quote:Originally posted by hansenj: Yeah, I was under the impression that you didn't need to be a prefect in order to become head boy, it's just most common for the head boy to have been a prefect.
For instance, I would find Harry being head boy much more likely that I would find Ron being head boy. Harry has leadership experience and the respect of his peers from his time running DA.
That is assuming, of course, that school will resume in the next book.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Quick question: I was rereading the first book, and it says James was head boy. Later we find out that the first step to being head boy is prefect, and that Remus, not James, was the prefect.
Am I missing something that makes this not contradictory (which is very possible)?
James was Quidditch captain That could put him on the same level as a prefect.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Quick question: I was rereading the first book, and it says James was head boy. Later we find out that the first step to being head boy is prefect, and that Remus, not James, was the prefect.
Remus' being a werewolf might have interfered with his ability to act as head boy. You might slide once a month on prefect, whereas head boy might demand full time attention.
Also, James was a trouble maker when he was younger, but apparently straightened himself out later on.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks everyone, those reasons all make sense.
quote:For instance, I would find Harry being head boy much more likely that I would find Ron being head boy. Harry has leadership experience and the respect of his peers from his time running DA.
Except for that little thing about using a dark, life-threatening spell on a student - an infraction that earned weekly detentions extending into the next school year.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Thanks everyone, those reasons all make sense.
quote:For instance, I would find Harry being head boy much more likely that I would find Ron being head boy. Harry has leadership experience and the respect of his peers from his time running DA.
Except for that little thing about using a dark, life-threatening spell on a student - an infraction that earned weekly detentions extending into the next school year.
Oh yea, I forgot about that. But given that the victim of his attack made several attempts to murder the headmaster, his sectrosempa (was that it?) curse may be regarded as being in protection of the school! Who knows?!
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do we know if Neville's parents were attacked before or after the Potter's died?
The Longbottoms were tortured by LeStrange and Crouch Jr. after Voldemort vanished. They were trying to get information on V's whereabouts. Was that what you were asking?
Gah, my brain is full. I'm at the denoument of the Order of the Phoenix and I'v kind of hit a wall. I guess on the one hand, I have the drive to finish the darned set of 17 tapes. On the other hand, I just can't read anymore. I guess I'm too much attached to what is happening.
Of course, I could think of several instances where my sense of practicality would have caused me to possibly do things differently. I guess we aren't worrying too much about spoilers. I would have smashed the ball as soon as folk showed up making threats. Well, at least that's what I imagine I would have done. As Harry says, they're going to kill them anyway, why give them any chance of success in the bargain? I don't know, though. I guess that's not very hopeful. I'll have to examine that, it's a vestige of having a hard heart.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
pooka, I think a huge part of what happened was due to the fact that Harry had no idea what the ball was. All he knew was that as long as he was holding it the Death Eaters weren't attacking, and he had his friends' safety to think about.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Thanks everyone, those reasons all make sense.
quote:For instance, I would find Harry being head boy much more likely that I would find Ron being head boy. Harry has leadership experience and the respect of his peers from his time running DA.
Except for that little thing about using a dark, life-threatening spell on a student - an infraction that earned weekly detentions extending into the next school year.
Oh yea, I forgot about that. But given that the victim of his attack made several attempts to murder the headmaster, his sectrosempa (was that it?) curse may be regarded as being in protection of the school! Who knows?!
Oh I am sure there was a MUCH safer nondark spell that could have accomplished what Harry was going for in that instance. Don't forget Harry tried to use the spell again on Snape. There seems to be an overwhelming feeling of hesitancy when it comes to understanding the dark arts.
The idea of using dark spells against evil wizards is REALLY unorthodox and frowned on.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I've just gone through this books in the course of about a month, and I guess I'm just befuddled as to why anyone would think Snape is good. I guess the only reason is to want to believe there was a reason Dumbledore trusted him. But I don't see any text support for many of the things people have listed, like that he was in love with Lily Evans, or that calling her a mudblood was his most shameful memory. I mean, I know Harry was looking in on his unguarded private thoughts and the possibility of his greatest shame was referred to, but I didn't get the impression that he was honing in specifically on that. I guess the story he told to Narcissa, before making the unbreakable vow, about Quirrel seemed a deception. And there's Crouch's foe glass.
I do think Rowling has gotten more subtle as the books have gone on. I think the point of book six may have been that trust says more about the person granting it than it does about the object.
I think any hope resides more principally in Malfoy, there's just fewer clues, but the true alignment of Snape is probably tied up in that. I think Snape is still in flux, and he will go in whichever direction Malfoy goes. Maybe Snape is secretly Malfoy's father. Narcissa seemed good looking enough for the both of them perhaps, and Snape's mother was blonde. Well, that's my crazy theory, tossed into the ring.
As for R.A.B., if it isn't regulus black, I'll vote for it being another self-appointed title, though it would be pretty cheap if it were one we hadn't heard yet.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Okay, I've just gone through this books in the course of about a month, and I guess I'm just befuddled as to why anyone would think Snape is good. I guess the only reason is to want to believe there was a reason Dumbledore trusted him. But I don't see any text support for many of the things people have listed, like that he was in love with Lily Evans, or that calling her a mudblood was his most shameful memory. I mean, I know Harry was looking in on his unguarded private thoughts and the possibility of his greatest shame was referred to, but I didn't get the impression that he was honing in specifically on that. I guess the story he told to Narcissa, before making the unbreakable vow, about Quirrel seemed a deception. And there's Crouch's foe glass.
I do think Rowling has gotten more subtle as the books have gone on. I think the point of book six may have been that trust says more about the person granting it than it does about the object.
I think the biggest 'hint' that Snape is good (not sure if I believe it) is the argument he and Dumbledore had that is mentioned only in passing by Hagrid. He says it seems like Dumbledore was asking Snape to do something that he didn't want to do.
If Snape is good, my theory: Dumbledore ordered Snape to kill him.
Sounds crazy, I know. But this would do three things. First, it would save Snape's life (if he didn't kill Dumbledore or help Draco do it, the Unbreakable Vow would have killed him). Second, it makes Snape's position among the Death Eaters stronger, so if he's really good he can cause a lot more damage. And third...I'm not convinced that shriveling his arm is the only thing the ring of Gaunt did to Dumbledore. What if he had been slowly dying all year, and so decided to end his life as a sacrifice to inevitably help defeat Voldemort.
Is this theory too far out there?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not at all. Or at least, not to me. That's pretty much exactly what I took away from the last book.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Snape is obviously "good," or at least on the side of the good people. Javert's got all the major points down.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, yeah, Snape's not a nice guy at all. He's just on the same side of the chessboard as Dumbledore.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:if he didn't kill Dumbledore or help Draco do it, the Unbreakable Vow would have killed him
See, that hardly makes someone good in my view. I'm not rebutting your other points, just saying that to do it to save Draco is possibly good, doing it so the UV won't kill him is selfish. Doing it because with Dumbledore obviously weakened they are outnumbered by their fellow deatheaters, that's iffy.
When is the conversation that Hagrid overhears?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Snape is a cyborg, and thus is not well captured by tradition definitions of good and evil. All the clues are there. His mastery of potions, his hatred of show-offs, and his constant chugging of WD-40. All classic signs of someone being a cyborg.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:if he didn't kill Dumbledore or help Draco do it, the Unbreakable Vow would have killed him
See, that hardly makes someone good in my view. I'm not rebutting your other points, just saying that to do it to save Draco is possibly good, doing it so the UV won't kill him is selfish. Doing it because with Dumbledore obviously weakened they are outnumbered by their fellow deatheaters, that's iffy.
When is the conversation that Hagrid overhears?
It's in book six, but I honestly forget where. I might check when I get home.
The thing is pooka, I think what they were arguing about was that Snape didn't want to kill Dumbledore. I think he may very well have been prepared to die rather than kill, but Dumbledore made him. That could also explain the look of contempt that Snape gives him before he kills him. Not "I hate you" but "I hate you for making me do this".
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why did Snape take the Unbreakable Vow to kill Dumbledore in the first place? He didn't know that Dumbledore would eventually be cornered by Death Eaters and he would die anyways so it might as well be Snape. By taking the Vow he assures that Dumbledore would die in the end. What's the point of that?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Why did Snape take the Unbreakable Vow to kill Dumbledore in the first place? He didn't know that Dumbledore would eventually be cornered by Death Eaters and he would die anyways so it might as well be Snape. By taking the Vow he assures that Dumbledore would die in the end. What's the point of that?
It really depends on whether Snape was expecting Narcissa to ask it of him or not.
I'm of the opinion that he wasn't expecting it but, being a spy and wanting to secure the trust of Voldemort and the Death Eaters, he went through with it fully expecting to have to die. And then, when Dumbledore learned of it, he used it to his advantage.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He didn't take a vow to kill Dumbledore. He took a vow to help Draco. The theory is he didn't know what Draco was supposed to be doing, and took the vow in order to get in close enough to find out.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: He didn't take a vow to kill Dumbledore. He took a vow to help Draco. The theory is he didn't know what Draco was supposed to be doing, and took the vow in order to get in close enough to find out.
This was my understanding as well.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: He didn't take a vow to kill Dumbledore. He took a vow to help Draco. The theory is he didn't know what Draco was supposed to be doing, and took the vow in order to get in close enough to find out.
This was my understanding as well.
Ah, but Snape told Narcissa he was already aware of the plan involving Draco.
He could, of course, have been lying.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Narcissa was about to tell Snape if he didn't tell her he already knew. That was pretty stupid of him to do if he really did want to find out the plan.
Plus, the way Snape was talking made it seem as if he did already know, saying how Voldemort gave Draco the job as revenge for Lucius failing him. And then Narcissa said about how even Voldemort couldn't succeed in doing it, and nobody could ever. Snape should've known what he was promising.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or Snape knew all along what Draco's mission was, and he discussed it with Dumbledore before hand, and also suspected that he'd have to take the Unbreakable Vow and it was all planned out before hand.
I'm in the middle of rereading Order of the Phoenix right now, I wasn't going to reread them all, but I wanted to do 5 and 6 over again before the movie came out and before Deathly Hallows.
I've yet to talk to anyone in person who doesn't think that Sirius will make some sort of cameo in the last book. I heard an interesting theory that ties Harry as a Horcrux to him sacrificing himself inside the veil, where he has a last conversation with Sirius. Some of it sounded pretty plausible, but I'd like Harry to survive. Though I think I could get over it if he died like that.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Narcissa was about to tell Snape if he didn't tell her he already knew.
I disagree. She was very suspicious of him, and unlikely to tell him anything of the sort.
Bellatrix was the one that was really suspicious of him. Narcissa was the one who was crying and trying to get Snape to help. Quote from the chapter, Narcissa is saying: "The Dark Lord has forbidden me to speak of it...He wishes none to know of the plan. It is...very secret. But-". That's when Snape interrupts her telling her not to say anything.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Snape knew either. He knew that he was to do whatever would help the order. He probably figured it out for sure when Draco poisoned Katie.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Snape is good is because of the way the plot is set up.
In the first book, Harry thinks Snape is evil, but he saves Harry's life.
In books 2-5 we have or suspicions about Snape, but he does not do anything blatantly evil, so we assume he is good.
In book 6, Snape kills Dumbledore. However, throughout the series Dumbledore strongly trusts Snape.
In book 7, Rowling will do the switcharoo again and show that Snape is good. Besides, Dumbledore is too smart to trust Snape for no reason.
Posts: 77 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just wanted to say I don't see Dumbledore asking Snape to kill him just to deprive Harry of a parent figure. I can see where they got together and worked out what Malfoy's mission was, and Dumbledore said he was willing for Snape to kill him if Malfoy didn't choose to.
But what about Snape calling Voldemort "Dark Lord" and even being able to cast Avara Kedevara (sp?) And the sectum sempra. He left the book in Harry's possession knowing there was stuff like that in there.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It means you have hatred. We know he has hatred, we don't know whom towards. He calls Voldemort dark lord because he's a double agent and wants people who need to, to believe he is on the bad side. I also think it might be possible he didn't realize harry would get the book.
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's also the dialog that spills out of Dumbledore's mouth while he is under the effects of the potion from the cave. A lot of people have said they think that Dumbledore is recounting both sides of the argument he had with Snape, with Snape begging not to do it, and Dumbledore demanding "KILL ME!"
Also, go back to the first book and Dumbledore's comments about death and a well-organized mind. He is 150 years old, after all.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't heard anything along those lines. Most of what I've heard are various excuses to get him to communucate from beyond the veil.
But I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen. I don't however think there is a chance he'll come back alive at all, as some are hoping.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Snape can be evil because if he is, Dumbledore's entire philosophy of trust and love is down the tubes, and if Dumbledore's philosophies are wrong, everything Harry has learned and based his own morals and ethics and 'goodness' on is also wrong, because as we know, he's "Dumbledore's man through and through". I don't think Rowling can do that. The series has been much too black and white so far to turn that ambiguously grey now. Dumbledore HAS to be right, because he is the moral compass of the series.
What I don't understand is -- if Dumbledore made Snape promise to kill him -- why he didn't confide that this might happen to someone else in the Order. As it is, Snape is useless as a spy now, because the entire Order thinks he's turned, so it's not like he can pass on reports. No one will trust him anymore, even if he tries to explain. Dumbledore was the only one who was ever entirely convinced he was good. If he hadn't killed Dumbledore, he might have been killed by Death Eaters or the Vow, but without Snape's ability to spy, Dumbledore is more use to keep alive than Snape anyway, so I'm not sure why he sacrificed himself for Snape's sake other than plain nobility.
One crazy idea I had was that Dumbledore Imperiused Snape to do it, but that wouldn't fit with Dumbledore's view on things at all. I'm missing puzzle pieces. I think in the 7th book, we'll find out exactly why Dumbledore trusted him so entirely, and that will explain things.
I also think Harry will die. I've thought it since Book 4 came out. It won't make me nearly as sad as when Dumbledore went. I just finished re-reading the whole series last night, and I've been grouchy all day leftover from it.
Posts: 624 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I haven't heard anything along those lines. Most of what I've heard are various excuses to get him to communucate from beyond the veil.
But I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen. I don't however think there is a chance he'll come back alive at all, as some are hoping.
Oh. I think dead is dead, barring ghost-hood. Unless we are talking something like a repeat of the Priori Incantatem situation, and I don't see Voldemort allowing that...
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I haven't heard anything along those lines. Most of what I've heard are various excuses to get him to communucate from beyond the veil.
But I wouldn't be surprised to see something happen. I don't however think there is a chance he'll come back alive at all, as some are hoping.
Oh. I think dead is dead, barring ghost-hood. Unless we are talking something like a repeat of the Priori Incantatem situation, and I don't see Voldemort allowing that...
Doesn't apply anyway. Sirius was killed by Bellatrix, so for P.I. to work you would need to find a sibling for her wand. And even if you did, her spell didn't kill him, the veil did, so I don't think you'd get a ghosty Sirius that way.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not necessarily convinced that he's dead in the traditional sense, then again there is no traditional sense of dead in the Harry Potter verse. James and Lily were Avada Kedavra'd and yet they still made a cameo with priori incantatem. I don't think that Sirius is dead, he's just gone, which might as well be dead since you can't come back from the veil, but Luna and I think others thought they heard voices from beyond the veil, and I think that was foreshadowing.
I don't know how they'll do it, whether it be some wacky possession thing, or horcruxes, or ghosts, or astral projection, but I think it's possible, maybe not likely, but possible.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Dumbledore's philosophy on trust is that trust is inherent to the trustor and not the trustee.
While killing Dumbldore destroys the trust the Order had for him, it does make his cover, if there is one, with the Death Eaters stronger.
Though now that I'm thinking on it, can Snape trust Malfoy? Does he think Dumbledore was in such a weakened state from something Malfoy did?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wont there be a portrait of Dumbldore in the new headmaster private study? The other hearmasters left there place on the walls and went to warn about Arthur Weasley and the trouble he was in. So I think Dumldore will be able to speak and move in someplaces,
Posts: 28 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
