![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
The first time I've read "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone", I utterly hated it. Still do, as a matter as fact. And no, it wasn't the crappy writing or the story that upset me so much, but the awful character of Harry Potter.
Now, it isn't unusual for a children's book to start out with a disagreeable child as it's 'hero', but one would expect that child to undestand, through the course of the book, that it *has* been disagreeable, and then try to 'better itself'. "The Secret Garden" comes to mind.
Harry's story was different, however. I realised *how* different when Harry's attitude towards Snape didn't change after Harry had found out that his assumptions about the man had been false. Instead it was suggested by the author that Harry hadn't been wrong about Snape because "Snape was a mean bully of a teacher".
Point is, I never saw any "bullying mean teacher" at all. I saw a teacher who, when confronted with a disrespectful student in class tries to discipline said student, only to be frustrated by a manipulative Headmaster-with-an-agenda and an author who clearly can't stand anyone, real or fictional, being in authority over her self-insert protagonist.
For instance, in that infamous "first potions class" Snape's impromptu quiz is merely a reaction to Harry's insolence; Harry and Ron are making fun of Snape's introductory speech by "pulling up their eyebrows at each other". As I've said before, I've been in the same situation as a twelve-year-old, when a teacher, who turned and saw me whispering with a classmate, thoroughly embarrassed me, catching me out with an impromptu quiz. I hadn't been paying attention, and blustered and blabbered and I got the point: pay attention! I did not resent the teacher, or thought her "mean" because I had learned to respect a teacher's authority. And there's the rub.
I was born in 1965. All my teachers learned their trade in the fifties and sixties, if not earlier in some cases. Most of them, therefore, expected (quite rightly in my mind) their pupils to have learned to respect adults when coming to school, and as an extension to that, to respect a teacher's authority. And we did. So we learned a lot.
J.K. Rowling however, is of the opinion that her hero Harry is too good and important to pay respect to *anyone* (with the possible exception to her other self-insert Dumbledore), and certainly not to... certain groups of people.
Muggles? Barely human.
Slytherins?! Don't make me laugh.
And so Snape's attempts to have order in his classroom are constantly ridiculed as ineffective and "mean" and vilefied as "bullying".
Some of you might be so influenced by the autor's "voice" that you might agree with her. Ponder, however, the following excerpt from John Rosemond's, "Ending the Homework Hassle" :
In order for one person to learn something from someone else, that person must figuratively “look up” to the other. Without respect and admiration for the teacher’s knowledge and authority, the student will not learn much of value. At best, he may absorb lots of facts, but the likelihood is he will not be able to put them to much use.
Likewise, a child who does not come to school with a previously established respect for authority is not likely to become an effective learner. He will not understand why it is important for him to pay attention to the teacher or do what she (or he) tells him to do. He may also bring behaviour problems with him to school that further interfere with his ability to put his intelligence to good use.
He will probably interpret his teacher’s attempts to discipline him as indications they don’t like him. His parents, neither able nor willing to see their role in his problems, may even support this view. As he progresses through the grades, his attitude toward his teachers, and the educational process as a whole, will probably become increasingly cynical. In his mind, school will become a battleground of “me against them.”
His inability to understand the value of an education may lead him to drop out of school as soon as he is able. Regardless, he’ll probably drop out mentally sometime around junior high school. When he enters adult society, his disdain for authority, for the system, will follow and cause him untold problems throughout his life.
John Rosemond, Ending the Homework Hassle, pp 146-147
Does this not describe our Harry to a T?
So I urge you to take off the "Harry vision" goggles and look at what is really happening in those pages. Disregard all those mood-enhancing red herrings, all those "Harry saw Snape looking at him and knew that Snape was plotting evil deeds" and "Snape sneered" remarks. What the hell is a 'sneer' anyway? A grim smile? The world-weary face of a teacher who has too much of his plate and yet has to teach and guard a shitty little boy who clearly hates his guts?
Take away the disgusting bigotted remarks against Slytherins (so we must all think the worst of Snape for being the Ultimate Slytherin), take away the personal remarks about his greasy hair, his hooked nose and billowing cape (no wonder the American illustrator gave him whiskers, he sounds like the parody of a 19th century villain who constantly twirls his whiskers!) and take away Harry's misinterpretations of the man's actions (see above), and what do you have left?
Now, it isn't unusual for a children's book to start out with a disagreeable child as it's 'hero', but one would expect that child to undestand, through the course of the book, that it *has* been disagreeable, and then try to 'better itself'. "The Secret Garden" comes to mind.
Harry's story was different, however. I realised *how* different when Harry's attitude towards Snape didn't change after Harry had found out that his assumptions about the man had been false. Instead it was suggested by the author that Harry hadn't been wrong about Snape because "Snape was a mean bully of a teacher".
Point is, I never saw any "bullying mean teacher" at all. I saw a teacher who, when confronted with a disrespectful student in class tries to discipline said student, only to be frustrated by a manipulative Headmaster-with-an-agenda and an author who clearly can't stand anyone, real or fictional, being in authority over her self-insert protagonist.
For instance, in that infamous "first potions class" Snape's impromptu quiz is merely a reaction to Harry's insolence; Harry and Ron are making fun of Snape's introductory speech by "pulling up their eyebrows at each other". As I've said before, I've been in the same situation as a twelve-year-old, when a teacher, who turned and saw me whispering with a classmate, thoroughly embarrassed me, catching me out with an impromptu quiz. I hadn't been paying attention, and blustered and blabbered and I got the point: pay attention! I did not resent the teacher, or thought her "mean" because I had learned to respect a teacher's authority. And there's the rub.
I was born in 1965. All my teachers learned their trade in the fifties and sixties, if not earlier in some cases. Most of them, therefore, expected (quite rightly in my mind) their pupils to have learned to respect adults when coming to school, and as an extension to that, to respect a teacher's authority. And we did. So we learned a lot.
J.K. Rowling however, is of the opinion that her hero Harry is too good and important to pay respect to *anyone* (with the possible exception to her other self-insert Dumbledore), and certainly not to... certain groups of people.
Muggles? Barely human.
Slytherins?! Don't make me laugh.
And so Snape's attempts to have order in his classroom are constantly ridiculed as ineffective and "mean" and vilefied as "bullying".
Some of you might be so influenced by the autor's "voice" that you might agree with her. Ponder, however, the following excerpt from John Rosemond's, "Ending the Homework Hassle" :
In order for one person to learn something from someone else, that person must figuratively “look up” to the other. Without respect and admiration for the teacher’s knowledge and authority, the student will not learn much of value. At best, he may absorb lots of facts, but the likelihood is he will not be able to put them to much use.
Likewise, a child who does not come to school with a previously established respect for authority is not likely to become an effective learner. He will not understand why it is important for him to pay attention to the teacher or do what she (or he) tells him to do. He may also bring behaviour problems with him to school that further interfere with his ability to put his intelligence to good use.
He will probably interpret his teacher’s attempts to discipline him as indications they don’t like him. His parents, neither able nor willing to see their role in his problems, may even support this view. As he progresses through the grades, his attitude toward his teachers, and the educational process as a whole, will probably become increasingly cynical. In his mind, school will become a battleground of “me against them.”
His inability to understand the value of an education may lead him to drop out of school as soon as he is able. Regardless, he’ll probably drop out mentally sometime around junior high school. When he enters adult society, his disdain for authority, for the system, will follow and cause him untold problems throughout his life.
John Rosemond, Ending the Homework Hassle, pp 146-147
Does this not describe our Harry to a T?
So I urge you to take off the "Harry vision" goggles and look at what is really happening in those pages. Disregard all those mood-enhancing red herrings, all those "Harry saw Snape looking at him and knew that Snape was plotting evil deeds" and "Snape sneered" remarks. What the hell is a 'sneer' anyway? A grim smile? The world-weary face of a teacher who has too much of his plate and yet has to teach and guard a shitty little boy who clearly hates his guts?
Take away the disgusting bigotted remarks against Slytherins (so we must all think the worst of Snape for being the Ultimate Slytherin), take away the personal remarks about his greasy hair, his hooked nose and billowing cape (no wonder the American illustrator gave him whiskers, he sounds like the parody of a 19th century villain who constantly twirls his whiskers!) and take away Harry's misinterpretations of the man's actions (see above), and what do you have left?
I'll agree with the test vision, to tell the truth I don't remember it exactly.
If Albus' portrait could have passed on the message about Harry's sacrifice there would be no need for the character of Snape in the first place. I thought that a long time ago. Almost everything Snape does could be done another way in the books. Hermione alone could have save Harry in the first book, another teacher could have duelled Lockhart in COS, it could just as well have been Dumbledore in the Shrieking Shack. GOF did not really have much Snape in it. Well he has those conversations with Karkarov. Lucius could have had similar. OOTP, another teacher for the Occulemncy lessons. HBP, we need Snape for the HBP that's true. But Snape's role could have been assigned to other characters by the author. But we, the audience would have missed a great literary character. And part of that is the scene where he is attacked by Voldemort and when he is dieing passes the information to Harry. For the story to work out the way it did Snape had to be alive at the right time to pass the message to Harry, that means that Albus would not have endangered Snape's life any more than could be helped. It was a war, risks are part and parcel of a war. People die in the stupidest way in a war.
There was nothing whatsoever to stop Albus passing on the message by portrait, by pensieve, via another intemediary. That's no more reason for the literary creation of Snape than any other instance that you give. In any event, if we're discussing the internal world of the story, you can't justify a character's action by saying it was necessary to the plot, it has to have a justification within the world of the characters.
It does not appear to me that Snape knew anything about the Elder Wand until his last few minutes of life, and that was a foolish and unnecessary risk brought about by Dumbledore's refusal to share information and trust his lieutenant.
Also, not warning Severus about the Elder Wand was potentially hugely self-defeating in terms of Dumbledore's overall goals. Having decided (for whatever inexplicable reason) that he will only be satisfied if Snape - whom Harry, rationally speaking, is NOT likely to trust - is the one to pass on the message to Harry, he then does not even take basic precautions to enable Snape to *do* this as effectively as possible. Failing to let Snape know that Voldemort will likely decide to off him for the sake of the wand mastery only makes it more likely that Snape will, in fact, die, and thus not be able to pass on the message. It was pure luck (aka authorial contrivance) that he was able to pass it on at all - Dumbledore could not have predicted that Harry would be lurking in the tunnel right at the moment of Severus' murder. (And if he could have predicted that possibility, it would only make him morally worse, imho. Because then Severus' death at a certain time and place would be nothing other a further use for him, in exactly the same cold way in which Voldemort tries to make use of his death. Neither of them cares about Snape as a person, as shown by their actions towards him. At least Voldemort tries to compliment him first.)
Back to the Elder Wand. I think the Elder Wand was a problem for Dumbledore and I think the only thing he could think of to destroy it's power was to have Snape kill him. Two birds with one stone. Killing Dumbledore genuinely puts Snape in as the No1 Death Eater and it would have broke the power of the wand. Dumbledore had a hard choice to make there. The Wand's power in his mind was too dangerous to leave to Voldemort and so what to do with it. Would it have helped Snape to know about the Wand? I think Dumbledore might have thought in this instance ignorance would be Snape's best defense against this. Also Dumbledore could not be sure exactly what Ollivander would be forced to tell. Remember the incident with Harry's wand had not occurred when Dumbledore dies. Many things went into the fairly complicated plot about the Wand and chance played a fair bit in there. Draco's disarming Dumbledore, the fight between Voldemort and Harry and what Voldemort learnt and how long it would take him to learn it. That was all circumstances out of Dumbledore's control. I would be interested in what you think would have been the best thing for Dumbledore to do in regard to the Wand. He was stuck with the damn thing and there was not much time left.
And whether he deliberately wanted Severus to die, simply did not care about the risk to Severus, or merely failed to even consider whether he ought to mention it, is irrelevant to the outcome. He consciously chose a course of action that put Severus at even greater risk of death and failed to give him information that could have helped him save his life, even though any person of average intelligence could reasonably be expected to see that this course of action would put Severus' life at risk. Whether intentionally or not, he set up Severus' death and failed to so much as say 'oh, by the way, Voldemort might have a new reason to kill you in the near future' or 'you know this wand of mine? Voldemort thinks it is the Elder Wand, and he's going to want it after you kill me.'
And ignorance about the wand's nature was no defense against Voldemort - as we *quite clearly see* in the books. That's the entire point maidofkent and others are trying to make. He doesn't know about the wand, and therefore does not suspect when Voldemort calls him that Voldemort intends to murder him for it! KNOWING about the wand would have been more of a defense, in that he could have acted with knowledge of Voldemort's likely plans and so have had a better chance of escaping with his life.
Tome Cruise says 'Grave Danger', and Jack Nicholson re[lies , 'What other kind of danger is there?'
Would telling Snape about the Wand have helped him do what he had to do? Would it have increased the already large load of pressure he was under? I'm not talking about Snape's character or Dumbledore's character here. I'm trying to stand back and judge what would have been the best course to follow. Dumbledore had a very definate limit to the time he had left, we know that. He had a lot to do and a finite amount of time to do it in. He was very foolish to put the ring on, but spilt milk and all that. He had to deal with the circumstances as they were. He had no choice. Snape had very little in the way of choices as well. I think he did see that Voldemort had to be defeated at all costs. It was no longer about Lily and vengeance for Lily's death. It was quite literally the survival of the Wizarding World. Voldemort would destroy that world all who lived in it in the quest for immortality. This included the Death Eaters who were deluded enough to follow him. Only one person stood in his way, Harry. I do think that Snape went into the battle prepared to die for that cause, would knowing about the Wand have helped him there? I don't really know, but I think he would have done exactly the same things if he had known. Perhaps he should have been offered the choice, perhaps not. I don't think he needed that extra pressure myself so I am inclined to not judge Dumbledore too harshly. I thnk he did his best to save his society and he knew full well that Snape had a slim chance of survival anyway. Snape was in as much danger as the rest of the Wizarding World, every single person in it was in 'Grave Peril'. Remember Molly's clock? That spoke for everybody. Snape did his duty as a human being in taking down a monster and he was a willing soldier in the fight. For me the Elder Wand is rather a moot point because there was nothing really that Snape could do about it and still serve in the fight. The last thing he needed was to worry about Voldemort's reaction if it was suspected that he knew about the Wand.
Fair enough that Dumbledore would need the Elder Wand for the rest of his life, and couldn't afford to destroy it himself. Absolutely no reason for him not to help Snape destroy it after his death.
Lynn
Harry doesn't have the independence to think for himself. Dumbledore never suggested destroying the thing, so why should Harry consider it? For that matter, Harry would probably have though it disrespectful of Dumbledore's memory to destroy his old wand, unless Dumbledore's portrait told him to do it. I'm not surprised Harry didn't do it or try it.
Perhaps the Elder Wand couldn't've been destroyed, but no one would have known that unless they tried. It would certainly be worth a try. I can't imagine Dumbledore would have tried while he could still use it for himself, but he could have given Snape instructions to destroy it, or to try to.
Even if it turned out that the Elder Wand couldn't be destroyed by anything Snape could have done, that is a sound reason for Dumbledore giving him the information. But Dumbledore prefered to leave Snape ignorant, even though nothing would have been *lost* by Dumbledore giving Snape that information.
Lynn
True Dumbledore could have told Snape about the Wand. What would it have changed? Snape was not the Master of the Wand so what could he have done? He could not challenge Draco because of the Unbreakable Vow so that choice would have been out. I'm asking quite honestly, would Snape's knowing about the Wand have changed anything? Would it not in all honesty just have been another burden to carry? I'm not saying that Dumbledore should not have been honest with him, I'm asking if Snape knew about the Wand would that knowledge have kept him alive?
Voldemort was searching for a more powerful wand, he was not going to stop searching, in his mind he needed one to defeat Harry. Snape was known to have killed Dumbledore. Dumbledore was the the last owner of the Wand and Voldemort knew it. No matter what, the trail led to Dumbledore and then to Snape. Dumbledore did try and nullify the Wand with the assisted suicide from Snape but chance and Draco interfered. After that it was out of Snape's hands. The Wand was buried with Dumbledore, Draco was it's Master and there was nothing Snape could have done to prevent Voldemort from finding the Wand. Would knowing all this have helped, or hindered Snape?
Did Dumbledore make mistakes, yes he was human. Did he try to do his best, yes I genuinely felt he did. Did he plan for Snape to die over the Elder Wand, he probably felt there was a chance it would happen, but there was nothing he could do about it. Chips would have to fall where they were going to fall. That sounds cold but sometimes there is nothing you can do about what is going to happen. Snape like everybody else was caught up in the flow of events. Like it says on my sister's sweatshirt,
'Sometimes S*** Happens.' It's no one fault except Voldemort's. He made the decision to kill Snape just like he made the decision to kill many others. Snape I feel knew his chances were slim, but he didn't run away, he stayed and faced Voldemort
First, your idea that only the master of the wand could have destroyed it is speculation. Even if you're right, *Dumbledore* couldn't *know* that that was the case. (In order to know, he would have had to have successfully destroyed it himself, which he didn't do.)
Second, Dumbledore should have told Snape *before* his death. (If something is this important, you don't leave things up to chance -- what if Snape hadn't been able to return to Hogwarts and talk to the portrait?) Since the plan was for Snape to be the one to "defeat" Dumbledore, Dumbledore would have believed, before his death, that Snape would be the next master of the wand. That was presumably one of the big reasons why Dumbledore wanted Snape to be the one to kill him.
Someone should have tried to destroy the wand. If it couldn't be destroyed, then knowing what it really was would have made it possible to hide it well. Give it to someone to hide, then Obliviate them. Sorry, Dumbledore was thoroughly irresponsible about limiting the damage his wand could do after his death -- there were all kinds of things that might have been done to help, and Dumbledore made sure that no one could do any of them.
And Snape was first in the line of fire, which says something about how well Dumbledore treated him.
Lynn
summeriris
Yes I agree with you, Dumbledore could have spoken to Snape about it, he didn't. I don't think that equates to plotting Snape's death.
Let's say that Dumbledore did destroy the Wand and he told Snape. Would Voldemort have believed Snape? Would Snape have left that information lying about in his mind, or would it have been safely tucked away, hidden by Occlumency. The fact that the Wand existed was found out by Voldemort by following the trail. It led to Dumbledore and onto Snape. Dumbledore could never have Obliviated everybody who knew about it and Ollivander was well beyond his reach. Would Voldemort believe for a second that Dumbledore had willingly destroyed the most powerful wand in the world? I rather doubt it, he would have killed Snape anyway.
As I have stated before Dumbledore needed Snape alive. He needed him alive and in a position to know when Nagini would be protected by Voldemort. As we now know that did not happen till the middle of the Battle of Hogwarts. It was a very fine line and I think Dumbledore knew and apppreciated the danger Snape would be in, but there was nothing he could do to really lessen that danger. Both he and Snape knew Voldemort had to be stopped at all costs and give Snape credit where it is due, he put himself in harm's way to get to that end. Yes Snape stood in the line of fire, he was a soldier in a war against a great evil. That's what soldiers do, they stand in the line of fire.
The blame for Snape's death lies at Voldemort's door, no one elses. He started the War and Snape helped finish it.
Even if it was impossible to destroy the wand, the correct place to put it is somewhere inaccessible that nobody would guess. Volcanoes come to mind. Or deep ocean faults. Hermione tells us that in order to summon it one needs to know where it is.
And we know that a non-master can move the wand, so there is nothing to prevent a non-master from placing it in such an inaccessible location. And Obliviating hirself of the memory of having done so, as an extra measure of safety.
Can you Obliviate yourself? I truthfully don't think so. Look what happened to Lockhart when his Obliviate spell rebounded on him.
Of course you can. Lockhart ended up the way he did because that was how strong he intended his Obliviation of the boys to be. But we see the spell being used to lesser effect (Hermione's use on Rowle and Dolohov) so I can't see why one couldn't do that to oneself. In any case, one can implant a false memory like Tom does to Morfin and Hokey, or as Lynn proposed, have someone else hide it without telling where it went and modify that person's memory.
I could maybe consider Obliviating yourself if the only occasion we see it done was by Lockhart and lets' face it, he was not a great Wizard. Just how would you do it? Hold your wand to your head and say Obliviate. You would forget what you were doing halfway through. I don't think it possible to cast a spell on yourself, we never see one person doing it apart from the Amamagis and that seems to be an incantation.
The big problem with false memories is that they are so patently false. Yes, you could have someone else hide it and then Obliviate their memory, but truthfully I don't see what it was that Harry did that was so wrong. You know most people don't go grave-robbing in the UK, there's a fairly strong taboo against it, think Burke and Hare. Voldemort was the exception to the rule. All Harry would have to do was magically transfer the Wand to the Tomb and not tell anyone. I think that was probably what he did. The Tomb was in plain site and everybody would know if it had been disturbed. Voldemort went to a lot of trouble to hide and protect his Horcruxes and each and every one of them was found. And he told no one. Not only that, because the places were so hidden he didn't know they had been destroyed till well after the fact. I think Harry did the simplest thing and it was also the best thing. Remember just because it was in the Tomb does not mean there wasn't a spell or two on the Tomb to protect it.
"Black started to laugh, a horrible, mirthless laugh that filled the
whole room.
"Voldemort, teach me tricks?" he said.
Pettigrew flinched as though Black had brandished a whip at him.
"What, scared to hear your old master's name?" said Black. I don't blame you, Peter. His lot aren't very happy with you, are they?"
"Don't know what you mean, Sirius --" muttered Pettigrew, his breathing faster than ever. His whole face was shining with sweat now.
"You haven't been hiding from me for twelve years," said Black. "You've been hiding from Voldemort's old supporters. I heard things in Azkaban, Peter... They all think you're dead, or you'd have to answer to them.... I've heard them screaming all sorts of things in their sleep. Sounds like they think the double-crosser double-crossed them. Voldemort went to the Potters' on your information... and Voldemort met his downfall there. And not all Voldemort's supporters ended up in Azkaban, did they?
There are still plenty out here, biding their time, pretending they've
seen the error of their ways. If they ever got wind that you were still alive..." JK Rowling Prisoner of Azkaban.
So the Death Eaters knew there was a double crosser and Sirius knew who had framed him and he put two and two together.
I agree with you that Voldemort gave Lily a choice. What I'm more undecided about is if Voldemort realized what he was doing when he gave that choice? I don't think he did and I don't think he was thinking about Snape, we hear his thoughts during the death scene and he's not thinking about Snape, but Snape did ask and that probably did influence Voldemort into his little game of playing with Lily. I se it as a 2 step process, Snape asks and this leads Voldemort into his little game with Lily, Lily chooses to die for her child. It two steps in the same dance.
Part 1
A guess is a good enough reason to be cautious.
If Albus' portrait could have passed on the message about Harry's sacrifice there would be no need for the character of Snape in the first place.
That's a Doylist argument, and the ultimate Doylist argument is that the character of Sevrus is there because Rowling wanted to avenge herself on her former teacher. Nothing in the series was 'necessary'. I agree Rowling intended Sevrus' story-arc in advance to include the element of the messenger who brings Albus' final orders. But her plotting in practice (here and in general) isn't tight enough and her magic not well-defined enough for arguments from plot-necessity to hold. Compare to how she undermines her entire story by letting Bill be the Secret Keeper of Shell Cottage with no explanation why a similar arrangement wasn't possible for the Potters' home back in 1981.
If she had shown us that the headmasters' portraits had very limited sentience, similar to Walburga's portrait, you'd have a point. But both Phineas and Albus in their portraits pass the Turing test. I can't tell Albus' portrait apart from his living character. So I don't see why he couldn't have told Harry himself.
From a Watsonian POV all we have is Albus cooking up this mess out of his own weakness, combined with his hubris. Both weakness and hubris are essential aspects of his character. He was weak when he delayed confronting Gellert. He was weak when he didn't tell Armando and Horace that he knew the Slytherin prefect who just reported monster-raising Rubeus as a little sadist when he was 11, he was weak when he didn't tell British wizards that this charismatic newcomer calling himself Voldemort was Hogwarts alumnus Tom Riddle (and he was very probably Tom's accomplice after-the-fact when he didn't alert Aurors when he expected Tom to show up for an interview). It was hubris when he deluded himself into thinking he could watch Tom Riddle closely enough for the school's safety (with a Hogwarts teacher's schedule, really?). It was hubris when he thought he could do anything he wanted with the school with no accountability (see Remus' schooling as well as his hiring practices) or when he thought Ministers should follow his directions because he said so, even though his 'advice' (ie instructions) was not based on evidence available to them, and it was both weakness and hubris that made him convince himself that he was really avoiding power (he was avoiding responsibility and accountability). And so forth. His hubris convinced him that by not using the Elder Wand in violence for some decades he could 'tame' it - undo the influence of who knows how many previous owners as well as the wand's essential nature, or perhaps weakness that led him to seek that excuse not to put himself at the front. (He really should have hidden it back in 1945. I'm pretty sure everything he did, apart from possibly repairing Hagrid's broken wand, if he did so, could have been done just as well with the wand with which he beat Gellert. After all, Marchbanks said that at 18 he already did things she never saw.)
Re: Part 1
Snape's story is that of how redemption works, unfortunately for a redemption arc to work the character who is going through it does have to have a reason for being redeemed. He/she does not have to be a nice person to go through this. Snape IMO, was not a nice person. That's what makes him interesting.
Part 2
He has 3 issues to deal with: destroying Tom's Horcruxes, giving Harry a chance at survival and preventing Tom from becoming master of the Elder Wand.
For the first he was going to do as much as possible and leave most of the rest to Harry (not clear who was supposed to kill Nagini, considering his instructions required that she be protected when Harry was given his last instructions). For this purpose he was going to arrange for Severus to deliver to Harry the sword and the Horcrux books, though Hermione managed to snag the books earlier than planned, through the window Albus left open to allow Severus to fly into the headmaster's office during the summer.
For the second - Harry had to die in a manner that left his body intact, so that his soul had a body to re-enter from the trip to King's Cross. The best chance was if Harry died by AK, and the person who can be (almost always) counted on to use the AK was Tom - which is why Albus said it was 'essential' that Voldmeort kill Harry himself. But for that to happen, Tom had to have a wand he trusted. Now this might be a complication, because after 3 failures to kill Harry with the yew wand and especially after the PI at the graveyard Tom might decide he no longer trusted his own wand against Harry. He might decide to acquire the Elder Wand, especially once he captured Ollivander. Which leads us to issue #3.
Albus had to keep Tom from really mastering the Elder Wand (who knows if the Elder Wand can overcome the blood connection between Harry and Tom? it's an equation with two unique unknown elements, the outcome is impossible to predict). So first and foremost, he had to avoid dying at Tom's hand, even indirectly. Which meant he couldn't afford to die from the ring's curse. He had (at least) two other options: option one was, when the time came, commit suicide. Make it look like a heart attack or some other natural cause. He would have died on his own terms, the Elder Wand would have been retired, no matter who held it. And nobody would be suspected as the master. But instead he chose to give the task to Severus. So because he had an alternative I believe it was not mere neglect or underestimation of Tom's ability to trace down the wand that Albus chose this manner of death. I believe it was his way of ensuring that if Tom decided to track down the Elder Wand he would believe that he could secure it by killing Severus.
Against Albus' expectations, Draco became the Master, while the wand retained its power. Now what? If Albus' goal was for Severus to become master of the Elder Wand he should have told him. Severus could find an excuse to disarm Draco sometime, perhaps at school. But Albus didn't, and rightly so - if the apparent master is the true master then Tom would have actually become the master when he killed Severus. So when Albus at King's Cross agrees he intended the wand to go to Severus, he meant a retired, impotent wand. He did not want Severus to have the power of the wand, he merely wanted to mark him as the apparent master, so he would die for it, to ensure that if Tom learns of the Elder Wand he will be under false belief of his mastery of said wand.
Let's consider your proposal, that Albus didn't expect Tom to figure out the Elder Wand. Then when the wand was not retired, with Draco as its master, why not tell Severus about it? Since the wand was not retired, why not let Severus become its master (by disarming Draco) so that he'd be able to use it whether to undo Nagini's protection, to kill Nagini or Tom himself? Or at least to prevent Tom from accidentally becoming the master, if he were to punish Draco by taking his wand or kill Draco in a fit of pique? No, I don't see how an Albus who doesn't expect Tom to track the wand down would not inform Severus, now that he knows the wand retained its power. He took a huge risk that Voldemort would get the mastery from Draco without even knowing he was doing so. I think the reason is obvious, and consistent with past behavior - he couldn't bring himself to face Severus and tell him how he was using him behind his back...
Re: Part 2
I think the reason is obvious, and consistent with past behavior - he couldn't bring himself to face Severus and tell him how he was using him behind his back...
Yes. Just the way, for a long time, he couldn't bring himself to face the truth of who actually killed Ariana and so delayed going after Grindelwald, couldn't face the truth that his security arrangements for Remus were inadequate after finding out that students had got past them and so merely silenced the victim without updating the security, couldn't face the truth that he was responsible for allowing Tommy to get his start in the WW and so kept vital information about him secret, etc. In some ways Dumbledore is like Remus, in his need to save face at all costs. Remus ultimately is somewhat more honest about - or at least conscious of - it though.
Re: Part 2
Yes. His actions show he had no intention for Severus to become the master of a 'live' Elder Wand.
Part 3
As I said above, hubris and weakness. Hubris to believe he could plot everything without sharing information and that his plots are always the best ones, and weakness in his inability to face those he endangered without their knowledge.
Now, had Severus been presented with the plan where his death gives Harry a chance at survival, he undoubtedly would have agreed with it. Had Tom believed he couldn't trust his wand against Harry he would have used some other method to kill him (Nagini? Fiendfyre? normal fire?). Any such method that damaged the body too much would have precluded Harry's survival. However if he had been given all the information in a timely manner Severus could have modified the plan to give himself a chance at survival without harming Harry's. For instance, provoke some minor DE (preferably someone who isn't on Tom's good side) to a fight and appear to lose convincingly. When the time came he could have attempted to convince Tom the other DE was the true master. (This only has a chance of working if Tom doesn't have too much time to notice no improvement in the wand's performance, so Tom shouldn't be told too soon.) Perhaps there are other plans that could work better, I'm just improvising as I go along. But Severus had no chance as he was acting in ignorance.
Albus' original plan made no provisions for dealing with Nagini. It made no provisions for protecting Harry if after his return from limbo Tom were to decide to kill him in body-destroying ways. Two reasons to keep alive someone powerful who is on Harry's side.
Naigini
Either that or Albus believed Harry would kill Naigini himself, when he went to 'offer himself up' to Voldy. -- Hwyla