Sprinkler Systems Uhaul move Lawn care Roses and trees Ford Parts Chrysler Parts Lake Powell New IPod Touch Apps New IPhone Apps IPhone Apps IPad Information IPad Apps Android APPS Android Games APPS Android Systems Android Tablets APPS and Beyond Smartphone Apps Smartphone Games Apps Repair and Tools Tablet PC Car Sharing Car Leasing Tabler Pc Fly Fishing Toyota Cars Vacation Rentals Stock market NYSE SSE Stock Freight & Shipping News Gluten Lactose Gout My Coupon Life Campgrounds Check Outdoor Kitchen Design and Redoo Bath Remodeling Palm Springs Las Vegas Vacation Tipps Lake Powell Boating Homes for lease Electric and green Car Blog Pearls and diamonds Whatsapp and forget SMS Blog, What is Whatsapp App Solar Panel Solar Energie Sun Power Blog
Reader


[Suche]  [Administrator]  [Hinweise zum Reader]  [Startseite]
Fantasy » alt.fan.harry-potter » Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco
Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270054] Mi, 24 Mai 2006 19:53
motormaroon  
1. Harry overhears Snape arguing with Malfoy in the during Slughorn's
party.

>From that he learns that Malfoy is indeed up to something; he was set
upon this task by Voldemort himself; and that Snape made an unbreakable
vow to Narcissa that he would assist Draco in his "task" (which we
don't know at this point of time).

So what did the "Spinner's End" chapter really tell us that we don't
discover along with Harry in "Draco's Detour", "The Slug Club", "The
unbreakable vow" and finally in "The lightning struck tower". What
crucial point was put across that necessitated a departure from Harry's
point of view story telling?

As far as I can see all that Spinsters End showed us was the
circumstances under which Snape took the vow and ended up helping
Draco. Why was that necessary? Is there any other reason than laying
groundwork to prove that Snape is really on the 'Good' side in Book
seven?

2. Does anyone else here suspect that Draco now enjoys the sort of
protection similar to the one Harry does due to Lily's sacrifice?

As we saw from Dumbledore's comment in the cave - Harry's power (and by
extension Draco's) in negligible when compared to Dumbledore. We know
that wizards are capable of wand-less and wordless magic. It does not
seem far fetched that Dumbledore could easily have turned tables on an
impotent Draco even in his weakened condition. Yet he did not. Why?

Could he have done so to protect Draco from Voldemort? Not only by
allowing him to complete his mission, but also without diminishing his
own soul (at the expense of Snape I might add) and in the bargain
giving him some lingering blood protection for the future.

Draco was given a surprisingly sympathetic treatment in Book Six, and
even Harry seems to bear him no special animosity. Is this so to allow
Harry to finally accept the hand Draco extended to him in Book One? It
would allow Harry to better his father - he would not be repeating the
James-Snape saga of lasting animus.

As far as I can see Harry working with Draco is the only way to bring
about the Sorting Hats exhortion about all the houses working together.

What do the good people here think?
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270077 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 06:11
kilroy  
"Marco [at] polo.com" <motormaroon [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148493218.314045.319120 [at] j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> 1. Harry overhears Snape arguing with Malfoy in the during Slughorn's
> party.
>
>>From that he learns that Malfoy is indeed up to something; he was set
> upon this task by Voldemort himself; and that Snape made an unbreakable
> vow to Narcissa that he would assist Draco in his "task" (which we
> don't know at this point of time).
>
> So what did the "Spinner's End" chapter really tell us that we don't
> discover along with Harry in "Draco's Detour", "The Slug Club", "The
> unbreakable vow" and finally in "The lightning struck tower". What
> crucial point was put across that necessitated a departure from Harry's
> point of view story telling?
>
> As far as I can see all that Spinsters End showed us was the
> circumstances under which Snape took the vow and ended up helping
> Draco. Why was that necessary? Is there any other reason than laying
> groundwork to prove that Snape is really on the 'Good' side in Book
> seven?
>
Well, "Spinners End" was necessary because in the previous books Draco has
really played an outlying role in the story, not really being much more than
a thorn in Harry's side. In HBP, he is playing a pivotol role in the book.
It was important that JKR point this out to us from the beginning. As for
Snape, you are correct because it does lay the ground work for something
important in the final book - Is Snape Good or Bad? Also, it begins to make
you wonder about Snape's true alleigiances, but the fact of the matter,
Snape had little choice but to make the Unbreakable Vow. Had he not done
so, it would have been proof that he was still on Dumbledore's side. His
true allegiances will not be known until the last book.

> 2. Does anyone else here suspect that Draco now enjoys the sort of
> protection similar to the one Harry does due to Lily's sacrifice?
>
I doubt it. Remember, Harry's protection was due to the fact that Lily
sacrificed her own life, out of love, to protect her son. No one has done
this for Drace, especially out of love.

> As we saw from Dumbledore's comment in the cave - Harry's power (and by
> extension Draco's) in negligible when compared to Dumbledore. We know
> that wizards are capable of wand-less and wordless magic. It does not
> seem far fetched that Dumbledore could easily have turned tables on an
> impotent Draco even in his weakened condition. Yet he did not. Why?
>
> Could he have done so to protect Draco from Voldemort? Not only by
> allowing him to complete his mission, but also without diminishing his
> own soul (at the expense of Snape I might add) and in the bargain
> giving him some lingering blood protection for the future.
>
Most likely, Dumbledore didn't want to risk hurting Draco. More
importantly, he wanted to give Draco the opportunity to save himself from
the horrible future he would have to endure at Azkaban. It was important to
Dumbledore that Draco had to consciously make the choice to not kill
Dumbledore and to go into hiding from Voldemort.

> Draco was given a surprisingly sympathetic treatment in Book Six, and
> even Harry seems to bear him no special animosity. Is this so to allow
> Harry to finally accept the hand Draco extended to him in Book One? It
> would allow Harry to better his father - he would not be repeating the
> James-Snape saga of lasting animus.
>
> As far as I can see Harry working with Draco is the only way to bring
> about the Sorting Hats exhortion about all the houses working together.
>
Yes, it is true that people probably felt a little sympathy for Draco, and
yes, Harry and Draco working together was probably the way for all of the
houses to begin working together. However, I think by this point, it was no
longer possible. Harry and Draco hated each other too much for there to be
any kind of reconciliation, and Draco's brain has been so washed with the
blood-purity sentiments, that I seriously doubt he could ever be anything
other than a Death Eater. In any case, the point is moot. After HBP, there
is no possible way that Harry would ever reconcile with Draco.
--
Kilroy was here.
"Jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft is not a natural act." - Clint
Eastwood
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270083 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 09:46
motormaroon  
Kilroy wrote:
> "Marco [at] polo.com" <motormaroon [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148493218.314045.319120 [at] j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > 1. Harry overhears Snape arguing with Malfoy in the during Slughorn's
> > party.
> >
> >From that he learns that Malfoy is indeed up to something; he was set
> > upon this task by Voldemort himself; and that Snape made an unbreakable
> > vow to Narcissa that he would assist Draco in his "task" (which we
> > don't know at this point of time).
> >
> > So what did the "Spinner's End" chapter really tell us that we don't
> > discover along with Harry in "Draco's Detour", "The Slug Club", "The
> > unbreakable vow" and finally in "The lightning struck tower". What
> > crucial point was put across that necessitated a departure from Harry's
> > point of view story telling?
> >
> > As far as I can see all that Spinsters End showed us was the
> > circumstances under which Snape took the vow and ended up helping
> > Draco. Why was that necessary? Is there any other reason than laying
> > groundwork to prove that Snape is really on the 'Good' side in Book
> > seven?
> >
> Well, "Spinners End" was necessary because in the previous books Draco has
> really played an outlying role in the story, not really being much more than
> a thorn in Harry's side.
> In HBP, he is playing a pivotal role in the book.
> It was important that JKR point this out to us from the beginning.

I suspect you mean the chapter Draco's Detour here, rather than
Spinner's End.

We know that Draco is up to mischief from that Chapter. Plus Harry
overhears Draco boasting about the job LV assigned to him on the train.
We are pretty much sure by then Draco is up to something significant
even without the exposition in Spinner's End.


> As for
> Snape, you are correct because it does lay the ground work for something
> important in the final book - Is Snape Good or Bad? Also, it begins to make
> you wonder about Snape's true allegiance's, but the fact of the matter,
> Snape had little choice but to make the Unbreakable Vow.

Actually he did! He could have simple said no. Snape seemed to act
completely out of character by agreeing to risk his life for Draco. Why
would he do that? He could have virtuously have said that he would not
interfere in the Dark Lords plans and do nothing unless the Dark Lord
explicitly ordered him to. Yes, he could have merely promised to keep
an eye on young Malfoy and protect him, but surely it was not necessary
to got the extent of agreeing to jeopardising his own life. This makes
no sense if Snape is truly evil all along.

Things make a bit more sense if we consider that Snape is Good (in the
sense he is on OOTP's side, rather than that he is a pleasant and jolly
good fellow). I personally smelled a rat in Narcissa's behaviour. When
you go begging to someone that they look after their kid you are
grateful if they agree to sort of keep an eye on him. How the hell
could someone demand an unbreakable vow to enforce a favour; and why
would someone agree to such a preposterous demand? Understandably
Bellatrix was stupefied that Snape would agree (from the point of view
of Snape's self-interest) to such a idiotic undertaking. JKR seems to
have cleverly misdirected us and make it seem that Bellatrix is
surprised that Snape is loyal to the DE after all rather than to the
fact that Snape agreed to such a ridiculous demand.

I think that a case can be made that Narcissa's visit to Snape was as a
result of direct prompting by Lord Voldemort. Voldemort realised that
Snape was a trusted lieutenant of both himself and Dumbledore and that
meant that at least one of them was being made as ass. If Snape could
fool Dumbledore than perhaps Snape could fool himself too. The only was
of making sure was to see if Snape would agree to kill Dumbledore and
bind himself into an unbreakable vow in the bargain. He attempted to
use Narcissa for this task so as not to arouse Snape's suspicion.

Snape seemed to have used his legilemens skill to probe Narcissa's mind
and seen that it was a setup to test his loyalty ("Snape did not look
at Bellatrix. His black eyes were fixed upon Narcissa's tear-filled
blue ones as she continued to clutch his hand"). To protect his cover
he had to agree to the vow and allay LVs suspicion. Draco's well being
was probably a insignificant consideration for Snape at that time.

The interesting conclusion (if Snape is indeed good) is that Snape
considered his position as a confidant to LV as even more valuable than
Dumbledore's life. If so Snape's help will be vital for Harry to
overthrow LV. That would make for very interesting reading.

> Had he not done
> so, it would have been proof that he was still on Dumbledore's side. His
> true allegiances will not be known until the last book.
>
> > 2. Does anyone else here suspect that Draco now enjoys the sort of
> > protection similar to the one Harry does due to Lily's sacrifice?
> >
> I doubt it. Remember, Harry's protection was due to the fact that Lily
> sacrificed her own life, out of love, to protect her son. No one has done
> this for Draco, especially out of love.

After reading one of JKR's interviews I came away with the impression
that Harry got the protection not because of love (even James loved
Harry and sacrificed himself for him) but because of unstinted,
unhesitant and uncalculated nature of Lily's sacrifice.

You are right; Dumbledore did not sacrifice his life for the love of
Draco. If he did it would be out of duty to protect one of his wards.
It is not known if this kind of sacrifice would also invoke the
'ancient magic'. I just wonder if it were possible though. It does
seems probable given what JKR has said before.

Or heres an idea! the beneficiary is not Draco after all but someone
else who needs protection badly. No not Harry <grin>.

> > As we saw from Dumbledore's comment in the cave - Harry's power (and by
> > extension Draco's) in negligible when compared to Dumbledore. We know
> > that wizards are capable of wand-less and wordless magic. It does not
> > seem far fetched that Dumbledore could easily have turned tables on an
> > impotent Draco even in his weakened condition. Yet he did not. Why?
> >
> > Could he have done so to protect Draco from Voldemort? Not only by
> > allowing him to complete his mission, but also without diminishing his
> > own soul (at the expense of Snape I might add) and in the bargain
> > giving him some lingering blood protection for the future.
> >
> Most likely, Dumbledore didn't want to risk hurting Draco. More
> importantly, he wanted to give Draco the opportunity to save himself from
> the horrible future he would have to endure at Azkaban. It was important to
> Dumbledore that Draco had to consciously make the choice to not kill
> Dumbledore and to go into hiding from Voldemort.

Yes, that would be very like Dumbledore. Draco saving himself would
have a higher priority than Dumbledore saving himself. But the moment
Draco pulled his wand on him Dumbledore must have realised that one of
Dumbledore, Draco or Snape had to die. Dumbledore had to immediately
choose which one of them would cop it.

> > Draco was given a surprisingly sympathetic treatment in Book Six, and
> > even Harry seems to bear him no special animosity. Is this so to allow
> > Harry to finally accept the hand Draco extended to him in Book One? It
> > would allow Harry to better his father - he would not be repeating the
> > James-Snape saga of lasting animus.
> >
> > As far as I can see Harry working with Draco is the only way to bring
> > about the Sorting Hats exhortion about all the houses working together.
> >
> Yes, it is true that people probably felt a little sympathy for Draco, and
> yes, Harry and Draco working together was probably the way for all of the
> houses to begin working together. However, I think by this point, it was no
> longer possible. Harry and Draco hated each other too much for there to be
> any kind of reconciliation, and Draco's brain has been so washed with the
> blood-purity sentiments, that I seriously doubt he could ever be anything
> other than a Death Eater. In any case, the point is moot. After HBP, there
> is no possible way that Harry would ever reconcile with Draco.

I don't think Harry will necessarily have to reconcile with Draco (or
even Snape for that matter) for them to work together. They could all
hate each others guts and and still work for a common purpose. Think
Sirius-Snape in OOTP. Actually Harry mistrusting and second guessing
Draco and Snape all the time while being forced by circumstances to
trust them would be pretty interesting. And if Harry can rise above his
feelings and really trust them he would really end up being
Dumbledore's man through and through.

I can easily conjour a situation when Draco's help would be a necessary
for Harry. We saw in CoS that only a true Griffindor could summon the
sword of Griffindor. If LV has indeed placed a fragment of his soul in
a trinket that belonged to Slytherin only a true Slytherin might
presumably have access to it. After Harry's courage, Hermione's
ingenuity and Ron's loyalty have failed perhaps it will be the Draco's
slytheriness that could be vital.

> --
> Kilroy was here.
> "Jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft is not a natural act." - Clint
> Eastwood
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270085 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 10:00
Toon  
On 24 May 2006 10:53:38 -0700, "Marco [at] polo.com"
<motormaroon [at] gmail.com> wrote:

>1. Harry overhears Snape arguing with Malfoy in the during Slughorn's
>party.
>
>>From that he learns that Malfoy is indeed up to something; he was set
>upon this task by Voldemort himself; and that Snape made an unbreakable
>vow to Narcissa that he would assist Draco in his "task" (which we
>don't know at this point of time).
>
>So what did the "Spinner's End" chapter really tell us that we don't
>discover along with Harry in "Draco's Detour", "The Slug Club", "The
>unbreakable vow" and finally in "The lightning struck tower". What
>crucial point was put across that necessitated a departure from Harry's
>point of view story telling?
>
>As far as I can see all that Spinsters End showed us was the
>circumstances under which Snape took the vow and ended up helping
>Draco. Why was that necessary? Is there any other reason than laying
>groundwork to prove that Snape is really on the 'Good' side in Book
>seven?
>
>2. Does anyone else here suspect that Draco now enjoys the sort of
>protection similar to the one Harry does due to Lily's sacrifice?
>
>As we saw from Dumbledore's comment in the cave - Harry's power (and by
>extension Draco's) in negligible when compared to Dumbledore. We know
>that wizards are capable of wand-less and wordless magic. It does not
>seem far fetched that Dumbledore could easily have turned tables on an
>impotent Draco even in his weakened condition. Yet he did not. Why?
>
>Could he have done so to protect Draco from Voldemort? Not only by
>allowing him to complete his mission, but also without diminishing his
>own soul (at the expense of Snape I might add) and in the bargain
>giving him some lingering blood protection for the future.
>
>Draco was given a surprisingly sympathetic treatment in Book Six, and
>even Harry seems to bear him no special animosity. Is this so to allow
>Harry to finally accept the hand Draco extended to him in Book One? It
>would allow Harry to better his father - he would not be repeating the
>James-Snape saga of lasting animus.
>
>As far as I can see Harry working with Draco is the only way to bring
>about the Sorting Hats exhortion about all the houses working together.
>
>What do the good people here think?

Nobody died loving Draco. He has zero protection.
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270086 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 10:02
Toon  
On Thu, 25 May 2006 04:11:28 GMT, "Kilroy" <kilroy1941 [at] verizon.net>
wrote:

>Yes, it is true that people probably felt a little sympathy for Draco, and
>yes, Harry and Draco working together was probably the way for all of the
>houses to begin working together. However, I think by this point, it was no
>longer possible. Harry and Draco hated each other too much for there to be
>any kind of reconciliation, and Draco's brain has been so washed with the
>blood-purity sentiments, that I seriously doubt he could ever be anything
>other than a Death Eater. In any case, the point is moot. After HBP, there
>is no possible way that Harry would ever reconcile with Draco.

Yeah, who wants to read:
Draco: My Bad.
Harry. Aw shucks. Give us a cuddle.
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270092 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 10:32
motormaroon  
Toon wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 04:11:28 GMT, "Kilroy" <kilroy1941 [at] verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Yes, it is true that people probably felt a little sympathy for Draco, and
> >yes, Harry and Draco working together was probably the way for all of the
> >houses to begin working together. However, I think by this point, it was no
> >longer possible. Harry and Draco hated each other too much for there to be
> >any kind of reconciliation, and Draco's brain has been so washed with the
> >blood-purity sentiments, that I seriously doubt he could ever be anything
> >other than a Death Eater. In any case, the point is moot. After HBP, there
> >is no possible way that Harry would ever reconcile with Draco.
>
> Yeah, who wants to read:
> Draco: My Bad.
> Harry. Aw shucks. Give us a cuddle.

Like I said in my second post, they wouldn't have to reconcile to work
together.
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270095 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 11:18
kilroy  
"Marco [at] polo.com" <motormaroon [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148543205.871849.129820 [at] y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Kilroy wrote:
>> "Marco [at] polo.com" <motormaroon [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1148493218.314045.319120 [at] j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > 1. Harry overhears Snape arguing with Malfoy in the during Slughorn's
>> > party.
>> >
>> >From that he learns that Malfoy is indeed up to something; he was set
>> > upon this task by Voldemort himself; and that Snape made an unbreakable
>> > vow to Narcissa that he would assist Draco in his "task" (which we
>> > don't know at this point of time).
>> >
>> > So what did the "Spinner's End" chapter really tell us that we don't
>> > discover along with Harry in "Draco's Detour", "The Slug Club", "The
>> > unbreakable vow" and finally in "The lightning struck tower". What
>> > crucial point was put across that necessitated a departure from Harry's
>> > point of view story telling?
>> >
>> > As far as I can see all that Spinsters End showed us was the
>> > circumstances under which Snape took the vow and ended up helping
>> > Draco. Why was that necessary? Is there any other reason than laying
>> > groundwork to prove that Snape is really on the 'Good' side in Book
>> > seven?
>> >
>> Well, "Spinners End" was necessary because in the previous books Draco
>> has
>> really played an outlying role in the story, not really being much more
>> than
>> a thorn in Harry's side.
>> In HBP, he is playing a pivotal role in the book.
>> It was important that JKR point this out to us from the beginning.
>
> I suspect you mean the chapter Draco's Detour here, rather than
> Spinner's End.
>
> We know that Draco is up to mischief from that Chapter. Plus Harry
> overhears Draco boasting about the job LV assigned to him on the train.
> We are pretty much sure by then Draco is up to something significant
> even without the exposition in Spinner's End.
>
No, I do mean "Spinner's End." This chapter gives us a real feeling that
Draco is involved in something very sinister that none of the other
instances really gives us. It is something so sinister that his mother
fears enough for Draco's safety that she has to beg Snape to protect him.
The Unbreakable Vow reinforces how serious Draco's task.

Yes, "Draco's Detour" does tell us he is up to mischief, but it does not
really convey how serious it is. Draco's bragging, on the train, really
doesn't tell us much, either, and it could be seen as really nothing more
than bragging, as Draco does have a reputation for it. We really don't begin
to get a feeling for how deep Draco is involved until the argument with
Snape at Slughorn's party. Katie Bell's incident with the necklace and
Ron's poisoning could be indicators, but at this point, we can't be totally
sure of who is behind them both, especially since it seemed that Draco could
not have been involved.
>
>> As for
>> Snape, you are correct because it does lay the ground work for something
>> important in the final book - Is Snape Good or Bad? Also, it begins to
>> make
>> you wonder about Snape's true allegiance's, but the fact of the matter,
>> Snape had little choice but to make the Unbreakable Vow.
>
> Actually he did! He could have simple said no. Snape seemed to act
> completely out of character by agreeing to risk his life for Draco. Why
> would he do that? He could have virtuously have said that he would not
> interfere in the Dark Lords plans and do nothing unless the Dark Lord
> explicitly ordered him to. Yes, he could have merely promised to keep
> an eye on young Malfoy and protect him, but surely it was not necessary
> to got the extent of agreeing to jeopardising his own life. This makes
> no sense if Snape is truly evil all along.
>
> Things make a bit more sense if we consider that Snape is Good (in the
> sense he is on OOTP's side, rather than that he is a pleasant and jolly
> good fellow). I personally smelled a rat in Narcissa's behaviour. When
> you go begging to someone that they look after their kid you are
> grateful if they agree to sort of keep an eye on him. How the hell
> could someone demand an unbreakable vow to enforce a favour; and why
> would someone agree to such a preposterous demand? Understandably
> Bellatrix was stupefied that Snape would agree (from the point of view
> of Snape's self-interest) to such a idiotic undertaking. JKR seems to
> have cleverly misdirected us and make it seem that Bellatrix is
> surprised that Snape is loyal to the DE after all rather than to the
> fact that Snape agreed to such a ridiculous demand.
>
> I think that a case can be made that Narcissa's visit to Snape was as a
> result of direct prompting by Lord Voldemort. Voldemort realised that
> Snape was a trusted lieutenant of both himself and Dumbledore and that
> meant that at least one of them was being made as ass. If Snape could
> fool Dumbledore than perhaps Snape could fool himself too. The only was
> of making sure was to see if Snape would agree to kill Dumbledore and
> bind himself into an unbreakable vow in the bargain. He attempted to
> use Narcissa for this task so as not to arouse Snape's suspicion.
>
> Snape seemed to have used his legilemens skill to probe Narcissa's mind
> and seen that it was a setup to test his loyalty ("Snape did not look
> at Bellatrix. His black eyes were fixed upon Narcissa's tear-filled
> blue ones as she continued to clutch his hand"). To protect his cover
> he had to agree to the vow and allay LVs suspicion. Draco's well being
> was probably a insignificant consideration for Snape at that time.
>
> The interesting conclusion (if Snape is indeed good) is that Snape
> considered his position as a confidant to LV as even more valuable than
> Dumbledore's life. If so Snape's help will be vital for Harry to
> overthrow LV. That would make for very interesting reading.
>
You made my point for me on this one. He had to prove his allegiance.
Whether he is good or bad, it had to be proven.
>
>> Had he not done
>> so, it would have been proof that he was still on Dumbledore's side. His
>> true allegiances will not be known until the last book.
>>
>> > 2. Does anyone else here suspect that Draco now enjoys the sort of
>> > protection similar to the one Harry does due to Lily's sacrifice?
>> >
>> I doubt it. Remember, Harry's protection was due to the fact that Lily
>> sacrificed her own life, out of love, to protect her son. No one has
>> done
>> this for Draco, especially out of love.
>
> After reading one of JKR's interviews I came away with the impression
> that Harry got the protection not because of love (even James loved
> Harry and sacrificed himself for him) but because of unstinted,
> unhesitant and uncalculated nature of Lily's sacrifice.
>
> You are right; Dumbledore did not sacrifice his life for the love of
> Draco. If he did it would be out of duty to protect one of his wards.
> It is not known if this kind of sacrifice would also invoke the
> 'ancient magic'. I just wonder if it were possible though. It does
> seems probable given what JKR has said before.
>
Yes, but the how many times have we seen it mentioned in the books that it
was love that saved Harry? Why would JKR write this over and over again,
and then suddenly go back by saying that sacrificing yourself to protect
someone else, even if you don't love them, does the same thing?
>
> Or heres an idea! the beneficiary is not Draco after all but someone
> else who needs protection badly. No not Harry <grin>.
>
Do we really think that Dumbledore loves Snape?
>
>> > As we saw from Dumbledore's comment in the cave - Harry's power (and by
>> > extension Draco's) in negligible when compared to Dumbledore. We know
>> > that wizards are capable of wand-less and wordless magic. It does not
>> > seem far fetched that Dumbledore could easily have turned tables on an
>> > impotent Draco even in his weakened condition. Yet he did not. Why?
>> >
>> > Could he have done so to protect Draco from Voldemort? Not only by
>> > allowing him to complete his mission, but also without diminishing his
>> > own soul (at the expense of Snape I might add) and in the bargain
>> > giving him some lingering blood protection for the future.
>> >
>> Most likely, Dumbledore didn't want to risk hurting Draco. More
>> importantly, he wanted to give Draco the opportunity to save himself from
>> the horrible future he would have to endure at Azkaban. It was important
>> to
>> Dumbledore that Draco had to consciously make the choice to not kill
>> Dumbledore and to go into hiding from Voldemort.
>
> Yes, that would be very like Dumbledore. Draco saving himself would
> have a higher priority than Dumbledore saving himself. But the moment
> Draco pulled his wand on him Dumbledore must have realised that one of
> Dumbledore, Draco or Snape had to die. Dumbledore had to immediately
> choose which one of them would cop it.
>
>> > Draco was given a surprisingly sympathetic treatment in Book Six, and
>> > even Harry seems to bear him no special animosity. Is this so to allow
>> > Harry to finally accept the hand Draco extended to him in Book One? It
>> > would allow Harry to better his father - he would not be repeating the
>> > James-Snape saga of lasting animus.
>> >
>> > As far as I can see Harry working with Draco is the only way to bring
>> > about the Sorting Hats exhortion about all the houses working together.
>> >
>> Yes, it is true that people probably felt a little sympathy for Draco,
>> and
>> yes, Harry and Draco working together was probably the way for all of the
>> houses to begin working together. However, I think by this point, it was
>> no
>> longer possible. Harry and Draco hated each other too much for there to
>> be
>> any kind of reconciliation, and Draco's brain has been so washed with the
>> blood-purity sentiments, that I seriously doubt he could ever be anything
>> other than a Death Eater. In any case, the point is moot. After HBP,
>> there
>> is no possible way that Harry would ever reconcile with Draco.
>
> I don't think Harry will necessarily have to reconcile with Draco (or
> even Snape for that matter) for them to work together. They could all
> hate each others guts and and still work for a common purpose. Think
> Sirius-Snape in OOTP. Actually Harry mistrusting and second guessing
> Draco and Snape all the time while being forced by circumstances to
> trust them would be pretty interesting. And if Harry can rise above his
> feelings and really trust them he would really end up being
> Dumbledore's man through and through.
>
> I can easily conjour a situation when Draco's help would be a necessary
> for Harry. We saw in CoS that only a true Griffindor could summon the
> sword of Griffindor. If LV has indeed placed a fragment of his soul in
> a trinket that belonged to Slytherin only a true Slytherin might
> presumably have access to it. After Harry's courage, Hermione's
> ingenuity and Ron's loyalty have failed perhaps it will be the Draco's
> slytheriness that could be vital.
>
For Harry, what Draco did was something that is probably unforgiveable, and
something that would not incline Harry to work with Draco, and I don't think
Draco would ever work with Harry or Ron (the Blood Traitor) or Hermione (the
filthy little Mudblood).
>> --
>> Kilroy was here.
>> "Jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft is not a natural act." - Clint
>> Eastwood
>
--
Kilroy was here.
"Always forgive your enemies. Nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270098 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 16:45
tbarry22  
Toon wrote:
> On 24 May 2006 10:53:38 -0700, "Marco [at] polo.com"
> <motormaroon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >1. Harry overhears Snape arguing with Malfoy in the during Slughorn's
> >party.
> >
> >>From that he learns that Malfoy is indeed up to something; he was set
> >upon this task by Voldemort himself; and that Snape made an unbreakable
> >vow to Narcissa that he would assist Draco in his "task" (which we
> >don't know at this point of time).
> >
> >So what did the "Spinner's End" chapter really tell us that we don't
> >discover along with Harry in "Draco's Detour", "The Slug Club", "The
> >unbreakable vow" and finally in "The lightning struck tower". What
> >crucial point was put across that necessitated a departure from Harry's
> >point of view story telling?
> >
> >As far as I can see all that Spinsters End showed us was the
> >circumstances under which Snape took the vow and ended up helping
> >Draco. Why was that necessary? Is there any other reason than laying
> >groundwork to prove that Snape is really on the 'Good' side in Book
> >seven?
> >
> >2. Does anyone else here suspect that Draco now enjoys the sort of
> >protection similar to the one Harry does due to Lily's sacrifice?
> >
> >As we saw from Dumbledore's comment in the cave - Harry's power (and by
> >extension Draco's) in negligible when compared to Dumbledore. We know
> >that wizards are capable of wand-less and wordless magic. It does not
> >seem far fetched that Dumbledore could easily have turned tables on an
> >impotent Draco even in his weakened condition. Yet he did not. Why?
> >
> >Could he have done so to protect Draco from Voldemort? Not only by
> >allowing him to complete his mission, but also without diminishing his
> >own soul (at the expense of Snape I might add) and in the bargain
> >giving him some lingering blood protection for the future.
> >
> >Draco was given a surprisingly sympathetic treatment in Book Six, and
> >even Harry seems to bear him no special animosity. Is this so to allow
> >Harry to finally accept the hand Draco extended to him in Book One? It
> >would allow Harry to better his father - he would not be repeating the
> >James-Snape saga of lasting animus.
> >
> >As far as I can see Harry working with Draco is the only way to bring
> >about the Sorting Hats exhortion about all the houses working together.
> >
> >What do the good people here think?
>
> Nobody died loving Draco. He has zero protection.

Exactly. JKR has EXPLICITLY stated that Harry survived because Lily
sacrificed her life when she could have lived. Dumbledore was the
target. Dumbledore was killed. There is no sacrifice.
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270100 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 17:22
nystulc  
tbarry22 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> JKR has EXPLICITLY stated that Harry survived because Lily
> sacrificed her life when she could have lived.

Right.

> Dumbledore was the
> target. Dumbledore was killed. There is no sacrifice.

Wait. I thought you just acknowledged that, according to Rowling, what
can trigger the protective spell is whether a person who could have
lived instead chooses to sacrifice himself for the sake of another.

Is it not possible that this is precisely what DD did for Draco?

You seem to be of the opinion that the spell cannot be triggered when
the person who sacrifices himself is a "target". I have two objections
to this: (1) You just made up this criteria; and (2) Rowling has
hinted that her books are in some sense Christian, and this criteria
would exclude the sacrifice of Christ.
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270102 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 17:57
motormaroon  
tbarry22 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> Toon wrote:
> > On 24 May 2006 10:53:38 -0700, "Marco [at] polo.com"
> > <motormaroon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >1. Harry overhears Snape arguing with Malfoy in the during Slughorn's
> > >party.
> > >
> > >>From that he learns that Malfoy is indeed up to something; he was set
> > >upon this task by Voldemort himself; and that Snape made an unbreakable
> > >vow to Narcissa that he would assist Draco in his "task" (which we
> > >don't know at this point of time).
> > >
> > >So what did the "Spinner's End" chapter really tell us that we don't
> > >discover along with Harry in "Draco's Detour", "The Slug Club", "The
> > >unbreakable vow" and finally in "The lightning struck tower". What
> > >crucial point was put across that necessitated a departure from Harry's
> > >point of view story telling?
> > >
> > >As far as I can see all that Spinsters End showed us was the
> > >circumstances under which Snape took the vow and ended up helping
> > >Draco. Why was that necessary? Is there any other reason than laying
> > >groundwork to prove that Snape is really on the 'Good' side in Book
> > >seven?
> > >
> > >2. Does anyone else here suspect that Draco now enjoys the sort of
> > >protection similar to the one Harry does due to Lily's sacrifice?
> > >
> > >As we saw from Dumbledore's comment in the cave - Harry's power (and by
> > >extension Draco's) in negligible when compared to Dumbledore. We know
> > >that wizards are capable of wand-less and wordless magic. It does not
> > >seem far fetched that Dumbledore could easily have turned tables on an
> > >impotent Draco even in his weakened condition. Yet he did not. Why?
> > >
> > >Could he have done so to protect Draco from Voldemort? Not only by
> > >allowing him to complete his mission, but also without diminishing his
> > >own soul (at the expense of Snape I might add) and in the bargain
> > >giving him some lingering blood protection for the future.
> > >
> > >Draco was given a surprisingly sympathetic treatment in Book Six, and
> > >even Harry seems to bear him no special animosity. Is this so to allow
> > >Harry to finally accept the hand Draco extended to him in Book One? It
> > >would allow Harry to better his father - he would not be repeating the
> > >James-Snape saga of lasting animus.
> > >
> > >As far as I can see Harry working with Draco is the only way to bring
> > >about the Sorting Hats exhortion about all the houses working together.
> > >
> > >What do the good people here think?
> >
> > Nobody died loving Draco. He has zero protection.
>
> Exactly. JKR has EXPLICITLY stated that Harry survived because Lily
> sacrificed her life when she could have lived. Dumbledore was the
> target. Dumbledore was killed. There is no sacrifice.

So what do you think Dumbledore meant when he told Draco that it was
not Draco's but Dumbledores mercy that counted now?
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270104 ] Do, 25 Mai 2006 18:24
motormaroon  
Kilroy wrote:
> "Marco [at] polo.com" <motormaroon [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1148543205.871849.129820 [at] y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> > Kilroy wrote:
> >> "Marco [at] polo.com" <motormaroon [at] gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1148493218.314045.319120 [at] j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >> > 1. Harry overhears Snape arguing with Malfoy in the during Slughorn's
> >> > party.
> >> >
> >> >From that he learns that Malfoy is indeed up to something; he was set
> >> > upon this task by Voldemort himself; and that Snape made an unbreakable
> >> > vow to Narcissa that he would assist Draco in his "task" (which we
> >> > don't know at this point of time).
> >> >
> >> > So what did the "Spinner's End" chapter really tell us that we don't
> >> > discover along with Harry in "Draco's Detour", "The Slug Club", "The
> >> > unbreakable vow" and finally in "The lightning struck tower". What
> >> > crucial point was put across that necessitated a departure from Harry's
> >> > point of view story telling?
> >> >
> >> > As far as I can see all that Spinsters End showed us was the
> >> > circumstances under which Snape took the vow and ended up helping
> >> > Draco. Why was that necessary? Is there any other reason than laying
> >> > groundwork to prove that Snape is really on the 'Good' side in Book
> >> > seven?
> >> >
> >> Well, "Spinners End" was necessary because in the previous books Draco
> >> has
> >> really played an outlying role in the story, not really being much more
> >> than
> >> a thorn in Harry's side.
> >> In HBP, he is playing a pivotal role in the book.
> >> It was important that JKR point this out to us from the beginning.
> >
> > I suspect you mean the chapter Draco's Detour here, rather than
> > Spinner's End.
> >
> > We know that Draco is up to mischief from that Chapter. Plus Harry
> > overhears Draco boasting about the job LV assigned to him on the train.
> > We are pretty much sure by then Draco is up to something significant
> > even without the exposition in Spinner's End.
> >
> No, I do mean "Spinner's End." This chapter gives us a real feeling that
> Draco is involved in something very sinister that none of the other
> instances really gives us. It is something so sinister that his mother
> fears enough for Draco's safety that she has to beg Snape to protect him.
> The Unbreakable Vow reinforces how serious Draco's task.
>
> Yes, "Draco's Detour" does tell us he is up to mischief, but it does not
> really convey how serious it is. Draco's bragging, on the train, really
> doesn't tell us much, either, and it could be seen as really nothing more
> than bragging, as Draco does have a reputation for it. We really don't begin
> to get a feeling for how deep Draco is involved until the argument with
> Snape at Slughorn's party. Katie Bell's incident with the necklace and
> Ron's poisoning could be indicators, but at this point, we can't be totally
> sure of who is behind them both, especially since it seemed that Draco could
> not have been involved.

You are quite correct and I agree largely with what you say. But I
still do feel that had it only been a matter of showing that Draco was
involved in something very sinister it could still have been done with
out necessitating Spinner's End. The deadly serious nature of business
in which Draco was engaged could still have been conveyed in Draco's
detour with perhaps minimal modifications by JKR.

Spinner's End was all about Snape. And if Snape *is* evil then there
was no point in having that chapter. We could have been better shocked
if Snape had just popped up on the astronomy tower and AK'd DD like he
did.

What was the point of introducing the plot line of the unbreakable vow?
It is flat. listless and extraneous unless it is meant to lead to a
twist further on.

> >
> >> As for
> >> Snape, you are correct because it does lay the ground work for something
> >> important in the final book - Is Snape Good or Bad? Also, it begins to
> >> make
> >> you wonder about Snape's true allegiance's, but the fact of the matter,
> >> Snape had little choice but to make the Unbreakable Vow.
> >
> > Actually he did! He could have simple said no. Snape seemed to act
> > completely out of character by agreeing to risk his life for Draco. Why
> > would he do that? He could have virtuously have said that he would not
> > interfere in the Dark Lords plans and do nothing unless the Dark Lord
> > explicitly ordered him to. Yes, he could have merely promised to keep
> > an eye on young Malfoy and protect him, but surely it was not necessary
> > to got the extent of agreeing to jeopardising his own life. This makes
> > no sense if Snape is truly evil all along.
> >
> > Things make a bit more sense if we consider that Snape is Good (in the
> > sense he is on OOTP's side, rather than that he is a pleasant and jolly
> > good fellow). I personally smelled a rat in Narcissa's behaviour. When
> > you go begging to someone that they look after their kid you are
> > grateful if they agree to sort of keep an eye on him. How the hell
> > could someone demand an unbreakable vow to enforce a favour; and why
> > would someone agree to such a preposterous demand? Understandably
> > Bellatrix was stupefied that Snape would agree (from the point of view
> > of Snape's self-interest) to such a idiotic undertaking. JKR seems to
> > have cleverly misdirected us and make it seem that Bellatrix is
> > surprised that Snape is loyal to the DE after all rather than to the
> > fact that Snape agreed to such a ridiculous demand.
> >
> > I think that a case can be made that Narcissa's visit to Snape was as a
> > result of direct prompting by Lord Voldemort. Voldemort realised that
> > Snape was a trusted lieutenant of both himself and Dumbledore and that
> > meant that at least one of them was being made as ass. If Snape could
> > fool Dumbledore than perhaps Snape could fool himself too. The only was
> > of making sure was to see if Snape would agree to kill Dumbledore and
> > bind himself into an unbreakable vow in the bargain. He attempted to
> > use Narcissa for this task so as not to arouse Snape's suspicion.
> >
> > Snape seemed to have used his legilemens skill to probe Narcissa's mind
> > and seen that it was a setup to test his loyalty ("Snape did not look
> > at Bellatrix. His black eyes were fixed upon Narcissa's tear-filled
> > blue ones as she continued to clutch his hand"). To protect his cover
> > he had to agree to the vow and allay LVs suspicion. Draco's well being
> > was probably a insignificant consideration for Snape at that time.
> >
> > The interesting conclusion (if Snape is indeed good) is that Snape
> > considered his position as a confidant to LV as even more valuable than
> > Dumbledore's life. If so Snape's help will be vital for Harry to
> > overthrow LV. That would make for very interesting reading.
> >
> You made my point for me on this one. He had to prove his allegiance.
> Whether he is good or bad, it had to be proven.

If Snape is indeed evil, then how exactly does exposition of LVs
suspicions about Snape further the story arc.

> >
> >> Had he not done
> >> so, it would have been proof that he was still on Dumbledore's side. His
> >> true allegiances will not be known until the last book.
> >>
> >> > 2. Does anyone else here suspect that Draco now enjoys the sort of
> >> > protection similar to the one Harry does due to Lily's sacrifice?
> >> >
> >> I doubt it. Remember, Harry's protection was due to the fact that Lily
> >> sacrificed her own life, out of love, to protect her son. No one has
> >> done
> >> this for Draco, especially out of love.
> >
> > After reading one of JKR's interviews I came away with the impression
> > that Harry got the protection not because of love (even James loved
> > Harry and sacrificed himself for him) but because of unstinted,
> > unhesitant and uncalculated nature of Lily's sacrifice.
> >
> > You are right; Dumbledore did not sacrifice his life for the love of
> > Draco. If he did it would be out of duty to protect one of his wards.
> > It is not known if this kind of sacrifice would also invoke the
> > 'ancient magic'. I just wonder if it were possible though. It does
> > seems probable given what JKR has said before.
> >
> Yes, but the how many times have we seen it mentioned in the books that it
> was love that saved Harry? Why would JKR write this over and over again,
> and then suddenly go back by saying that sacrificing yourself to protect
> someone else, even if you don't love them, does the same thing?
> >
> > Or heres an idea! the beneficiary is not Draco after all but someone
> > else who needs protection badly. No not Harry <grin>.
> >
> Do we really think that Dumbledore loves Snape?

No, no - just kidding. DD might have kind and noble, but nobody can be
*that* good.

> >
> >> > As we saw from Dumbledore's comment in the cave - Harry's power (and by
> >> > extension Draco's) in negligible when compared to Dumbledore. We know
> >> > that wizards are capable of wand-less and wordless magic. It does not
> >> > seem far fetched that Dumbledore could easily have turned tables on an
> >> > impotent Draco even in his weakened condition. Yet he did not. Why?
> >> >
> >> > Could he have done so to protect Draco from Voldemort? Not only by
> >> > allowing him to complete his mission, but also without diminishing his
> >> > own soul (at the expense of Snape I might add) and in the bargain
> >> > giving him some lingering blood protection for the future.
> >> >
> >> Most likely, Dumbledore didn't want to risk hurting Draco. More
> >> importantly, he wanted to give Draco the opportunity to save himself from
> >> the horrible future he would have to endure at Azkaban. It was important
> >> to
> >> Dumbledore that Draco had to consciously make the choice to not kill
> >> Dumbledore and to go into hiding from Voldemort.
> >
> > Yes, that would be very like Dumbledore. Draco saving himself would
> > have a higher priority than Dumbledore saving himself. But the moment
> > Draco pulled his wand on him Dumbledore must have realised that one of
> > Dumbledore, Draco or Snape had to die. Dumbledore had to immediately
> > choose which one of them would cop it.
> >
> >> > Draco was given a surprisingly sympathetic treatment in Book Six, and
> >> > even Harry seems to bear him no special animosity. Is this so to allow
> >> > Harry to finally accept the hand Draco extended to him in Book One? It
> >> > would allow Harry to better his father - he would not be repeating the
> >> > James-Snape saga of lasting animus.
> >> >
> >> > As far as I can see Harry working with Draco is the only way to bring
> >> > about the Sorting Hats exhortion about all the houses working together.
> >> >
> >> Yes, it is true that people probably felt a little sympathy for Draco,
> >> and
> >> yes, Harry and Draco working together was probably the way for all of the
> >> houses to begin working together. However, I think by this point, it was
> >> no
> >> longer possible. Harry and Draco hated each other too much for there to
> >> be
> >> any kind of reconciliation, and Draco's brain has been so washed with the
> >> blood-purity sentiments, that I seriously doubt he could ever be anything
> >> other than a Death Eater. In any case, the point is moot. After HBP,
> >> there
> >> is no possible way that Harry would ever reconcile with Draco.
> >
> > I don't think Harry will necessarily have to reconcile with Draco (or
> > even Snape for that matter) for them to work together. They could all
> > hate each others guts and and still work for a common purpose. Think
> > Sirius-Snape in OOTP. Actually Harry mistrusting and second guessing
> > Draco and Snape all the time while being forced by circumstances to
> > trust them would be pretty interesting. And if Harry can rise above his
> > feelings and really trust them he would really end up being
> > Dumbledore's man through and through.
> >
> > I can easily conjour a situation when Draco's help would be a necessary
> > for Harry. We saw in CoS that only a true Griffindor could summon the
> > sword of Griffindor. If LV has indeed placed a fragment of his soul in
> > a trinket that belonged to Slytherin only a true Slytherin might
> > presumably have access to it. After Harry's courage, Hermione's
> > ingenuity and Ron's loyalty have failed perhaps it will be the Draco's
> > slytheriness that could be vital.
> >
> For Harry, what Draco did was something that is probably unforgiveable, and
> something that would not incline Harry to work with Draco,

Actually I would disagree with you on this quite a bit..

"Harry had not spared Malfoy much thought. His animosity was all for
Snape, but he had not forgotten the fear in Malfoy's voice on that
Tower top, nor the fact that he had lowered his wand before the other
Death Eaters arrived. Harry did not believe that Malfoy would have
killed Dumbledore. He despised Malfoy still for his infatuation with
the Dark Arts, but now the tiniest drop of pity mingled with his
dislike. Where, Harry wondered, was Malfoy now, and what was Voldemort
making him do under threat of killing him and his parents?"

> and I don't think
> Draco would ever work with Harry or Ron (the Blood Traitor) or Hermione (the
> filthy little Mudblood).

Politics and desperation make quite strange bed fellows...

> >> --
> >> Kilroy was here.
> >> "Jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft is not a natural act." - Clint
> >> Eastwood
> >
> --
> Kilroy was here.
> "Always forgive your enemies. Nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270132 ] Fr, 26 Mai 2006 09:56
Toon  
On Thu, 25 May 2006 09:18:23 GMT, "Kilroy" <kilroy1941 [at] verizon.net>
wrote:

>Katie Bell's incident with the necklace and
>Ron's poisoning could be indicators, but at this point, we can't be totally
>sure of who is behind them both, especially since it seemed that Draco could
>not have been involved.

Let's see. Katie was charged with delivering a package to an unknown
party. It could be anybody. Most likely a teacher.

Ron drank poison from Slughorn. Why would one ever think it was a
drink intended for DD? It'd seem Slughorn was the target. Or maybe
all the teachers.
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270157 ] Sa, 27 Mai 2006 00:56
motormaroon  
Toon wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 09:18:23 GMT, "Kilroy" <kilroy1941 [at] verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Katie Bell's incident with the necklace and
> >Ron's poisoning could be indicators, but at this point, we can't be totally
> >sure of who is behind them both, especially since it seemed that Draco could
> >not have been involved.
>
> Let's see. Katie was charged with delivering a package to an unknown
> party. It could be anybody. Most likely a teacher.
>
> Ron drank poison from Slughorn. Why would one ever think it was a
> drink intended for DD? It'd seem Slughorn was the target. Or maybe
> all the teachers.

The discussion is not about who the target was; but who the likely
perpetrator was at that point in the narrative.
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #270165 ] Sa, 27 Mai 2006 10:07
Toon  
On 26 May 2006 15:56:00 -0700, "Marco [at] polo.com"
<motormaroon [at] gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Toon wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 09:18:23 GMT, "Kilroy" <kilroy1941 [at] verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Katie Bell's incident with the necklace and
>> >Ron's poisoning could be indicators, but at this point, we can't be totally
>> >sure of who is behind them both, especially since it seemed that Draco could
>> >not have been involved.
>>
>> Let's see. Katie was charged with delivering a package to an unknown
>> party. It could be anybody. Most likely a teacher.
>>
>> Ron drank poison from Slughorn. Why would one ever think it was a
>> drink intended for DD? It'd seem Slughorn was the target. Or maybe
>> all the teachers.
>
>The discussion is not about who the target was; but who the likely
>perpetrator was at that point in the narrative.


Right. And the victims did not lead to DD as the true victim, nor to
Malfoy as the perpetrator. And if you know the victim, it helps
narrow down the guilty party.
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #281554 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 20:20
tbarry22  
Marco [at] polo.com wrote:
> tbarry22 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> > Toon wrote:
> > > On 24 May 2006 10:53:38 -0700, "Marco [at] polo.com"
> > > <motormaroon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >1. Harry overhears Snape arguing with Malfoy in the during Slughorn's
> > > >party.
> > > >
> > > >>From that he learns that Malfoy is indeed up to something; he was set
> > > >upon this task by Voldemort himself; and that Snape made an unbreakable
> > > >vow to Narcissa that he would assist Draco in his "task" (which we
> > > >don't know at this point of time).
> > > >
> > > >So what did the "Spinner's End" chapter really tell us that we don't
> > > >discover along with Harry in "Draco's Detour", "The Slug Club", "The
> > > >unbreakable vow" and finally in "The lightning struck tower". What
> > > >crucial point was put across that necessitated a departure from Harry's
> > > >point of view story telling?
> > > >
> > > >As far as I can see all that Spinsters End showed us was the
> > > >circumstances under which Snape took the vow and ended up helping
> > > >Draco. Why was that necessary? Is there any other reason than laying
> > > >groundwork to prove that Snape is really on the 'Good' side in Book
> > > >seven?
> > > >
> > > >2. Does anyone else here suspect that Draco now enjoys the sort of
> > > >protection similar to the one Harry does due to Lily's sacrifice?
> > > >
> > > >As we saw from Dumbledore's comment in the cave - Harry's power (and by
> > > >extension Draco's) in negligible when compared to Dumbledore. We know
> > > >that wizards are capable of wand-less and wordless magic. It does not
> > > >seem far fetched that Dumbledore could easily have turned tables on an
> > > >impotent Draco even in his weakened condition. Yet he did not. Why?
> > > >
> > > >Could he have done so to protect Draco from Voldemort? Not only by
> > > >allowing him to complete his mission, but also without diminishing his
> > > >own soul (at the expense of Snape I might add) and in the bargain
> > > >giving him some lingering blood protection for the future.
> > > >
> > > >Draco was given a surprisingly sympathetic treatment in Book Six, and
> > > >even Harry seems to bear him no special animosity. Is this so to allow
> > > >Harry to finally accept the hand Draco extended to him in Book One? It
> > > >would allow Harry to better his father - he would not be repeating the
> > > >James-Snape saga of lasting animus.
> > > >
> > > >As far as I can see Harry working with Draco is the only way to bring
> > > >about the Sorting Hats exhortion about all the houses working together.
> > > >
> > > >What do the good people here think?
> > >
> > > Nobody died loving Draco. He has zero protection.
> >
> > Exactly. JKR has EXPLICITLY stated that Harry survived because Lily
> > sacrificed her life when she could have lived. Dumbledore was the
> > target. Dumbledore was killed. There is no sacrifice.
>
> So what do you think Dumbledore meant when he told Draco that it was
> not Draco's but Dumbledores mercy that counted now?

Draco was NOT going to be killed. At least not at the present, and not
by anyone that was fighting at Hogwarts. Dumbledore was the one
targeted for Death, not Malfoy. No one was firing AK at Malfoy.
Dumbledore didn't die to protect Malfoy. There is no protection.
Honestly, some of you should really stop advancing obviously ludicrous
theories. JKR is NOT going to have another "protected" person in the
series. It woul be a cop-out.
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #281555 ] Do, 08 Juni 2006 20:52
Jonathan Ellis  
<tbarry22 [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1149790845.531627.248570 [at] j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Marco [at] polo.com wrote:
> > tbarry22 [at] yahoo.com wrote:
> > > Toon wrote:
> > > > On 24 May 2006 10:53:38 -0700, "Marco [at] polo.com"
> > > > <motormaroon [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >1. Harry overhears Snape arguing with Malfoy in the during
Slughorn's
> > > > >party.
> > > > >
> > > > >>From that he learns that Malfoy is indeed up to something;
he was set
> > > > >upon this task by Voldemort himself; and that Snape made an
unbreakable
> > > > >vow to Narcissa that he would assist Draco in his "task"
(which we
> > > > >don't know at this point of time).
> > > > >
> > > > >So what did the "Spinner's End" chapter really tell us that
we don't
> > > > >discover along with Harry in "Draco's Detour", "The Slug
Club", "The
> > > > >unbreakable vow" and finally in "The lightning struck tower".
What
> > > > >crucial point was put across that necessitated a departure
from Harry's
> > > > >point of view story telling?
> > > > >
> > > > >As far as I can see all that Spinsters End showed us was the
> > > > >circumstances under which Snape took the vow and ended up
helping
> > > > >Draco. Why was that necessary? Is there any other reason than
laying
> > > > >groundwork to prove that Snape is really on the 'Good' side
in Book
> > > > >seven?
> > > > >
> > > > >2. Does anyone else here suspect that Draco now enjoys the
sort of
> > > > >protection similar to the one Harry does due to Lily's
sacrifice?
> > > > >
> > > > >As we saw from Dumbledore's comment in the cave - Harry's
power (and by
> > > > >extension Draco's) in negligible when compared to Dumbledore.
We know
> > > > >that wizards are capable of wand-less and wordless magic. It
does not
> > > > >seem far fetched that Dumbledore could easily have turned
tables on an
> > > > >impotent Draco even in his weakened condition. Yet he did
not. Why?
> > > > >
> > > > >Could he have done so to protect Draco from Voldemort? Not
only by
> > > > >allowing him to complete his mission, but also without
diminishing his
> > > > >own soul (at the expense of Snape I might add) and in the
bargain
> > > > >giving him some lingering blood protection for the future.
> > > > >
> > > > >Draco was given a surprisingly sympathetic treatment in Book
Six, and
> > > > >even Harry seems to bear him no special animosity. Is this so
to allow
> > > > >Harry to finally accept the hand Draco extended to him in
Book One? It
> > > > >would allow Harry to better his father - he would not be
repeating the
> > > > >James-Snape saga of lasting animus.
> > > > >
> > > > >As far as I can see Harry working with Draco is the only way
to bring
> > > > >about the Sorting Hats exhortion about all the houses working
together.
> > > > >
> > > > >What do the good people here think?
> > > >
> > > > Nobody died loving Draco. He has zero protection.
> > >
> > > Exactly. JKR has EXPLICITLY stated that Harry survived because
Lily
> > > sacrificed her life when she could have lived. Dumbledore was
the
> > > target. Dumbledore was killed. There is no sacrifice.
> >
> > So what do you think Dumbledore meant when he told Draco that it
was
> > not Draco's but Dumbledores mercy that counted now?
>
> Draco was NOT going to be killed.

But threatening to murder Dumbledore, and nearly having other students
killed, could have resulted in a one-way ticket to Azkaban. Dumbledore
could offer him THAT much "mercy" at least, as in to not reveal what
he knew of Draco's involvement in those events.

> At least not at the present, and not
> by anyone that was fighting at Hogwarts. Dumbledore was the one
> targeted for Death, not Malfoy. No one was firing AK at Malfoy.

And you think Draco Malfoy would not have been in danger from
Voldemort if he refused, or failed, in killing Dumbledore? And right
now, in front of witnesses, he has shown that he does not have the
courage to actually murder someone face to face, not even a
defenceless person with no wand, not even when he has four powerful
allies to back him up including a werewolf. He's "failed" all right.
He's turned out to be more like Regulus Black than like his own
father - doesn't actually have the nerve to go through with the worst
things that he's asked to do. It's quite a different thing to do it
"at a distance", to leave traps that people could fall into or avoid -
but he can't do it personally. And he now knows it. As do several
other Death Eaters, including Fenrir Greyback.

This is the entire point of what Narcissa Malfoy is concerned about in
the first chapter of the book. I don't believe Narcissa is concerned
that Draco will be killed by Dumbledore in a serious attempt to murder
him - but by Voldemort, for failing to actually attempt the job
satisfactorily. Snape now has to protect Draco Malfoy from Voldemort -
or let him be tortured and possibly killed for his "failure", for
which Snape "made amends" (at least in Voldemort's eyes)...

....And this makes Narcissa Malfoy now a potential turncoat against
Voldemort. She's got a human side. Her son now knows that he can talk
the talk, but he simply can't walk the walk. He can bully and bluster,
but not murder. Snape knows it. And I have no doubt that Narcissa will
hear it very soon - from other Death Eaters if not from Snape. And she
cares enough about Draco that she couldn't allow Voldemort to torture
or murder him for this "failure" - she is not like her sister
Bellatrix, no matter how much she might have wished to be. I suspect
she's not, in fact, indeed a Death Eater herself at all, merely a
sympathiser who might herself be beginnng to get scared? She didn't
join her husband on the raid on the Ministry, and has played no part
in the previous politicking against Dumbledore, nor did she appear to
have anything to do with the Chamber of Secrets, nor was she present
when Voldemort called his followers to the grave of Tom Riddle
senior...

I can imagine Narcissa Malfoy trying to turn against Voldemort and
give valuable information to Harry, as a possible major plot point.
And I can imagine Harry not trusting her either.

Jonathan.
Re: Some questions and observations regarding Snape and Draco [message #282382 ] Do, 22 Juni 2006 21:30
ilaine  
In article <1148493218.314045.319120 [at] j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Marco [at] polo.com <motormaroon [at] gmail.com> wrote:

>2. Does anyone else here suspect that Draco now enjoys the sort of
>protection similar to the one Harry does due to Lily's sacrifice?

I don't know if I buy this but it presents an interesting scenario. If it
works the same way as Lily's sacrifice, Draco would have to move in with
Aberforth to be protected - and it would only work till he turned 17.

>As far as I can see Harry working with Draco is the only way to bring
>about the Sorting Hats exhortion about all the houses working together.

Now that sounds extremely plausible.

-Liz
Vorheriges Thema:Horcruxes and Books
Nächstes Thema:Perhaps Potter fans should learn from Donald P Bellisario...
Gehe zu:
  


aktuelle Zeit: Sa Mai 26 07:48:26 CEST 2012

Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,07703 Sekunden
.:: Startseite - Hinweise - Impressum ::.

Powered