent AK
(b) Snape killed Dumbledore with a non-verbal spell (these have been foregrounded in the novel) while apparently casting an AK

You have to build your hatred to the most powerful point imaginable, to the place where you take joy in the extinguishing of a human life.
I'm sorry, but that is precisely the opposite of the way JKR described the death of Cedric, which she said shocked her editor with it's indifference to human life.

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/1000-time-staff.htm



If you're choosing to write about evil, you really do have a moral obligation to show what that means. So you know what happened at the end of Book IV. I do think it's shocking, but it had to be. It is not a gratuitous act on my part. We really are talking about someone who is incredibly power hungry. Racist, really. And what do those kinds of people do? They treat human life so lightly. I wanted to be accurate in that sense. My editor was shocked by the way the character was killed, which was very dismissive. That was entirely deliberate. That is how people die in those situations. It was just like, You're in my way and you're going to die. It's the first time I cried during the writing of a book, because I didn't want to kill him. It was the cruel-artist part of me who just knows that's how it has to happen for the story. The cruel artist is stronger than the warm, fuzzy person.



I don't see that Snape had the same sort of feelings when he killed Dumbledore at all. Peter killed Cedric on command with no feelings at all.

I also think JKR is talking only about Peter and Voldemort as psychopaths/serial killers.

Snape is not a psychopath, and Dumbledore knew that. He wouldn't listen in PoA when Fudge said Snape was crazy. Conversely, Snape never seemed to care that the newspapers were calling Dumbledore and Harry crazy either, because Snape tried to prove to Fudge that Voldemort had returned also. They were all on the same side.

This fits with JKR’s own views on murder. Have you any idea how terrible it is to take a human life is what she asks. And then she tells in her books you do. She knows where to draw the line.

Only this theory just assumes that JKR is not serious when she creates themes like this, that she suddenly doesn’t know where to draw the line. Evil is not evil when Dumbledore orders it.

With a lot of assumptions based on other assumptions one can create a scenario where Snape kills Dumbledore on his orders. But JKR themes, her feelings about murder as it is laid out in the books, the importance of choices are too simple thrown away with solutions like this.

Snape bears no real responsibility for his choices because Dumbledore, above moral reproach, absolves him. Snape didn’t have a real choice because Dumbledore choose for him. Never mind the importance of choices as themes in the books, because Dumbledore said so.

There are themes and morality in the books. JKR could so easily had Snape kill Dumbledore in another way, not with the darkest of curses. But she didn’t. And that’s telling.


I am constantly amazed at how much more elegant other poster's are than I am! This is a very well thoughtout point! :tu:

Dumbledore allowing the demonstration of Unforgivable curses would appear to confirm Fudge's suspicions about him training an army of students! But what has this got to do with Snape? Apart from the word "Unforgivable", I don't see a connection between allowing students to practice throwing off the Imperius curse, and using Avada Kedavra to kill someone.

Oh, yes, let's just ignore that pesky "Unforgivable" word! :lol: JKR could have named the three curses something else entirely...but she did not. And who said that DD gave Moody the OK to teach the curses? I may be wrong but there was only one lesson with Unforgivables, wasn't there? Much like McGonagall telling Moody that Transfiguration was not permitted as a punishment there is nothing to suggest that DD didn't tell Moody later that the teaching of Unforgivables was not permitted either.

But I suppose my biggest gripe about this forum is people alleging that people who agree with them are "interpreting the evidence" in the books, while people who disagree with them are "just guessing" or (even worse) "ignoring the text and just seeing what they want to happen". My real point is that, as "Severus, please" is ambiguous, the idea that Snape didn't murder Dumbledore but killed him on his orders is a valid interpretation of the text - it may turn out to be completely wrong, but it's an interpretation, based on textual evidence, not a "guess" or an "assumption".

I understand entirely what you mean, but it happens on both sides. These are things that we must expect coming here (c'mon it's fun you know! :)) I find that many arguements on BOTH sides are backed up with supposition or character interpretation. For instance I am always puzzled by the "Severus, please" as an order to murder (which is supposition) being backed up with the Snape/DD/Hagrid forest scene (which is supposition) which is then backed up with "DD knew of the Vow (another supposition) which is backed up by the hand twitch (which is supposition also.) In short while any one of these are open to interpretation it would ease my mind if one of them could be proven to be true.


By the same token many Snape is Bad posts are all about "DD admits that he makes mistakes-huge ones." So now anything true he might say is suspect (like trusting Snape completly).


In any case, as I see it, we do not definitely see Snape kill Dumbledore with an Avada Kedavra at the end of HBP. We see him utter the words "Avada Kedavra" and we see Dumbledore die. This still leaves two alternate possibilities:

(a) Dumbledore died from other causes (i.e. the potion from the cave) at the moment when Snape cast the apparent AK
(b) Snape killed Dumbledore with a non-verbal spell (these have been foregrounded in the novel) while apparently casting an AK

Two other if you're on the Snape is good side. :) We all know there is another equally likely conclusion!:eyebrows:

II find that many arguements on BOTH sides are backed up with supposition or character interpretation. For instance I am always puzzled by the "Severus, please" as an order to murder (which is supposition) being backed up with the Snape/DD/Hagrid forest scene (which is supposition) which is then backed up with "DD knew of the Vow (another supposition) which is backed up by the hand twitch (which is supposition also.) In short while any one of these are open to interpretation it would ease my mind if one of them could be proven to be true.

Melaszka's point as I understand it is that the words "Severus, please" do not have a decisive explanation within the text at present. I agree. They do not.

In that sense, any explanation of it is a guess. A guess that is backed up by reference to other incidents in the text is better than one which is not, in my opinion. So that standard 'good Snape' theories that incorporate the twitch during the Vow and the argument in the Forest are better than random guesses. As are many 'Bad Snape' theories, for they too draw support from other incidents. Basically what we have with Snape is a whole long string of incidents scattered throughout six books, many of which are open to multiple interpretations. They can, and have, been assembled in various ways by fans into relatively coherent narratives which lead to contradictory interpretations regarding Snape's loyalties.

The statement: "I trust Severus Snape" also has two meanings.

Either Dumbledore was a fool and wasted ALOT of time telling Harry that.

Or Dumbledore had a good reason to trust Severus Snape. :)

I came across this about Dumbledore not fearing death today - JKR talked about admiring Dumbledore because he didn't fear death, while Voldemort saw it as a human weakness.

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-hottype-solomon.htm



E: In one of the books Dumbledore says "Death is just the next step to a great mystery, the next great adventure" I think is the quote.

JK: I would like to…I'm not as wise as him. I would like to see it that way. And I do see it that way, in many ways. Death still frightens me, as it frightens most people.



I can't read that and believe that Dumbledore was begging Snape to let him live at the end of HBP. So the "Severus, Please" is all about asking Snape to sacrifice him for the greater good because, as he told Harry, he doesn't see himself as "important" in the scheme of things as other people. I'm not saying I see it that way because I love Dumbledore - but Dumbledore seems to see it that way in Book 6. I hope that's clear!

Voldemort, on the other hand, sees death as a failure, so we fall into a trap if we believe that Dumbledore failed somehow by dying.

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/list2005.html



Voldemort's boggart would be "death, ignominious death .... He would see himself dead." He sees death as a "shameful human weakness."



In order to show that Dumbledore died in disgrace, having been fooled for years by Snape, then we have to assume he was also begging for life, after he said he was expendible in the cave and that "Death is the Next Great Adventure." In other words, we are supposed to believe that at the last moment of his life, Dumbledore changed his mind and became afraid to die, even though he knew about the Vow that would take Snape's life?

I'm not buying that - JKR loves Dumbledore too much to turn him into a liar.

Melaszka's point as I understand it is that the words "Severus, please" do not have a decisive explanation within the text at present. I agree. They do not.

In that sense, any explanation of it is a guess. A guess that is backed up by reference to other incidents in the text is better than one which is not, in my opinion. So that standard 'good Snape' theories that incorporate the twitch during the Vow and the argument in the Forest are better than random guesses. As are many 'Bad Snape' theories, for they too draw support from other incidents. Basically what we have with Snape is a whole long string of incidents scattered throughout six books, many of which are open to multiple interpretations. They can, and have, been assembled in various ways by fans into relatively coherent narratives which lead to contradictory interpretations regarding Snape's loyalties.

zgirnius, I believe we are basically saying the same thing. I believe that had you quoted the second half of my post, it may have been a little clearer. Both sides are guilty, but each side still has a right to question these comments as they arise.:love:

The statement: "I trust Severus Snape" also has two meanings.

Either Dumbledore was a fool and wasted ALOT of time telling Harry that.

Or Dumbledore had a good reason to trust Severus Snape. :)

I came across this about Dumbledore not fearing death today - JKR talked about admiring Dumbledore because he didn't fear death, while Voldemort saw it as a human weakness.

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/2000/0700-hottype-solomon.htm



E: In one of the books Dumbledore says "Death is just the next step to a great mystery, the next great adventure" I think is the quote.

JK: I would like to…I'm not as wise as him. I would like to see it that way. And I do see it that way, in many ways. Death still frightens me, as it frightens most people.



I can't read that and believe that Dumbledore was begging Snape to let him live at the end of HBP. So the "Severus, Please" is all about asking Snape to sacrifice him for the greater good because, as he told Harry, he doesn't see himself as "important" in the scheme of things as other people. I'm not saying I see it that way because I love Dumbledore - but Dumbledore seems to see it that way in Book 6. I hope that's clear!

Voldemort, on the other hand, sees death as a failure, so we fall into a trap if we believe that Dumbledore failed somehow by dying.

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/list2005.html



Voldemort's boggart would be "death, ignominious death .... He would see himself dead." He sees death as a "shameful human weakness."



In order to show that Dumbledore died in disgrace, having been fooled for years by Snape, then we have to assume he was also begging for life, after he said he was expendible in the cave and that "Death is the Next Great Adventure." In other words, we are supposed to believe that at the last moment of his life, Dumbledore changed his mind and became afraid to die, even though he knew about the Vow that would take Snape's life?

I'm not buying that - JKR loves Dumbledore too much to turn him into a liar.
I know, if she did that, it would ruin the whole theme that has run through the series itself.

even though he knew about the Vow that would take Snape's life?

Um, you know this how?

A few days ago, I was at a bookstore with my friend, who was looking at a Deathly Hallows promotion poster when the woman at the checkout counter saw him.

"Do you think Snape is good or bad?" She asked.
"I think he's just a jerk," he replied.
"I completely agree with you."

And I agree too. Though I lean more toward the "good Snape" side, I think that ultimately, Snape looks out for himself first and foremost. I think though, that he's realized that a world run by Voldemort and the Death Eaters wouldn't be best for anyone, which would give him reason to help the order...that and because Dumbledore trusted him.

And I agree with silver ink pot that Snape didn't appear to have the same sort of unconcerned attitude that Peter did when he killed Cedric. Snape didn't kill Dumbledore on the spot.

zgirnius, I believe we are basically saying the same thing. I believe that had you quoted the second half of my post, it may have been a little clearer. Both sides are guilty, but each side still has a right to question these comments as they arise.:love:

:scared: Are we allowed to agree on something?

I was just misunderstanding your point, sorry! BTW, I love your sig, it is very eye-catching!

Ok, here's something I don't understand. You said that Dumbledore says the withered hand was a small price to pay for destroying the horcrux. This indicated to me that whatever happened with his hand....Dumbledore's loss was merely the hand. His life was in no danger, at least not anymore. Later, when he drinks the potion, while I initially felt Dumbledore may have been poisoned, I dont know this for sure. So I cant say with any degree of certainty that Dumbledore was doomed to die. Only that he was in pain. So i dont see how we can say Dumbledore knew he was dying.

I think Dumbledore's withered hand obviously weakened him. Not only that he couldn't use his right hand (if I'm correct) but it probably took a physical toll on him as well. As for the Potion in the Cave and the events on the Tower, yes, I believe Dumbledore knew he was dying. He was having heart failure or something else. It's NOT a nice feeling not being able to breathe. The longer he talked to Draco, the weaker he became--the weaker he became the more difficult and painful it was for him to breathe. At least that's the way I interpret things. He was clutching his chest which suggest to me it hurt like hell when he breathed in which is a horrible feeling. You have to breathe, want to breathe, but it feels like you're being jabbed with a needle. If THAT is what he was experiencing, believe me, he KNEW he was dying.
Albus was also wandless, surrounded by FOUR Death Eaters who saw him as the enemy. One of whom was a Werewolf. All four were out for blood--his blood. He also had Draco Malfoy, a FRIGHTENED Child desperate for an option--WANTING to show his doubters who he really was, but now realizes he's NOT a Killer, but if he doesn't his MOTHER will be killed because of him and his lack of "courage". Draco could have done anything. The Four other Death Eaters could have started torturing a defenseless Dumbledore "for fun". They could (especially the Werewolf) could have picked up Harry's fear and sensed his presense. They saw Harry's broom, so unless they are complete Morons, they'd conduce someone had been there, etc.
Even though Snape kills Dumbledore, he doesn't torture him. The Death Eaters on the Tower would have "had some FUN' with Dumbledore first. Snape comes and hesitates. Dumbledore has to address him twice. Until I read it in the books, I'm saying that although, yes, he's a hero. Unfortunately, I see him paying the ultimate price in that he will die before people see the truth which will make many of us, including me cry. If he's Evil, I'm going to scream and throw my book on the floor, get my Mom and Step-Father yelling "What happened?" and throw a classic Gilbert Godfried "Son of a #(tch" tempertantrum and :eep: while I mope for a week and take my frustrations out on the IDIOTS who call and SWEAR at me over the phone that week.

Are we allowed to agree on something?

It'll be our little secret.

I was just misunderstanding your point, sorry! BTW, I love your sig, it is very eye-catching!

S'allright! Thanks for the compliment. I've just started playing around with photoshop recently and that's what my sleep deprived mind came up with.:relax:

Quote:

even though he knew about the Vow that would take Snape's life?

Um, you know this how?
Reading the book. Just my opinion from the many times the Vow was discussed in the Text. :)

Reading the book. Just my opinion from the many times the Vow was discussed in the Text.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound grouchy. :blush: I gues I am confused. It sounded from the post I originally quoted from that you think we are all working from the same premise. That DD knew and then the opinions differed from there. But I could have been misinterpreted...

Flimsy: I would never say that we were working from the same premise. ;) I have my opinion, and you have yours.

When Harry told Dumbledore about overhearing Draco and Snape talking about the Vow, he already seemed to know about it.

But I understand that there is an opposite view.

Flimsy: I would never say that we were working from the same premise. I have my opinion, and you have yours.

:lol:


But I understand that there is an opposite view.

Oh Good cuz...

When Harry told Dumbledore about overhearing Draco and Snape talking about the Vow, he already seemed to know about it.

My opinion on that scene is:

1)DD doesn't take Harry seriously or

2)that he thought that it was a ruse on Snape's part to gain Draco's trust

I, personally (I know you would disagree), see no indication that he knew anything of the exact nature of Snape's little "discussion" with Narcissa.

Sorry, I've only just woken up, so I've got a page and a bit to catch up on.

Flimseycauldron, I agree that both sides are frequently guilty of "I'm interpreting the text sensibly, you're just guessing/making it up" statements, and it annoys me whoever says it. I didn't mean to suggest that this attitude is exclusive to people on your side or that it's inadmissible to point out logical flaws in people's interpretations. And it's clear that you do have a lot of respect for other people's views.

I also agree that the explanation of the denouement of HBP that is, on the surface, most likely is that Snape throws an Avada Kedavra that kills Dumbledore.

However, JKR has relied on the post hoc fallacy (the inaccurate assumption that because Event B follows immediately after Event A, Event A must have caused Event B) before to create red herrings (e.g. in PS/SS, Snape looks at Harry and Harry's scar hurts - in fact it was the back of Quirrell's head that caused the pain in the scar), so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to theorise that maybe she's using the same tactic again here, and that possibly it's not the AK that kills Dumbledore.

My opinion on that scene is:

1)DD doesn't take Harry seriously or

2)that he thought that it was a ruse on Snape's part to gain Draco's trust

I, personally (I know you would disagree), see no indication that he knew anything of the exact nature of Snape's little "discussion" with Narcissa.

In my view, it would not be in keeping with DD's character to "not take Harry seriously". In fact, we are told that he "listened to Harry's story" and "when Harry had finished he did not speak for a few moments" which suggests to me that he wasn't half-listening, that he thought very seriously about what Harry had said and didn't rush to dismiss what Harry was saying. In fact, everything he says "Thank you for telling me this", "I am glad that you have confided in me", suggests that he is taking Harry seriously.

We good-Snapers, however, are not trying to absolve Snape of choice. If we are right in interpreting the conversation that Hagrid overhears as Snape voicing his extreme reluctance to go through with the "plan", and right in interpreting the "hatred and revulsion" on Snape's face as disgust for what he has had to do, he has indeed made a choice - a choice to do something he hates doing and which he knows will attract widespread condemnation rather than to be disloyal to Dumbledore and the forces of good. This would not be inconsistent with his behaviour at the end of GoF, where he is prepared to roll up his sleeve and show his Dark Mark to the Minister of Magic in front of Harry, aware that this acknowledgement of his past will arouse disgust. Both would be actions of a man who is concerned to do what will help the cause of the Order, even if it makes him hated and shunned by his own side.

I agree with every word here. :tu: From where I stand, there is and always have been overwhelming evidence that Snape was doing something he hated doing. But he had to, and we're still to be told why exactly.

I'm rereading the books in a row now, and writing down everything I see as a clue, everything suspicious and ambiguous, and when I'm through, I intend to write a long post about Snape's actions here :)

For now, I've just finished PS, and there's quite a bit there that says Snape did indeed want to protect and save Harry - apart from muttering a counter-curse to stop Quirrell (which Quirrell himself later recognises as trying hard to save Harry), he volunteers to referee his next match, to make sure Quirrell doesn't try anything harmful again. There's also the conversation between Snape and Quirrell in the Forest, where Snape questions Quirrell's loyalties - loyalties to whom? - and mentions his "littel hocus-pocus". Now, what does he refer to by this? The enchantmes Quirrell made to protect the stone, as Harry suspected (which turned out to be a troll - hardly a hocus pocus) or what he was hiding in his turban? If this choice of words means he knew about Voldemort being his ally then, it raises many questions. Anyway, my point is, that all through PS, Snape is used as a red herring - he appears evil, and you're meant to suspect him, but he is actually trying to save HArry all along, and volunteering to do so, by his own free will.

mentions his "littel hocus-pocus". Now, what does he refer to by this?
It referred to the curse that Quirrell put on Harry's broom.

For now, I've just finished PS, and there's quite a bit there that says Snape did indeed want to protect and save Harry - apart from muttering a counter-curse to stop Quirrell (which Quirrell himself later recognises as trying hard to save Harry), he volunteers to referee his next match, to make sure Quirrell doesn't try anything harmful again.

Absolutely. I'm also in the process of rereading the whole series in prep for DH, and in a lot of the early books, once you know he's not the villain, a lot of his actions which seemed to be malice towards Harry on first reading, actually seem to be Harry-protection.

E.g., alwaysme recently reminded me that in PoA, when Snape takes the goblet of wolfsbane to Lupin and finds Harry in the office, he "stopped at the sight of Harry, his black eyes narrowing". This at first seems to be just more of the same - Snape glaring at Harry, because he doesn't like him. But when we further have "his eyes wandering between Harry and Lupin" and we're told "He backed out of the room, unsmiling and watchful" (bold mine) it all seems consistent with fear for Harry's welfare - keeping an eye on him while he's with Lupin, because he perceives Lupin to be a danger. By the end of the book it's clear that he knew Lupin was a werewolf and believed him to be in league with Sirius (who was, at the time, widely believed, even by indisputably good characters, like Dumbledore and Hagrid, to be a DE). Hence, I believe his "black eyes narrowed" with dislike and suspicion, not at Harry, but at the situation he saw in front of him - Harry alone with a man he suspects to be up to no good.

Similarly, there's a bit in GoF (which I'm just rereading) where "Moody" catches Snape wandering around at night, looking for Harry. There's a line (I don't have an English-language edition, so I can't quote it) where Moody says something like "I know you've got Harry's best interests at heart" and Snape mutters something and decides to go back to bed. Again, when you don't know that "Moody" is the villain, it looks like good Moody is suspicious of bad Snape and bad Snape decides to leave the scene because he knows he's close to being rumbled. I feel certain, however that Snape leaves the scene because he suspects that "Moody" is a DE and knows that he is indeed perilously close to being rumbled - as a good character who genuinely does have Harry's best interests at heart! He knows that if V rises again, he will have to go back to his double agent bit, and it is vital that V and his supporters don't know that he actually cares about Harry.

I feel certain, however that Snape leaves the scene because he suspects that "Moody" is a DE
I do agree that Snape did referee the Quidditch game in SS/PS out of concern for Harry.

But I can't agree that Snape thought Moody was a DE. If he suspected that, he should have immediately informed Dumbledore, and I doubt Moody would have been permitted the free run of the castle and the close involvement of the tournament that he maintained.

I do agree that Snape did referee the Quidditch game in SS/PS out of concern for Harry.

Actually he was only concerned for Harry because he was thinking that by saving Harry he was paying the life debt that he owed to James.

I think that Snape had no reason to act "bad" until after Voldemort returned at the end of GoF. So a reread of the first 4 books will yield mostly examples of a "good" Snape. It isn't until he has to return to Voldemort as a spy that he has to decide where his loyalties lie.

We good-Snapers, however, are not trying to absolve Snape of choice. If we are right in interpreting the conversation that Hagrid overhears as Snape voicing his extreme reluctance to go through with the "plan", and right in interpreting the "hatred and revulsion" on Snape's face as disgust for what he has had to do, he has indeed made a choice - a choice to do something he hates doing and which he knows will attract widespread condemnation rather than to be disloyal to Dumbledore and the forces of good. This would not be inconsistent with his behaviour at the end of GoF, But is it consistent with the behaviour of Dumbledore who is too noble to use Voldemort’s methods as canon tells us? Is Dumbledore having Hagrid and McGonagall grief over his murder really vintage Dumbledore, a man who would knowingly and willingly let those who care for him think that he is murdered while it really was a secret plan? Is the Dumbledore of the books really so cold hearted that he would do this to Hagrid, McGonagall, Harry etc? Doesn’t he care enough about Lupin to see him broken in the hospital? Dumbledore is a good man. But having him act to hurt other people is disappointing.

I see the point about the tower scene being ambiguous. Therefore I see a distinct opportunity that there will be more to come. But this more to come does not need to be complete reversal of what we were shown. And that’s the problem I see with all this good Snape theories. It really needs a lot of assumptions and things like that but it also needs to disregard everything we are shown, we do know about characters and the morality of the books. It gets awfully complicated, it needs to assume many things and disregard many things just to achieve the desired outcome, Snape being 100% Dumbledore’s man. Usually JKR works with the clues we are given all being true, not some true and the rest false. I just don’t see that, given that the tower scene is ambiguous, the conclusion is that it is basically all untrue. One doesn’t automatically follow from the other. JKR started giving answers in this book she told. Perhaps the answers which were given should need as a starting point for theories instead of doubting the given answers and create theories on the premise that what we are shown is false.
The statement: "I trust Severus Snape" also has two meanings.

Either Dumbledore was a fool and wasted ALOT of time telling Harry that.

Or Dumbledore had a good reason to trust Severus Snape. :)
I don’t think that betrayal makes the betrayed a fool. That’s blaming the victim. Is Lily a fool because Peter betrayed her?
I believe that Dumbledore did have a good reason to trust Snape. A reason good enough so that we will learn in DH that Snape was the fool to cross Dumbledore, not Dumbledore the fool to trust Snape. That’s much more fitting with the books; Snape is the personification of wrong choices, missed chances, always the clues, never the solution.

Dumbledore has his reasons to trust Snape. Harry has his reasons to mistrust Snape and confronts Dumbledore with his reasons. Dumbledore rejects Harry’s notion, we don not know why, because we do not know Dumbledore’s reasons.

And yet, without us knowing why Dumbledore rejects this notion we consider him a fool? We do not even know why he thought what he did but apparently this lack of knowledge is not a hindrance to judge him and call him a fool if it turns out that canon is true, that Snape murdered Dumbledore. That’s a harsh judgement to make, especially given the fact that this judgement is made without knowledge of all the facts.
I can't read that and believe that Dumbledore was begging Snape to let him live at the end of HBP. So the "Severus, Please" is all about asking Snape to sacrifice him for the greater good because, as he told Harry, he doesn't see himself as "important" in the scheme of things as other people. I'm not saying I see it that way because I love Dumbledore - but Dumbledore seems to see it that way in Book 6. I hope that's clear!

Voldemort, on the other hand, sees death as a failure, so we fall into a trap if we believe that Dumbledore failed somehow by dying.
The other trap is thinking that because Dumbledore can’t fail his death has to be a sacrifice.

It is not that Dumbledore failed by dying, the point is that Snape failed by killing him, the one person who showed him mercy and acceptance.

There is a feeling that because Dumbledore sees death as the next great adventure, because he doesn’t fear death, he was jumping to go. Once again the one doesn’t follow necessarily from the other.
But interestingly enough we do have a sort of tension between two messages in the books: death is nothing to be feared, but causing death is an abomination. The usual explanation for this kind of tension is that the power over life and death is not meant for mortals (like Dumbledore) but rather for a higher power (whether that is Divine or simply Nature). Jo's take on murder splitting the soul is a different way to consider the question of why murder is evil and without taking anything away from the idea that death is not something to fear. But this leaves us with a Dumbledore who doesn’t fear death and who doesn’t want to be murdered. And Dumbledore is certainly wise enough to ask please Snape don’t do this to yourself.
Similarly, there's a bit in GoF (which I'm just rereading) where "Moody" catches Snape wandering around at night, looking for Harry.No, Snape was wandering about that night because he wanted to catch the person who broke into his office. Snape in GOF is a fine example of always the clues, never the solutions. Snape knows that someone is stealing the ingredients for polyjuice that year. He also knows that Croody has been in his office that year. And what does he do: suspect Harry. Typical.

I don’t think that betrayal makes the betrayed a fool. That’s blaming the victim. Is Lily a fool because Peter betrayed her?
You are misunderstanding my point - I said JKR wouldn't make Dumbledore a fool of that magnitude, or waste all those opportunities for him to become "susupicious" of Snape. See my earlier quote from JKR about Dumbledore being "wiser" than she is. :)

Do you think all that stuff about "trust" is just throwaway material? I don't.

No Lily wasn't a fool, but I can make a case that the plan to "protect" her had obvious flaws, since they chose the weakest person to protect them and they all knew it. Dumbledore was worried about her and James, remember? They did not take his advice, and if they had chosen him as a SK, things might have been different.

No, Snape was wandering about that night because he wanted to catch the person who broke into his office. Snape in GOF is a fine example of always the clues, never the solutions. Snape knows that someone is stealing the ingredients for polyjuice that year. He also knows that Croody has been in his office that year. And what does he do: suspect Harry. Typical.
In HBP, Scrimgeour makes a strong statement when he says "The other side can do magic, too."

In the case of Barty Jr., he was a fanatic who came up with the perfect disguise, and Snape just can't figure it all out. But he is as much a target as Harry, and after all, the reason he suspects Harry is that Harry lies all the time, and has actually stolen potion ingredients before. :agree:

Good Morning!

However, JKR has relied on the post hoc fallacy (the inaccurate assumption that because Event B follows immediately after Event A, Event A must have caused Event B) before to create red herrings (e.g. in PS/SS, Snape looks at Harry and Harry's scar hurts - in fact it was the back of Quirrell's head that caused the pain in the scar), so it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to theorise that maybe she's using the same tactic again here, and that possibly it's not the AK that kills Dumbledore.
For now, I've just finished PS, and there's quite a bit there that says Snape did indeed want to protect and save Harry - apart from muttering a counter-curse to stop Quirrell (which Quirrell himself later recognises as trying hard to save Harry), he volunteers to referee his next match, to make sure Quirrell doesn't try anything harmful again. There's also the conversation between Snape and Quirrell in the Forest, where Snape questions Quirrell's loyalties - loyalties to whom? - and mentions his "littel hocus-pocus". Now, what does he refer to by this? The enchantmes Quirrell made to protect the stone, as Harry suspected (which turned out to be a troll - hardly a hocus pocus) or what he was hiding in his turban? If this choice of words means he knew about Voldemort being his ally then, it raises many questions. Anyway, my point is, that all through PS, Snape is used as a red herring - he appears evil, and you're meant to suspect him, but he is actually trying to save HArry all along, and volunteering to do so, by his own free will.
Again there is some debate, as usual, about Snape as far back as SS. First of all the half-heard conversation between Snape and Quirrel is never fully explained. Then DD tells us that Snape was trying to go back to hating James in peace, but the Snape is Spinners End tells Bella that he thought Harry might be the next Dark Lord and, once apparent that he wasn't, that it would have been imprudent to let Potter die under DD watchful eye. So whom are we to believe? DD, who can only be guessing (however confident he may be about it) about Snape's loyalty? Or Snape himself, who could be lying/bluffing? As for the red herring bit. JKR is undoubtably good at red herrings but the clues, the facts, are always there out in the open. It's funny cuz you can take one fact away and the story wouldn't change much but take away one supposition (on any side of the debate) and the whole theory falls apart.

In my view, it would not be in keeping with DD's character to "not take Harry seriously". In fact, we are told that he "listened to Harry's story" and "when Harry had finished he did not speak for a few moments" which suggests to me that he wasn't half-listening, that he thought very seriously about what Harry had said and didn't rush to dismiss what Harry was saying. In fact, everything he says "Thank you for telling me this", "I am glad that you have confided in me", suggests that he is taking Harry seriously.


What you say is true. However it only serves to root me in my #2 theory...that DD believed the vow to be a ruse on Snape's part to gain Draco's trust.

Interestingly, that scene is one of the few times that Harry actually confides in through out the entire series. Usually DD is "away" when Harry needs to speak with him (ex. SS) or Harry does not want to bother him. (ex. his scar in GOF). I think it would be very rude for DD NOT to listen to his prodigy in the rare moment Harry seeks his council. After all he does not want to discourage Harry from coming to him in the future as well.






I think that Snape had no reason to act "bad" until after Voldemort returned at the end of GoF. So a reread of the first 4 books will yield mostly examples of a "good" Snape. It isn't until he has to return to Voldemort as a spy that he has to decide where his loyalties lie.

Good Point.




I don’t think that betrayal makes the betrayed a fool. That’s blaming the victim. Is Lily a fool because Peter betrayed her?
I believe that Dumbledore did have a good reason to trust Snape. A reason good enough so that we will learn in DH that Snape was the fool to cross Dumbledore, not Dumbledore the fool to trust Snape. That’s much more fitting with the books; Snape is the personification of wrong choices, missed chances, always the clues, never the solution.

Well the theory goes that Snape will be the ultimate solution in DH. I personally don't see it. He will be important but it will be as Harry says "if I run into him along the way so much the better for me, so much the worst for him." Harry has his priorities straight. Horcruxes then Voldy. Catching Snape is just a bonus. He played out his main role in HBP, it is loose ends that we need to tie up with him now. And I totally agree with blaming the victim. "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

If it turns out that Dumbledore did not ask Snape to kill him in HBP, then the question of why Snape killed Dumbledore has already been answered. Harry thinks he knows why Snape killed Dumbledore,
"Kill me like you killed him , you coward." Harry thinks Snape was too cowardly to stand up to Voldemort.

I can picture a conversation like this in DH:
Harry: "Why did you kill Dumbledore?"
Snape: Potter, your pathetic little mind can not begin to comprehend the power of the Dark Lord." That is all it would take to answer the question of why Snape killed Dumbledore. The only thing left is to find out why Dumbledore trusted Snape. A simple Pensieve memory can reveal that reason.

It is a parallel to Wormtail. If you looked through Wormtail's past, you would find that he had been good for the most part. It was only when he was confronted by the dark side and had to chose between being faithful to his friends or living, he chose to live and therefore serve Voldemort. Snape is in a similiar situation. Once Voldemort returned, he had to make a choice.

I believe that Snape and most of the Death Eaters who were not in Azkaban were very happy when Voldmeort fell at Godric's Hollow and very disappointed that he had returned. I think they were all happy to live their lives without Voldemort ordering them around. I believe Snape was as happy as he could be working for Dumbledore and would have stayed that way until his dying day if Voldemort had not returned.

It is a parallel to Wormtail. If you looked through Wormtail's past, you would find that he had been good for the most part. It was only when he was confronted by the dark side and had to chose between being faithful to his friends or living, he chose to live and therefore serve Voldemort. Snape is in a similiar situation. Once Voldemort returned, he had to make a choice.


This is a reason I don't believe Snape went back to Voldemort out of fear. We don't need another character like that. Wormtail, as you say, fits the bill. Aslo, I really don't saee Snape making that choice at the end of GoF, his behavior is (to my mind) more consistent at that point with a resolve to stick with Dumbledore. Ignoring the Dark Lord's initial summons for a couple of hours and showing Fudge his Dark Mark both seem pro-Dumbledore (and, even more to the point, potentially very dangerous). Likewise his sending the Order to the MoM in the end of OotP seems to suggest his chosen side is still Dumbledore's. So a change such as you posit would have to come, to my mind, in the time period from the end of OotP to some point in HBP. When do you think he made his choice?

There is also the issue of Snape in the first war. His 'return', assuming it was genuine and more-or-less as described by Dumbledore, would suggest that Snape had already dealt with this issue, and gone for the dangerous (but 'good' option). So the whole UV/kill DUmbledore scenario is just revisiting old ground for the character. Or, of course, Dumbledore was wrong.

When do you think he made his choice?Spinners End.

his behavior is (to my mind) more consistent at that point with a resolve to stick with Dumbledore. Ignoring the Dark Lord's initial summons for a couple of hours and showing Fudge his Dark Mark both seem pro-Dumbledore (and, even more to the point, potentially very dangerous).
I like the word "resolve." Snape also has "Per-Severance." :)

It is a parallel to Wormtail. If you looked through Wormtail's past, you would find that he had been good for the most part. It was only when he was confronted by the dark side and had to chose between being faithful to his friends or living, he chose to live and therefore serve Voldemort. Snape is in a similiar situation. Once Voldemort returned, he had to make a choice.
I disagree about Peter - I don't believe he was always good and suddenly turned. Else, why would JKR picture him in the Pensieve as a little hero-worshipper with a 'hungry' look on his face when he thinks Snape is about to be attacked? That's not a healthy appearance of a "good" boy, but the makings of an internal rat. His Animagus just says it all as far as what was already inside him.

We don't know Snape's "inner" self, except through the HBP book which is described as "creative" and a "bloke" who is a "friend" to Harry, who "helps him so much." That is the inner Snape at age 15, as opposed to the inner Peter at the same age.

As an adult, Snape is compared in Harry's mind to a hippogriff and a dragon. Voldemort compares him derogatorily to a "great bat," but what's interesting about that is when Dumbledore tells Harry that Voldemort is afraid of the dark, while a bat certainly wouldn't be, would it?

The reason I mentioned a parallel between Wormtail and Snape was not to try and compare the characters, but compare the power that Voldemort holds over people. Dumbledore told Harry that he is uniquely protected from the lure of Voldemort's power by his ability to love. What has not been adequately presented in the six books we have read so far is what exactly is this power and why to do people like Wormtail succumb to it. The correct choice for Wormtail was to die rather than betray his friends and in my opinion, the correct choice for Snape should have been to die rather than betray Dumbledore. That is the parallel I am referring to, nothing else.

The reason I mentioned a parallel between Wormtail and Snape was not to try and compare the characters, but compare the power that Voldemort holds over people. Dumbledore told Harry that he is uniquely protected from the lure of Voldemort's power by his ability to love. What has not been adequately presented in the six books we have read so far is what exactly is this power and why to do people like Wormtail succumb to it. The correct choice for Wormtail was to die rather than betray his friends and in my opinion, the correct choice for Snape should have been to die rather than betray Dumbledore. That is the parallel I am referring to, nothing else.
Ah - I see. :)

I believe The power to love is the power of empathy for others, and being able to put yourself in someone's place. It's about putting others ahead of yourself, which Peter is incapable of doing - as he showed with his supposed "friends" the Potters.

I would say that when Snape took the Unbreakable Vow, by definition of that Vow he was putting others ahead of himself. If he broke his word, he would die - the very thing that Voldemort fears worse than anything.

That is why Bellatrix can hardly speak as she watches it happen - she is stunned that Snape would stick his neck out for her sister and her nephew. She and most of the DEs are selfish by nature, while Snape proves he is not, and Narcissa must have known that before, or she wouldn't have turned to Snape in the first place.

So I don't really understand this view that Snape did the wrong thing in trying to help Narcissa and Draco. :huh:

Dumbledore also clearly wanted to help them, and if Dumbledore thought that by dying himself, instead of letting Snape die, he could help the greatest number of people, that's what someone like Dumbledore would do, at the age of 150, with multiple injuries, in a time of war, with so much at stake.

So I don't really understand this view that Snape did the wrong thing in trying to help Narcissa and Draco. :huh:I know that we see things differently. I think that is why we will never agree :lol:

The problem is that I have an absolutist view of murder. Even if Dumbledore did ask Snape to kill him, in my view, both of them would have been "bad". Dumbledore would have been bad to ask Snape to commit the unforgiveable crime, and Snape would have been "bad" to agree to do something that would have been against his moral code. I guess I would never make a good double agent.

For me, I found proof that Snape isn't good, in Spinner's End, when he tells Narcissa and Bellatrix that he gave Voldemort information that led to the murders of Madam Bones and Emmeline Vance.

Whatever the excuses people make for him for killing Dumbledore and passing information to Voldemort about the prophecy, I think that cinched it for me.

For me, I found proof that Snape isn't good, in Spinner's End, when he tells Narcissa and Bellatrix that he gave Voldemort information that led to the murders of Madam Bones and Emmeline Vance.

Whatever the excuses people make for him for killing Dumbledore and passing information to Voldemort about the prophecy, I think that cinched it for me.

Yes but being that Snape was in front of Bella and Narcissa, I believe he said what he had to to sound convincing.

The problem is that I have an absolutist view of murder. Even if Dumbledore did ask Snape to kill him, in my view, both of them would have been "bad". Dumbledore would have been bad to ask Snape to commit the unforgiveable crime, and Snape would have been "bad" to agree to do something that would have been against his moral code. I guess I would never make a good double agent.

But doesn't Harry break some sort of moral code when he feeds Dumbledore the evil potion in the cave? Yet that is following orders, which all soldiers do every day all over the world.

That's where the phrase Catch-22 comes into it. That's a situation where you can't win and you can't get out of it, and it comes from a book that JKR put on one of her "best book" lists.

http://www.generationterrorists.com/quotes/catch-22.shtml



"Sure there is a catch," Doc Daneeka replied. "Catch-22. Anyone who wants to get out of combat duty isn't really crazy."

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, that specified that a concern for one's own safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane, he had to fly them. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of the clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

"That's some catch, that Catch-22," he observed.

"It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka replied.


Harry begged to go on the Horcrux Hunt, and Dumbledore said he had "earned it." Yet in order to go, he has to promise to do something against his will, which is to follow orders without question. And then it seems as if it was useless because the locket they found wasn't a horcrux, so it all seems hopeless, but we only know half the story.

I just think Snape was in a similar situation, and now it seems as if he's traded Dumbledore's "valuable" life for his own "worthless" life - in the eyes of some readers and Harry - and that's not a good trade (allegedly). But again, we only have half the story.

And as far as following orders goes:

Dumbledore had Harry right there beside him under the Invisibility Cloak, and could have released him at any time if he wanted help. He chose to keep Harry hidden.

He could have let Harry go and Harry could have stopped Snape, but Dumbledore let Snape do the Avada Kedavra with no interference! If he had time to plead, then he had time to free Harry and get help. Harry could have done silent spells on every DE one by one, and he and Dumbledore could have gotten off that Tower before Snape ever got there.

That's why I don't hold Snape 100% responsible for Dumbledore's death - Dumbledore could have stopped his own death at any time, but for some reason, he let Snape kill him. It was a Catch-22, or it had to happen to solve the Catch-22, or something like that.

The reason I mentioned a parallel between Wormtail and Snape was not to try and compare the characters, but compare the power that Voldemort holds over people. Dumbledore told Harry that he is uniquely protected from the lure of Voldemort's power by his ability to love. What has not been adequately presented in the six books we have read so far is what exactly is this power and why to do people like Wormtail succumb to it. The correct choice for Wormtail was to die rather than betray his friends and in my opinion, the correct choice for Snape should have been to die rather than betray Dumbledore. That is the parallel I am referring to, nothing else.

I agree but the thing is, Dumbledore is not stupid, he would have made Snape go quite far to prove him loyalty he would settle for Snape going "Yep I dont like Voldy anymore" kinda thing.

The thing is, Dumbledore is not stupid, he would have made Snape go quite far to prove him loyalty he would settle for Snape going "Yep I dont like Voldy anymore" kinda thing. Snape is a powerfull wizerd - we know that, I think he is a better wizerd than most if all Death Eaters, I dont know how powerfull he is, maybe he could close him mind from Voldemort ( If he couldnt Voldy could just use Occcumancy or whatever on Snape ). Not sure really.

I do agree that Snape did referee the Quidditch game in SS/PS out of concern for Harry.

But I can't agree that Snape thought Moody was a DE. If he suspected that, he should have immediately informed Dumbledore, and I doubt Moody would have been permitted the free run of the castle and the close involvement of the tournament that he maintained.

Perhaps it would be understandable if, after having spent most of the previous year unsuccessfully trying to convince Dumbledore that the DADA teacher was corrupt and having been proved humiliatingly wrong, this time he kept his suspicions to himself until he had mroe evidence.

Originally posted by staniw
No, Snape was wandering about that night because he wanted to catch the person who broke into his office. Snape in GOF is a fine example of always the clues, never the solutions. Snape knows that someone is stealing the ingredients for polyjuice that year. He also knows that Croody has been in his office that year. And what does he do: suspect Harry. Typical.

In fairness, Harry was part of the Dream Team behind a previous theft of Polyjuice from Snape's office, so if he does suspect Harry, it's not a completely biased or paranoid suspicion.

Usually JKR works with the clues we are given all being true, not some true and the rest false. I just don’t see that, given that the tower scene is ambiguous, the conclusion is that it is basically all untrue. One doesn’t automatically follow from the other. JKR started giving answers in this book she told. Perhaps the answers which were given should need as a starting point for theories instead of doubting the given answers and create theories on the premise that what we are shown is false

I don't think anything we have been told is false or untrue - merely that the way some of it is worded is extremely misleading (a bit like Dobby's insistence to harry that the trouble facing him at Hogwarts in Book 2 was nothing to do with Lord Voldemort).

Originally posted by SusanBones111
I believe that Snape and most of the Death Eaters who were not in Azkaban were very happy when Voldmeort fell at Godric's Hollow and very disappointed that he had returned. I think they were all happy to live their lives without Voldemort ordering them around. I believe Snape was as happy as he could be working for Dumbledore and would have stayed that way until his dying day if Voldemort had not returned.

I find this theory much more psychologically plausible and structurally satisfying than the theory that Snape had hoodwinked DD all along and was in fact 100% for Voldemort, simply because he's inherently evil. Yes, I can envisage this, in human terms. But I'm still seduced by (a) the ambiguous language of the tower scene (b) the question of why DD trusts Snape.

Also, as zgirnius points out, it seems odd that, having taken so many risks for the good side (acting as DD's spy before Voldemort's first fall, not looking for Voldemort during his exile, refusing to join him immediately on his return) that Snape would suddenly decide to capitulate to Voldemort at Spinner's End.

I find this theory much more psychologically plausible and structurally satisfying than the theory that Snape had hoodwinked DD all along and was in fact 100% for Voldemort, simply because he's inherently evil. In all of the thousands of posts I have seen on the Snape topic, I can think of only one person out of hundreds that believes Snape is 100% on Voldemort's side. The other 99.98% of us think he is somewhere inbetween. Just about everybody is going to be right about some aspect of Snape when Deathly Hollows comes out.

Harry begged to go on the Horcrux Hunt, and Dumbledore said he had "earned it." Yet in order to go, he has to promise to do something against his will, which is to follow orders without question. And then it seems as if it was useless because the locket they found wasn't a horcrux, so it all seems hopeless, but we only know half the story.

I just think Snape was in a similar situation, and now it seems as if he's traded Dumbledore's "valuable" life for his own "worthless" life - in the eyes of some readers and Harry - and that's not a good trade (allegedly). But again, we only have half the story.

And as far as following orders goes:

Dumbledore had Harry right there beside him under the Invisibility Cloak, and could have released him at any time if he wanted help. He chose to keep Harry hidden.

He could have let Harry go and Harry could have stopped Snape, but Dumbledore let Snape do the Avada Kedavra with no interference! If he had time to plead, then he had time to free Harry and get help. Harry could have done silent spells on every DE one by one, and he and Dumbledore could have gotten off that Tower before Snape ever got there.

That's why I don't hold Snape 100% responsible for Dumbledore's death - Dumbledore could have stopped his own death at any time, but for some reason, he let Snape kill him. It was a Catch-22, or it had to happen to solve the Catch-22, or something like that.

I don't know why people are so quick to compare Snape's and Harry's situations. They are two different people with different agendas. Harry is the one who is going to save the entire wizarding world, not Snape. No matter how crucial his information/actions are, Snape is not the one who is going to defeat Voldemort. If Harry dies, so long world. If Snape dies, Harry is still around to fight the evil.

Let's look at the cave scene. DD says it quite plainly. "You're blood is worth more than mine." No such words are ever muttered by DD in reference to Snape. Trusting Snape completely does NOT mean that he thought Snape's life was worth more than his own in the face of the most Dark Wizard in the world. After all DD is the only wizard Voldemort ever feared, not Snape. (I'm sure that DD as a honorable man would choose to die before ANYONE else but I am addressing directly the who is worth more in comparison to Voldemort, and hands down DD is worth more than Snape.) DD can afford to be injured, or die, and the locket needs to be destroyed. Harry can not afford to even be injured, because the time he would need to heal is wasted time in the fight against Voldemort. DD has pinned the hopes of the world onto Harry's shoulders, not Snape's. It was Harry, not Snape, that DD chose to confide the entire prophecy. It was Harry, not Snape, that DD took on a dangerous mission. It is Harry, and not Snape, whom DD confided about Tom Riddles youth. Harry. Not Snape. Harry above all else. Above Snape. And above DD.

If you look at it from that perspective, then of course DD is going to keep Harry safe as long as possible in the hopes that the Order would come along. Remember DD had no way of knowing that stairwell was blocked. To my mind as soon as Snape came through the door DD probably felt two things. 1)Relief, help was here and if he released Harry it would have been what 4 of them against the DE (I'm including Draco, since Draco made the choice not to kill DD and would want to get away.) Granted DD was feeble but Harry should make up for that with his surprise advantage. Then 2)horror because Snape didn't come in guns blazing (had he done that he could have easily taken two of the DE out before they realized what was happening.) But he did not.
NOW DD is in a pickle, even if he released Harry, with Snape in the mix DD wouldn't stand a chance anyway, and Harry would be probably wind up dead for all his efforts. His only option at that point is to plead with Severus, not for his life, so much as to finally come out in the open and choose sides. Declare, once and for all, his true allegiance. Give Harry the best possible scenario to come out of things unharmed. If DD could have hidden Draco and Narcissa then it is no stretch to believe that he would do the same for Snape.

In the case of Barty Jr., he was a fanatic who came up with the perfect disguise, and Snape just can't figure it all out. But he is as much a target as Harry, and after all, the reason he suspects Harry is that Harry lies all the time, and has actually stolen potion ingredients before. :agree:

Yeah, most times when Snape accuses Harry of something, Harry did it.

I saw Spinners End as a club over the head - Snape was totally different around Narcissa.. although he was his old moldy self to Wormtai and Bellatrix..
(Yes, I'm a "Snape is bad" person). I think, yes, it showed a much softer side of Snape, but look who the softer side was directed to - the Malfoys !
I know there's a huge movement about Snape and Lily, but I'd guess that Snape likes Narcissa if anyone.. JKR says Snape was loved by someone at some time, and unless that's his mum.. I'd guess it's Narcissa.
But not to stray off topic...

I think, at the tower, you had DD arriving with Harry, the former much weakened by the "horcrux potion", and DD was looking for Snape's help to counteract the poison. DD was further weakened by Draco's disarming spell, and frankly, Draco got lucky.. so lucky, I'd think he might have napped some Felix Felicis from Slughorn, myself (he'd brewed more than Harry got in the vial, after all).
DD knew he has to keep Harry safe at all costs, and so immoblized him under his cloak. Harry's blood is key to defeating LV, somehow (as is his ability to love), and it goes back to the "gleam of triumph" in GoF, as well as DD telling Harry his blood is "worth more" only an hour before, if that.

DD, who is now in a genine pickle, remains calm because he believes "his man" is coming to the rescue.. towards the end, I think Snape dropped all attempts at occlumency since he was on a quick mission, and DD saw the real Snape for the first time, albeit much too late to do anything about it.
Thus, the pleading. He can't believe what he now sees .. and Snape quickly kills him in cold blood.
It's hard to accept Dumbledore as fallible to that level, but I swallowed that bitter pill anyway, and there were clues up to that point that DD was not "perfect": the hand, the comments he'd made to Harry, and some things JKR has said in interviews since (July 2005 I think)

DD was compassionate to a fault - enough to misjudge Snape, but not foolish enough (IMO) to allow his own death to occur willingly when he is so needed at this desperate period in history. He knows he's worth more to the Order than Snape, certainly, despite his holding Snape in high regard.

I would agree that Snape is probably one of the more powerful DEs, because the other DEs stepped back from Snape as though in fear and respect. He may be LV's first lieutenant. Also because he is only half blood, he'd either have to hide that fact or excel to the point where he would be accepted anyway.

That all said, JKR has said all characters are redeemable except LV, so sure, he could pull a Darth Vader in the end. There must be some good in there somewhere for him to care so much for Narcissa/Draco.

Oh, yes, let's just ignore that pesky "Unforgivable" word! JKR could have named the three curses something else entirely...but she did not. And who said that DD gave Moody the OK to teach the curses? I may be wrong but there was only one lesson with Unforgivables, wasn't there? Much like McGonagall telling Moody that Transfiguration was not permitted as a punishment there is nothing to suggest that DD didn't tell Moody later that the teaching of Unforgivables was not permitted either.
The lessons continued for some time. Harry had to practise throwing off the Imperius until he had mastered it completely, and that didn't happen in the first lesson. Moody said Dumbledore wanted the kids to see it. He might have been lying, or he might not. But I'm sure Dumbledore would have put a stop to the lessons if he didn't approve.

In all of the thousands of posts I have seen on the Snape topic, I can think of only one person out of hundreds that believes Snape is 100% on Voldemort's side. The other 99.98% of us think he is somewhere inbetween. Just about everybody is going to be right about some aspect of Snape when Deathly Hollows comes out.

Snape really doesn't seem the type to remain completely loyal to the Dark Lord, even if he hadn't started spying for Dumbledore. For that matter, not even Lucius appears to be completely loyal. The "most faithful servants" are all complete nutters, eg Bellatrix and Crouch jr. Snape's too clever for that!

The lessons continued for some time.

I stand corrected. Do we have a bowing smilie? :)

but I swallowed that bitter pill anyway, and there were clues up to that point that DD was not "perfect": the hand, the comments he'd made to Harry, and some things JKR has said in interviews since (July 2005 I think)
Hmmm - then why did Snape bother to save Dumbledore earlier in Book 6, when the hand became withered in the first place? Why didn't he just let him die then? Surely an evil mastermind like Snape could see how weak the old guy was? He tells Bella that Dumbledore is losing his mojo, but on the other hand, he doesn't tell Bella that he helped save Dumbledore's life. So those are contradictory versions of the story.

In my opinion, we know that Dumbledore isn't lying to Harry about Snape acting fast so Dumbledore can "live to tell the tale" of the ring horcrux, and therefore, I assume that Snape is lying about that to Bella. :) Or, I should put it - Snape is omitting facts about himself from his story about Dumbledore. He's editing his story to fit the circumstances of being surrounded by DEs who don't trust him, since helping Dumbledore would prove he was Dumbledore's Man.

Hmmm - then why did Snape bother to save Dumbledore earlier in Book 6, when the hand became withered in the first place? Why didn't he just let him die then? Surely an evil mastermind like Snape could see how weak the old guy was? He tells Bella that Dumbledore is losing his mojo, but on the other hand, he doesn't tell Bella that he helped save Dumbledore's life. So those are contradictory versions of the story.

My take on that particular instance is that it wasn't significant - I don't think Dumbledore was as weakened then as he was at the end of Book 6, plus, DD had his wand. Even when you're plotting against someone, you're bound to pass over certain opportunities looking for the right one. Snape was going along with LV's orders and plans, that's all.

Also, if Snape already knew of LV's plans to have Draco kill DD, he wouldn't want to interfere, possibly - give Draco the chance to prove himself - and that might have occurred before Narcissa made her plea to Snape.

no snape is not good!! and he will never ever ever come to the good side!!:no: :no: well bye peeps! :rockon: :relax: :drool: :p