![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
That's the question I often see coming up in discussions about Snape's Death Eater days--did he have to kill or not? It's quite interesting that the fandom perception has changed dramatically between the time that Order of the Phoenix was released and the time that the series ended.
I recall having a discussion on the snape_n_lupin Yahoo Group about the "Snape's Worst Memory" chapter shortly after Book 5 came out. Someone on the group said they had a hard time believing that Snape's worst memory was of being pantsed, considering all the things he must have done as a Death Eater. Most of the other group members seemed to agree that it was extremely unlikely that he had not been required to kill as part of his duties as a Death Eater. As I recall, the person who questioned the worst memory said something like, "I doubt that Snape's job in the Death Eaters was to bake cookies for their meetings"--although that did conjure up a very comical image in my mind of Snape wearing an apron over his black robes, holding a tray of skull-shaped sugar cookies! ^_^
On a more serious note, I could see their point, although I sincerely hoped that Snape had never had to commit murder, whether willingly when his loyalty to the Death Eaters was sincere, or reluctantly as a spy, in order to preserve his cover. That's because murder is such a horrible, irrevocable act--there's no way to undo it or truly make things right afterwards, even if you deeply regret it. And I didn't want Snape to have to live with that kind of stain on his soul, even before I knew about horcruxes and how the act of murder literally tears one's soul.
So although I thought that perhaps I was being a little unrealistic, my fanfic version of Snape has never had to kill anyone directly. Although some of the other Death Eaters were sent out on raids to kill Muggles, Muggle-borns, and blood traitors, my Snape managed to convince the Dark Lord that his skills as a potion-brewer and spell researcher were more valuable, and so he managed to avoid getting his hands dirty. However, he does suffer guilt over the deaths he caused indirectly, such as brewing poisons for the other Death Eaters to use. (And of course in canon, Snape feels deeply guilty for passing the Prophecy on to Voldemort and indirectly causing Lily's death.)
The idea of a Snape who had never killed did not seem quite so unrealistic when Half-Blood Prince came along. In the "Spinner's End" chapter, Bellatrix tells Snape (regarding the battle at the Ministry in OotP), "No, you were once again absent while the rest of us ran dangers, were you not, Snape?" This is not quite the same thing as saying that Snape never got his hands dirty, but it does seem to indicate that he did not usually go out on missions involving direct combat, implying that his role in the Death Eaters was more subtle and behind the scenes.
In that same chapter, Snape does claim responsibility for the deaths of Emmeline Vance and Sirius Black, although indirectly, through information that he passed on to Voldemort. However, his words have to be taken with a grain of salt, given his role as a spy and the fact that he's ostensibly trying to persuade Bellatrix of his loyalty. I rather suspect that Snape didn't intend for Vance to be killed, but the circumstances were such that he managed to claim credit for it, and there was no evidence that people like Bellatrix could use to dispute his claim. I was hoping that this would be clarified in Book 7, but unfortunately, that was not the case. As for Sirius, Dumbledore told Harry that Kreacher was the one who betrayed Sirius to Narcissa. I'm sure that Snape passed on select information about Sirius and the Order to Voldemort, with Dumbledore's blessing, but the fact that Harry would charge off recklessly to rescue his godfather is not really something that Voldemort probably couldn't have figured out on his own. Or perhaps Snape is insinuating that he notified the Death Eaters after Harry and his friends set off on their rescue mission? Perhaps he did--after he notified Dumbledore and the Order. Harry was already on his way, and Voldemort was already expecting him, so it wouldn't be a great risk to send a message that "the boy is on his way to the Ministry," and it might make him look good in the Dark Lord's eyes.
(I said "ostensibly trying to persuade Bellatrix of his loyalty," because I suspect that his words are more for Wormtail's sake than Bella's. I don't think that anything he says will truly convince her of his loyalty, partly--maybe even mostly--because of her jealousy that he's usurped her place as the Dark Lord's favorite, and I think he's smart enough to realize this. He also has to know that Wormtail will report on everything he says and does to Voldemort, so I think he's emphasizing his loyalty here for Voldemort's sake, as well as revealing that he is willing to murder Dumbledore, which should further cement his image as a loyal Death Eater.)
Trying to look at Snape from a darker point of view, and in light of the revelation that he was a half-blood, I wondered if perhaps Voldemort might have required him to kill his own father in order to prove his loyalty to the Death Eaters, thus symbolically excising his Muggle blood.
However, a close reading of Deathly Hallows seems to disprove this theory. In "The Prince's Tale" chapter, Dumbledore tells Snape that he would not want Draco's soul "ripped apart on my account," to which Snape retorts, "And my soul, Dumbledore? Mine?" Now, the first time I read this, I overlooked the implications and saw it as Snape being bitter, thinking that Dumbledore thought it was better for him to commit murder than Draco, since his hands were already dirty, figuratively speaking. However, after thinking it over more carefully, the fact that Snape is so concerned about the state of his soul strongly implies that it is still intact--otherwise why would he worry so much about it being torn?
However, we are told that remorse can mend a torn soul, although it is a very painful process (sorry, I don't remember which chapter that was from), and Oryx suggested on this thread that perhaps Snape has killed, but his remorse has mended his soul and he doesn't want it torn a second time. Certainly someone who's had his soul ripped apart and mended would not want to go through the experience again.
However, I'm leaning towards the theory that Snape has not killed, especially in light of Dumbledore saying to Snape, "How many men and women have you watched die?" Note that he only says "watched," not "How many men and women have you killed?" (Emphasis is mine.) Dumbledore can be ruthless in his pursuit of the greater good, and I don't think that he would hesitate to remind Snape of past murders if he thought it was necessary to make Snape go along with his plans.
So it seems that my impulse to make Snape not a killer was probably correct after all. While there are certainly many things that I dislike about DH (see my Snape after DH essay for more details), I do take some comfort in knowing that he was not a murderer--unless you count Dumbledore's death. How ironic, that his master on the "good" side was the one who required him to kill, not Voldemort!
***
But why did Snape join the Death Eaters in the first place? Well, JKR said in an interview (I think it was the webchat) that he thought it would impress Lily--which, when I first read it, seemed like the most ridiculous thing I'd ever heard of. Surely Snape was smart enough to realize that Lily, as a Muggle-born, might have a problem with her best friend joining an organization that persecutes people like her?
However, after mulling it over for some time, I kind of see what JKR meant. As I said in my February essay on Snape and Unconditional Love: "... I think I see what JKR was getting at: not that Lily would be impressed by him joining a racist organization, but by him becoming a very powerful (and presumably wealthy and influential) wizard. For someone like Snape, who does not come from a wealthy pureblood family like James and Sirius, making allies with people like Malfoy and Mulciber might have seemed like the surest path to power."
It's also possible that he thought that he might be able to shield her if he became a high-ranking Death Eater, as Oryx suggested on this thread on the original July challenge post. As a Muggle-born and eventually a member of the Order, she would be a likely target of the Death Eaters, so that would be a good incentive for him to join them in order to have enough influence to have her spared. And in DH, he does indeed try to persuade Voldemort to spare Lily's life, and surprisingly, Voldemort actually makes an attempt to honor his servant's request. He offers Lily the chance to live, to step away from her son and be spared, and as we all know, her rejection of his offer and the sacrifice of her life give Harry his special protection against Voldemort. So Harry's victory over Voldemort was ultimately due to Snape's intervention, although it wasn't the result that Snape had intended.
My fanon version of Snape in my Snupin series was motivated by both love and the desire for revenge: he blamed James and Sirius and the prank for ruining his relationship with Lupin, but they both came from wealthy, pureblood families, so he felt that he needed the backing of the Death Eaters to gain enough power to bring them down. My Snape wasn't thinking very clearly at the time, but as I wrote him as not being the type to murder, he wouldn't have gone so far as to kill them, but he probably had vague ideas of them being utterly broken and humiliated, stripped of their wealth and influence. It is when he discovers that the Death Eaters really are resorting to murder that my Snape comes to his senses and decides to go over to Dumbledore's side.
So, getting back to canon, I would not be surprised if there was an element of revenge in Snape's decision to become a Death Eater. Even if he initially wanted to become a Death Eater in hopes of impressing Lily, once he lost her, he would have no reason to continue down that path, unless he had hopes of convincing her to leave James, which seems rather unlikely. Or perhaps, in a darker sense, of getting rid of James and claiming Lily for himself? Even though that is the excuse he gives to Voldemort, Snape does not seem that evil and selfish, to take her by force against her will. When he goes to Dumbledore for help after learning of the Dark Lord's plans to kill the Potters, he is obviously not thinking, "Ooh, with James out of the way, then Lily will be mine!"--he would not have gone to Dumbledore at all if that were the case. Instead, he is frantic with fear and his sole concern is saving Lily's life, and he even agrees to save James and Harry as well in order to gain Dumbledore's help.
But I do think it is possible that Snape, as a new Death Eater, and maybe not thinking clearly because he is blinded by his emotions like my fanon Snape, may have had a vague desire for revenge against his rival, for costing him not only a potential romance, but his very real friendship with Lily. If James and Sirius had not attacked him that day, he would not have lost his temper and called Lily a Mudblood--at least, I think that's how Snape would see it, even though he is partially responsible for uttering the insult, and Lily is as well for refusing his apology. But as he seems to put Lily on a pedestal, I think he would focus all his rage against James, and to a lesser extent, the other Marauders.
And he might well have been thinking of his own protection as well as Lily's, at least while he was still a student at Hogwarts. He is a poor half-blood, with no wealth or influence to shield him if the other Slytherins should turn on him--as they probably would if he followed Lily's advice and alienated Mulciber and his crowd. As his interaction with Petunia and Lily pre-Hogwarts shows, he is a misfit in the Muggle world, and he probably desperately wants to belong in the wizarding world. We saw that as a newly Sorted first-year, Lucius Malfoy welcomed him into Slytherin, and young Snape was probably flattered, even warmed, by that acceptance, and I don't think that he would want to jeopardize that, not even for Lily. After all, if he is made an outcast by the other Slytherins, who would he turn to then? Judging by James and Sirius's attitude, the Gryffindors are unlikely to accept him as a friend. And since they are regarded as "the height of cool," according to Lupin in OotP, it's likely that most of the other Gryffindors will react similarly.
Which would leave Lily as his only friend, and even she seemed to be distancing herself from him, as she tells him that she constantly has to defend him to her friends. If he gave up his acceptance in Slytherin for her sake and still lost her, then he would be left with nothing--and would probably be subjected to bullying by the Slytherins as well as the Marauders. I think that Snape would consider it safer to keep his influential Slytherin friends and hope that he could patch things up with Lily later.
I honestly think that even if Snape had been Sorted into Gryffindor, he would still have ended up as an outcast. James and Sirius had already targeted him on the train, in the way that bullies seem to instinctively hone in on a potential victim, choosing the geeks, loners, and misfits, the same way that a predator picks a sick or weak animal out of the herd. I don't think that there would have been any sort of Gryffindor fellowship between them, and I think that they would still have bullied him and made his life miserable...just for existing, as they said in OotP.
However, after mulling it over for some time, I kind of see what JKR meant. As I said in my February essay on Snape and Unconditional Love: "... I think I see what JKR was getting at: not that Lily would be impressed by him joining a racist organization, but by him becoming a very powerful (and presumably wealthy and influential) wizard. For someone like Snape, who does not come from a wealthy pureblood family like James and Sirius, making allies with people like Malfoy and Mulciber might have seemed like the surest path to power."
It's also possible that he thought that he might be able to shield her if he became a high-ranking Death Eater, as Oryx suggested on this thread on the original July challenge post. As a Muggle-born and eventually a member of the Order, she would be a likely target of the Death Eaters, so that would be a good incentive for him to join them in order to have enough influence to have her spared. And in DH, he does indeed try to persuade Voldemort to spare Lily's life, and surprisingly, Voldemort actually makes an attempt to honor his servant's request. He offers Lily the chance to live, to step away from her son and be spared, and as we all know, her rejection of his offer and the sacrifice of her life give Harry his special protection against Voldemort. So Harry's victory over Voldemort was ultimately due to Snape's intervention, although it wasn't the result that Snape had intended.
My fanon version of Snape in my Snupin series was motivated by both love and the desire for revenge: he blamed James and Sirius and the prank for ruining his relationship with Lupin, but they both came from wealthy, pureblood families, so he felt that he needed the backing of the Death Eaters to gain enough power to bring them down. My Snape wasn't thinking very clearly at the time, but as I wrote him as not being the type to murder, he wouldn't have gone so far as to kill them, but he probably had vague ideas of them being utterly broken and humiliated, stripped of their wealth and influence. It is when he discovers that the Death Eaters really are resorting to murder that my Snape comes to his senses and decides to go over to Dumbledore's side.
So, getting back to canon, I would not be surprised if there was an element of revenge in Snape's decision to become a Death Eater. Even if he initially wanted to become a Death Eater in hopes of impressing Lily, once he lost her, he would have no reason to continue down that path, unless he had hopes of convincing her to leave James, which seems rather unlikely. Or perhaps, in a darker sense, of getting rid of James and claiming Lily for himself? Even though that is the excuse he gives to Voldemort, Snape does not seem that evil and selfish, to take her by force against her will. When he goes to Dumbledore for help after learning of the Dark Lord's plans to kill the Potters, he is obviously not thinking, "Ooh, with James out of the way, then Lily will be mine!"--he would not have gone to Dumbledore at all if that were the case. Instead, he is frantic with fear and his sole concern is saving Lily's life, and he even agrees to save James and Harry as well in order to gain Dumbledore's help.
But I do think it is possible that Snape, as a new Death Eater, and maybe not thinking clearly because he is blinded by his emotions like my fanon Snape, may have had a vague desire for revenge against his rival, for costing him not only a potential romance, but his very real friendship with Lily. If James and Sirius had not attacked him that day, he would not have lost his temper and called Lily a Mudblood--at least, I think that's how Snape would see it, even though he is partially responsible for uttering the insult, and Lily is as well for refusing his apology. But as he seems to put Lily on a pedestal, I think he would focus all his rage against James, and to a lesser extent, the other Marauders.
And he might well have been thinking of his own protection as well as Lily's, at least while he was still a student at Hogwarts. He is a poor half-blood, with no wealth or influence to shield him if the other Slytherins should turn on him--as they probably would if he followed Lily's advice and alienated Mulciber and his crowd. As his interaction with Petunia and Lily pre-Hogwarts shows, he is a misfit in the Muggle world, and he probably desperately wants to belong in the wizarding world. We saw that as a newly Sorted first-year, Lucius Malfoy welcomed him into Slytherin, and young Snape was probably flattered, even warmed, by that acceptance, and I don't think that he would want to jeopardize that, not even for Lily. After all, if he is made an outcast by the other Slytherins, who would he turn to then? Judging by James and Sirius's attitude, the Gryffindors are unlikely to accept him as a friend. And since they are regarded as "the height of cool," according to Lupin in OotP, it's likely that most of the other Gryffindors will react similarly.
Which would leave Lily as his only friend, and even she seemed to be distancing herself from him, as she tells him that she constantly has to defend him to her friends. If he gave up his acceptance in Slytherin for her sake and still lost her, then he would be left with nothing--and would probably be subjected to bullying by the Slytherins as well as the Marauders. I think that Snape would consider it safer to keep his influential Slytherin friends and hope that he could patch things up with Lily later.
I honestly think that even if Snape had been Sorted into Gryffindor, he would still have ended up as an outcast. James and Sirius had already targeted him on the train, in the way that bullies seem to instinctively hone in on a potential victim, choosing the geeks, loners, and misfits, the same way that a predator picks a sick or weak animal out of the herd. I don't think that there would have been any sort of Gryffindor fellowship between them, and I think that they would still have bullied him and made his life miserable...just for existing, as they said in OotP.
***
And I like to think that despite what JKR said about Snape doing it all for Lily, that he would have eventually realized his mistake and turned against the Death Eaters even if they hadn't murdered her. He does show regret for the deaths of people other than Lily, as mentioned in the exchange with Dumbledore about "How many men and women have you watched die?" to which Snape replies, "Lately, only those whom I could not save," which implies that he regrets the deaths of Voldemort's other victims, like Charity Burbage. If he truly only cared about Lily, those other deaths wouldn't matter to him.
Even Dumbledore seems to think that Snape has grown beyond his initial self-centeredness, when he gives his back-handed compliment, "sometimes we Sort too soon". I think that Dumbledore is dead wrong to assume that good=Gryffindor, of course, but if Snape were still the same person that Dumbledore was disgusted by, who didn't care whether James and Harry were killed as long as Lily was saved, then I don't think that he would consider Snape "worthy" of being in Gryffindor.
Of course, Dumbledore's judgment is rather suspect, in my opinion, but for what it's worth, one of the major "good guys" seems to think that Snape has changed.
And as we all know, Harry tells Albus Severus in the epilogue that Snape was "the bravest man I ever knew". However, Harry tends to see things in black and white, and I think that for him, the fact that Snape loved Lily was enough to convince him that Snape was on the good side, without really needing to think too deeply about other possible motives that Snape might have for turning against the Death Eaters.
Even Dumbledore seems to think that Snape has grown beyond his initial self-centeredness, when he gives his back-handed compliment, "sometimes we Sort too soon". I think that Dumbledore is dead wrong to assume that good=Gryffindor, of course, but if Snape were still the same person that Dumbledore was disgusted by, who didn't care whether James and Harry were killed as long as Lily was saved, then I don't think that he would consider Snape "worthy" of being in Gryffindor.
Of course, Dumbledore's judgment is rather suspect, in my opinion, but for what it's worth, one of the major "good guys" seems to think that Snape has changed.
And as we all know, Harry tells Albus Severus in the epilogue that Snape was "the bravest man I ever knew". However, Harry tends to see things in black and white, and I think that for him, the fact that Snape loved Lily was enough to convince him that Snape was on the good side, without really needing to think too deeply about other possible motives that Snape might have for turning against the Death Eaters.
Perhaps it's fitting that Snape, whose loyalties were in question until the end of DH, continues to retain a bit of ambiguity even after the series is over.
And we know Snape was assigned to spy on Albus as early as Junish'79 (based on SpinnersEnd chapter). Previous to DH(bk7), I was under the impression that Albus believed Snape to be 'neutral', what with his 2 proclamations that Snape had 'returned' and 'rejoined' the side of good - but JKR seems to have changed all that with Albus' reaction to Snape on that winter hillside.
Anyways, I STILL believe that Voldy thought as Snape as an unique opportunity to place a spy close to Albus. Maybe specifically because he was a halfblood? The theory makes less sense after DH. But IF Voldy saw Snape as a singular opportunity, then he was highly unlikely to risk that chance (having NOT had a spy close to Albus before) by insisting he go out on raids and killing sprees. -- Hwyla
Um, yeah, Molly Weasley, for one. I don't think that was an Expelliarmus she used on Bellatrix. ;-)
As I recall, at some point in the books it says something about "exceptions" being made for the Ministry and/or the Order--basically, the "good guys"--in using so-called Unforgivables. That's one thing that always bothered me about the whole "Unforgivable" designation. It's like the concept of "war crimes": they're only committed by the "losing" side. I guess an Unforgivable doesn't harm your soul if God Is On Your Side.
Do you think Moody ever felt remorse for killing Rosier? What about Molly for killing Bellatrix? Or is it only premeditated murder that damages the soul but killing in self-defence, the defence of others or assisted suicide/euthanasia do not? If the latter, then it should apply to both sides: a Death Eater who is attacked by an Auror or Hit Wizard who has been tracking him and strikes back to defend himself and ends up killing the attacker should not suffer soul damage in this instance.
What about a more complicated situation - group A instigates an attack on group B, but the attack is not meant to be lethal. However some of the target group attempt to drive the attackers away and the battle escalates. Eventually some of either group end up killing members of the other. Whose soul is damaged?
- Oryx
As for the question of whether a self-defense killing cause soul damage--perhaps it does. Perhaps the sort of post traumatic stress that some combat veterans experience could be seen as a symptom of soul damage, though they might not recognize it as such. (Few people know what a Horcrux is, so presumably most people also don't know that a soul is torn when one commits murder.) But if the person did not kill in malice, and feels remorse for what they have done, their soul might eventually over time.
Of course, that idea is rather disturbing, since if the act of killing tears the soul regardless of good intentions or self-defense, that would mean that Snape's soul was torn when he killed Dumbledore, despite the latter's assurances that it was an act of mercy.
It's possible to kill someone indirectly, too--for example, knocking them off their broom from a great height. I was a little shocked when Lupin berated Harry for only using an Expelliarmus on a presumably Imperiused Stan Shunpike. Harry argued that even a stunning spell would have killed him by making him fall off his broom, and Lupin made it pretty clear that his attitude was "it's either you or them," and that risking Stan's life was better than risking Harry's, since Harry's the only one who can defeat Voldemort. So if even nice-guy Lupin can be that ruthless, I certainly think it's possible that James and Sirius (and the other Order members) could have killed Death Eaters in combat.
- Oryx
This has me thinking. Aurors had license to kill, but what about Order members? The Order members would be a type of militia group. And I don’t know how the Ministry viewed them. And honestly I don’t know much about this subject.
As to whether James and Sirius personally killed...I don't know.
I think they did and thought of themselves as soldiers. I also think of them as being more of the foot soldiers for the Order and out there in the battle fields many times. This actually makes me feel some sadness for them, and what they did and see, and how it might have affected them.
But I do wonder how the Death Eaters saw themselves? My feeling is that JKR intent was that they were into dark magic and were prejudice, but JKR for me didn’t do a good job in explaining the whole Dark Arts thing, especially when Harry uses an unforgivable. And I still don’t know what is so dark about flying. What was Lily doing when she was flying off the swing? Floating? I actually don’t like to think of flying as dark, and I do like it when I read a flying Snape in fan fiction.
Right now I’m confusing myself with Order, aurors, and Death Eaters.
I think some of the Death Eaters sincerely believed the Muggle-borns and Blood-traitors were a genuine threat, either specifically to their families - through competition for jobs, for instance, or to wizarding society at large - either by compromising its secrecy or by bringing unacceptable cultural change. These Death Eaters saw themselves as protectors of their world as they knew it. Others saw joining the Death Eaters as a way to solve personal matters - Crouch Jr with his father, maybe Snape with the Marauders. Then there were pure opportunists - they believed Voldemort's victory was inevitable and decided to join him in order to ensure their own safety or that of their loved ones in the 'new world order'.
- Oryx
After DH, though really throughout the series if you look at the kind of person Severus is depicted as being beneath the "scary" persona, the impression that comes across so clearly is that Severus was NOT a malicious or violent person by nature. He was a foolish, insecure kid who thought that joining the DE's would make him Really Badass, and nobody'd mess with Snape anymore!
People tend to assume that every Death Eater was out in the streets committing murder and mayhem. They forget that the DE's didn't display their full agenda on posterboards for everyone to see; many of the people who allied themselves with the DE's did so under false impressions of the true nature of the group. Young men like Severus Snape would almost certainly have been among such people, sucked in by appealing recruiting rhetoric, given assignments suited to new recruits, and gradually "initiated" into the work of the group. I think Draco was an exception, not the rule, in being given an assignment to kill, and that was because his expected failure would be used to punish his father.
Given the horror and pangs of conscience he expressed in later years, I seriously doubt Severus would have joined the DE's if he had truly seen, with no blinders, what he was getting into. Unfortunately, like young men joining organizations like the military and rebel groups, he thought he knew better than the people warning him to read the fine print before signing the dotted line--and in the case of the DE's, there truly was no real way out, short of killing off Voldemort once and for all.
What I do think is that Severus and Regulus were like Draco in HBP - initially excited at what they were going to do, until they realized how hard it was for them to actually do it. This means either they killed and later deeply regreted it or they couldn't bring themselves to kill at all. Regarding Severus, there is additional evidence supporting the idea he did not kill directly himself - one is Dumbledore's wording about people he had watched die. The other is the fact that he was known to have specialized in Sectumsempra - a curse whose effect can be controlled. We know DEs attack in teams - in DH we see teams of 2 seeking Harry, we know 5 DEs attacked the Prewett brothers, 4 attacked the Longbottoms. A curse like Sectumsempra was the ideal cover for a disenchanted DE. It allowed Severus to inflict enough damage to avoid the suspicion of his teammates while leaving the killing to someone else.
- Oryx
He was a foolish, insecure kid who thought that joining the DE's would make him Really Badass, and nobody'd mess with Snape anymore!
Heh heh, now I'm picturing a teenage Snape strutting around, proudly proclaiming, "I am badass!" ^__^
"I, the Half-Blood Prince" ? ;)
However, Regulus was apparently a year younger, so he would probably join up a year later. And he apparently didn't realize exactly what Voldy was willing to do either. We have Sirius (in bk5) talking about how his parents supported Voldy's ideas, altho' he then gives the impression that they didn't realize the extent to which he would go either.
This leaves us with two possibilities.
1) Either the war was not as obvious until very late (the last few years). Which just might be supported by some canon - we have Hagrid in bk1 believing that Voldy would actually approach Lily - a muggleborn - to invite her to become a DE. Hagrid also said that the really strange thing was that Voldy even tried to kill a kid. Reading that part in bk1 really implies that even if he killed the parents, he didn't kill the kids usually. And I guess now that we know about Fenrir's little community and how he liked to bite them young, we can guess that maybe they preferred to raise these kids (unknown)
Also in support of the idea that the war didn't really turn 'intense' until the last years would be the Order photo. Moody only speaks of the people of the Order who died as having died after that photo was taken. No mention of how they lost quite a few people even before then. So, most of the Order members who died, did so after the Marauders joined them. Again, we don't know whether that was June'78 after finishing school, or during their 7th year (after turning adult).
As far as DEs dying or being captured, based on what Moody said at Karkaroff's hearing, most of the one's Karkaroff knew were captured or killed in the very last year (after 1980) Roughly the same time that Snape turned spy for Albus. And according to Sirius in bk3, Voldy was in hiding during that year (or possibly a bit longer).
I tend to wonder whether this all implies that learning of the prophecy, cranked up the war a notch.
2) alternatively - the idea that DE recruits didn't quite realize what they were getting into COULD mean that they just didn't realize Voldy would hurt someone THEY cared about. That perhaps THAT is what is meant by 'how far he would go'. That seems obvious to those of the 2nd war, but it may have been hidden more during the first. After all, Snape asked Voldy to spare Lily and he apparently kept his word on it enough to make the offer.
This might also account for how the Black parents could be 'proud' of Regulus, but still not realize exactly what ends Voldy would go to. Perhaps they were okay with him as long as they didn't touch what was theirs. One bit of canon that I would love to have tied up in a bow was Orion's death. How did he die? He died the same year ('79) as Regulus. But if Regulus didn't join until after school was finished then he could not have been a DE for more than 6 months. JKR just left us a LOT of loose ends.
And unfortunately, some apparently very bad math. I originally had Snape and the Marauders figured as starting Hogwarts in Sept'69 - it was the only way I could place Bella and Snape at Hogwarts at the same time - but that is apparently out the window. Leaving us to question just HOW Sirius could say Bella was a part of the same Slytherin Gang that Snape hung with and yet also say that he had not seen her since he was about 15 until he saw her again in Azkaban? Especially since he wasn't sure (in bk4) Snape had been a DE - which probably echoes again Bella's complaint about Snape being allowed to skip the risky raids. That one still confuses me. So just how DID Sirius know that Bella and Snape hung out together - I really cannot see them at the Leaky Cauldron together -- Hwyla
As for Regulus' timeline, Kreacher said he was 16 when he joined and 17 when he died - still of school age. The Black family tree gives his dates as 1961-1979, which is not inconsistent with what Kreacher says if Regulus was born in September-December and died in the summer of 1979 (I tend to believe his death was in late summer because that would give him the bulk of that summer to research in the Black family library and figure out that what Voldemort had placed in the basin was a Horcrux). By the time Regulus joined Sirius was no longer living at home and he had no direct knowledge of how his parents viewed their younger son's actions. At best he was extrapolating from what his parents had been thinking when he left home (probably summer 1976).
Snape and Bellatrix's timelines can be reconciled if one considers the possibility that the 'gang of Slytherins' Sirius referred to met in the Slug Club. We see in HBP how Slughorn invites veterans of his club (such as Gwenog Jones) to meetings with current members. And Slughorn would have wanted any member of the Black family he could lay his hands on in his club. Voldemort would know that and send former Slug Club members who ended up as DEs to recruit new members at the club.
BTW if I understand what Rowling said in that Pottercast correctly Voldemort in fact did attempt to recruit Lily, and her refusal to join counts as one of the three acts of defiance of the Potters. It is also hinted in one of her previous interviews - there was a bit about Muggle-borns not being allowed to become DEs except under special circumstances. I wondered about the logic of recruiting Lily and one LeakyLounge poster said it would have served Voldemort's propaganda machine, that getting the Muggle-born former Head Girl would exacerbate the despair among those still resisting him.
If we take everything about the Order in the books as canonically true then the photo was taken in early July 1981, two weeks before the deaths of the McKinnons, which took place shortly before Harry's first birthday. I doubt there were no Order deaths before that, it's just that Moody wanted to show Harry the photo because his parents were in it, and while getting to them he mentioned people in the photo who had died. We don't even know if he mentioned all the people who were in the photograph (no mention of McGonagall, Mrs Figg and Mundungus Fletcher, yet at least the latter 2 were part of the 'old crowd').
Did the war intensify over the years? Certainly. As the years went by Voldemort had more DEs joining, more inferi, possibly more werewolves working for him (the information about Fenrir in the first war is inconsistent between Spinner's End and The Prince's Tale). I don't think this means the nature of the attacks changed but their frequency. I doubt the rate of attacks every week was maintained for 11 years. But we do have Dumbledore telling McGonagall that the fear of Voldemort's name had been around for the entire 11 years. This means that whatever it was the DEs did back in the early 70s, it was scary enough.
- Oryx
Regulus was apparently a year younger, so he would probably join up a year later.
No. Regulus joined when he was sixteen and it must have been sometime in 1978 when he had not yet turned seventeen. We know this from Kreacher's story in DH (assuming he is truthful and not incorrect).
Kreacher says directly that Regulus was sixteen when he joined, which by itself could be 1977 or 1978 depending on when his birthday is. But Kreacher's ordeal with putting the locket in the birdbath was almost certainly in 1979 because it's "a little while later" (which is vague, but in any case probably doesn't mean months) that Regulus has Kreacher take him to the cave (and dies). And Kreacher says that that took place "a year after [Regulus] had joined", so that means Regulus joined some time in 1978.
But if Regulus didn't join until after school was finished then he could not have been a DE for more than 6 months.
Since he was sixteen, he had to have been in fifth or sixth year. It's possible he didn't go any further than that, actually, but we don't know. The picture of him with the Slytherin Quidditch team isn't dated nor is his apparent age described. (Regulus was instantly recognisable as the boy sitting in the middle of the front row: he had the same dark hair and slightly haughty look of his brother, though he was smaller, slighter and rather less handsome than Sirius had been. ‘He played Seeker,’ said Harry. Since Harry has not seen Sirius younger than sixteen, we might guess that he'd have trouble comparing Regulus to Sirius if he were much younger than that in this photo and therefore he's likely to be 15-17, but it's only speculation.)
As for Bellatrix and Severus, I don't have an answer to that one. Perhaps alumni sometimes visit? She dropped by Slug Club parties or something? (whether Severus was in the Slug Club is something else again...)
No, I wasn't suggesting that, just that it was a possible way for Bellatrix and Severus to have been considered part of a same "gang" when it's unlikely they shared any years at school together. There could be a "gang" that's a subset of the club. Or some might not even have been in it at all.
In one of my stories, I do have Severus kill (Regulus in fact as this was written before the final book), but I did so to parallel his actions and beliefs to killing Dumbledore. It was out of necessity and mercy to have to kill.
I think only when given no other option, he would kill, but I doubt he failed to find such other options aside from Dumbledore. Besides, it seems as if fandom believes he still has so much blood on his hands based on the numerous trials that go on in fic.
As for how far did he go? Far enough I say.
And I agree that Snape would kill if he had no other choice--such as in self defense, or the situation with Regulus. Maybe he could even find a way to fake killing someone by using the Draught of Living Death? Though then the person would have to go into hiding until the war was over, or Voldemort would know that Snape had betrayed him. After reading HBP, I was suspecting that Madam Bones and/or Emmeline Vance's deaths had been faked to help prove Snape's loyalty to Voldemort, but since it was never mentioned again, I guess they really were killed.
There were quite a few great essays that dealt with Dumbles still being alive and it was really a special version of the Draught of Living Death. I'm sure if Snape wasn't being pulled from all directions he would have found a way to save Albus from his afflictions. Too bad he didn't have the time.
And before I got into snupin, I read this great Emmeline/Snape fic that did just that, faked her death cause she was too much of a threat to Voldy somehow. As they were kind of throwaway characters that JKR put in for shock value, I still think there could be reasons that one or both of them could still be alive.
'welll......
no, not because I think about some great and bigger reason, but because I know something about roles and POV, Voldermort had used both Lucius and Snape as a... I can't fins a term for this - both men needed to be able to walk free and unsuspected where they meant to. Lucius at the ministery and Snape at hogwarts ( where he was sent to spy). allowing one of them being even suspected as a murderer would not allow them to do what they meant to do : spy on his enemies and get him information. why risk any of them when the same task can be done by someone else?
for the same reason, I don't think that the fanon idea of " kill/rape someone to prove your loyality" is something that trully happened to any DE, we see Voldermort using beloved people to his DE to threat them and made sure they'll do his will ( the malfoys are a wonderful example - Voldermort does not demand Draco to kill his mother as a proof to his loyality, he demands him to kill Dumbldore and threten him with her death). Therefor, it is possible that at one point, the reason that V chose to let Lily live was not his promise to Snape, but the knowledge that if she lives, he would be sure of Snape's actions.
2. Mending and Tearing one souls.
I hate that concept, sorry. throw away please the idea of souls, killing someone - if you don't truelly believes that he deserves to die will harm you, and id you have any kind of morality, that "damage" can't be repared, as if our soul is some kind of mechanics. Snape is angry with D for forcing him into that choice, he tries to protect Draco's soul ( without realizing, or maybe ignoring the fact that the young man had chosen his path and enjoy the idea of killing him), while forgetting that if, by some mircale, Snape would live through that war, he would never be able, to resume his job, or walk away as a free man. the moment that Snape killed D, he killed every chance of having any kind of normal life after that war - the "good side" would forever remember him as "D murderer", and would never let him walk freely.
3. I had theory that Snape was ( at least, in the beginning ) the fifth boy who lived with the muaruders at the same room, Rowling killed it :-(
4. and here's my biggest question, even if Snape hadn't killed anyone directly, but only allowed them to die or brow the poison that killed them, does that make him a good person?
Re: 'welll......
I really liked the fact that you pointed that Snape had to battle not only the magical skill, but also prove himself to a society that marked him as an unequal from the beginning- his poverty and half blood was his biggest problem for some "good" people.
Re: 'welll......
1. Great point! Hwyla also mentioned above that Voldemort might have kept Snape's hands clean for his role as a spy. And also excellent point that we tend to see Voldemort using threats against a DE's loved ones to keep them in line rather than forcing them to kill/rape. As you said, that's probably a fanon idea that's influenced many of us. Certainly I've read so much fanfic that sometimes it's hard to keep canon and fanon straight!
2. I'm not too fond of the tearing/mending souls concept myself, but I was trying to work with JKR's canon. And I agree that murder is something that can never really be "fixed". Hopefully someone who is remorseful will resolve never to do such a thing again, and will do what good they can in order to atone (such as Snape's spying), but they will always have to live with a certain amount of guilt. (Though I don't necessarily think that JKR is saying that a "mended" person wouldn't still feel some guilt.)
And yes, I was very disturbed that Dumbledore never mentioned leaving any evidence behind to exonerate Snape after his death. JKR could at least have had him telling Harry in the King's Cross chapter something like, "I left some Pensieve memories hidden in my office that will prove Severus's innocence." Maybe enchanted only to be found after Voldemort was dead. But even if he was cleared with evidence and Harry's testimony, I think that many people would still have viewed him with suspicion if he had lived.
3. Oh, interesting theory! I'd never thought that, but the idea makes for some fascinating plot bunnies...
4. even if Snape hadn't killed anyone directly, but only allowed them to die or brow the poison that killed them, does that make him a good person? No, of course not, but you just made me realize that I implied that Snape killing indirectly makes him, if not good, at least not as bad. Wow, that's a very tough question. My fanfic Snape had to brew those poisons in order to keep his cover, and canon Snape would have blown his cover and probably been killed if he'd tried to save Charity Burbage. But...saying that makes it okay reminds me uncomfortably of Dumbledore's willingness to sacrifice people for the "greater good". And of course there's the whole Snape giving the prophecy to Voldemort thing...is he culpable for the Potters' deaths? He certainly thinks so. A good question, with no easy answers.
And you know, that's another flaw with the tearing/mending souls concept. One can kill indirectly, apparently without risk of tearing one's soul. And the whole issue of trying to figure out whether one's intentions have anything to do with it (such as Dumbledore's mercy killing) really gives me a headache.
And thanks also for your other comment about Snape needing to prove himself to society. Young James and Sirius certainly seem to show some Malfoy-like prejudice on the train, don't they? I don't think it was openly stated that it was because of Snape's social standing, but one could certainly make a good argument that it was.
Re: 'welll......
another thing that may be interesting is that whenever your loved one are really threatened in the cannon, they turn against Voldy ( regulus and kreachers, the malfoys), Voldy maybe doesn't know the value of love, but he does know that he might be in danger when he forces people to the corner.
2.are you? I mean, you really thinks that Dumbldore thought that Snape might get out of that whole thing alive?
that's an opening to another essay.
3.yes, another essay - I would love to see how that can be dealt in fanficstion
4. Someone told me, after the sixth book, that the good guys in HP are never has to make the bad choices : they never have to choose between two evils, but had one good choice and one bad choice, after seeing how Rowling solved the "killing Voldy" issue, I have to agree with her.
5. I wrote an article about the lovely foursom - Harry-Snape-Draco-James, and how Rowling plays with our images of them, I don't think however, that Snape's social standing waswhat began ( or fuelled) that hate, at some point, it did, but Rowling escaped that point :-(
- going to read others answers -
Re: 'welll......
What difference does it make if someone kills directly or not? Well, morally they should be the same - preparing a poison, knowing it would be used to kill a person (whether the victim is specifically identified or just a generic other) makes one morally responsible for the victim's death. Similarly delivering the prophecy made Snape morally responsible for James and Lily's deaths. But psychologically there is a difference. Draco might have killed Katie Bell or Ron with the necklace and the poisoned mead, but he couldn't bring himself to kill a person, even one he did not respect and may have hated, face to face. A person at that level has a higher chance of redeeming himself and changing into one who wouldn't want to cause deaths even indirectly compared with someone who has no inhibitions with regard to killing.
(Canon Snape also had to reveal the correct date of Harry's move from 4PD, thus putting many Order members at risk. And may have indeed given up Emmeline Vance.)
On the healing of ripped souls: A soul that was ripped and healed may still not be the same as one that was never ripped in the first place. If a soul is metaphorically like flesh then there might be lasting scars. But in any case, Rowling's magic is more like an amoral force of nature. This is just one of several points where there is a disconnect between the fine points of the rules of magic and coherent moral systems.
On using a DE's loved ones to get the DE to perform: Whom could Voldemort have used against Snape besides Lily? Maybe his mother, if she was still alive.
On keeping Snape 'clean': It seems many DEs were clean enough, considering how many of them managed to avoid Azkaban. It was a total surprise when Karkaroff gave Rookwood's name. Even the Lestranges managed to talk themselves out of Azkaban before they attacked the Longbottoms. The latter makes me wonder about how useful Snape had been as a spy. I doubt he didn't know of Bellatrix's involvement and he had no motivation to keep her free.
- Oryx
Re: 'welll......
why?
because I believe that where there's no choice, there's no choosing, had Draco was not able to stand and threatened D, he wouldn't have to deal with the question of killing him. so, when Snape gave someone a posion that meant to kill someone, he didn't mureder, but gave the real murder a choice. Saying that the one who gave the murderer a choice is the one who murder, remove the fact that the murderer had made his choice.
I don't think that V uses threatening all the time - the Draco we see at the beginning of the sixth book is very proud of his status and his task, there are many ways of making someone do what you want, and V maybe just wanted another one ( do remember that at this time Snape was already a spy).
As for keeping one clean - someone who wasn't sent for Azkaban isn't always clean, the easy option was Lupin - he's not in Azkaban, but most parents would rather have him not around their children.
Re: 'welll......
Snape killed Dumbledore so that a) he would survive to protect Harry and Draco, as well as the other children in the school by removing the Death Eaters quickly b) be appointed as Voldemort's headmaster and thus be able to protect most of the students, at least to some degree c) be around to deliver to Harry the final information he needed to defeat Voldemort. The alternative would have resulted in the certain death of Dumbledore, Snape and very likely Draco that night (that's what Fenrir was there for - to kill Draco if he failed) and the possible deaths of other students, the appointment of a viscious Death Eater as Headmaster/mistress with more suffering among the students later on. Overall Snape made the choice that saved many more lives than it cost. Murder is unjustifiable intentional killing. I wouldn't call Snape's action on the tower unjustifiable.
- Oryx
Re: 'welll......
Re: 'welll......
Well, just after I finished HBP, I was assuming Dumbledore must have had some sort of plan in place to exonerate Snape--posthumously, if nothing else, although I thought he at least hoped that Snape would survive. But after reading DH, and seeing just how scheming and ruthless Dumbledore could be, I'm no longer so sure he expected or cared that Snape would survive, or about clearing his name. An offhand "Poor Severus," in his conversation with Harry seems to be the extent of his grief.
We did have hints, of course, in the earlier books that Dumbledore was manipulative and ruthless (what else do you call grooming a young boy to combat the most powerful Dark Wizard in the world?), but the kindly, grandfatherly act had convinced me that he cared about Harry and Snape as more than pawns. Well, he does claim in OotP that he came to love Harry--albeit against his will, and he sees it as a flaw, since it caused him to make errors of judgment. But as you said, that's a whole other essay.