We’re halfway through Half-Blood Prince!
More Snape irony in this chapter: As Harry what he overhears to Ron, he’s convinced he knows that Snape is on Voldemort’s side, because “No one’s that good an actor, not even Snape.” Wrong! Funny that as Harry is being vindicated about Malfoy, he’s completely wrong about Snape.
Dumbledore really becomes a show-stealer on a re-read. Snape was the big mystery, and to some extent still is, of course. But as the Snape discussion progresses on Christmas Eve at the Burrow, Harry begins to challenge Snape’s status in the order: “But how do we know?”
“It isn’t our business to know,” said Lupin unexpectedly … “It’s Dumbledore’s business. Dumbledore trusts Severus, and that ought to be good enough for all of us.”
“But,” said Harry, “just say – just Dumbledore’s wrong about Snape – ”
“People have said it, many times. It comes down to whether or not you trust Dumbledore’s judgment. I do; therefore, I trust Severus.”
Wow. That’s a lot of trust from Lupin! And, as we all know, Lupin was right. But is there a disconnect between the extent of Lupin’s trust and Dumbledore’s actual character. Well, we could have quite the debate about that one. I would argue that Dumbledore was trustworthy, but here’s the darker question: did Dumbledore earn this kind of trust, or did he manipulate it? I’d lean toward the former; others here would lean toward the latter.
By the way: “I neither like nor dislike Severus Snape.” How’s that for typical non-committal on Lupin’s part? But Lupin ends up being 100% correct for the remainder of the discussion, which says to me his trust in Dumbledore, at the very least, is founded on something solid and reliable.
I love Harry’s “fierce” assertion that Lupin is “normal.” It’s the kind of thing that works as a great illustration in discussions about what is “normal” and what is “other” in social constructs concerning issues like disability.
We had a discussion in another comment thread about whether Lupin was correct in his assertion that Levicorpus was one of those spells that comes and goes; but the text in this chapter indicates that Lupin is doing little more than speculating. He clearly doesn’t know for sure.
Brilliant misdirection by Rowling on the Lupin/Tonks pairing: After telling the everyone that Tonks was spending Christmas alone, “[Mrs. Weasley] gave Lupin an annoyed look, as though it was all his fault she was getting Fleur for a daughter-in-law instead of Tonks…” The look itself is the clue to getting the interpretation right, but the Harry filter immediately misdirects us to the Bill/Tonks framework of thinking introduced back in chapter 5.
The remainder of the chapter is Harry’s discussion with Scrimgeour, which shows us just how awful the Ministry has become. I’ll leave analysis of that discussion to the pub, or do a separate post if no one picks it up and runs with it in the comments.
Tom on 
Arabella Figg on 
Red Rocker on 
Perelandra on 
Loading ...
{ 43 comments… read them below or add one }
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You’re getting too far ahead of me. I’m like a chapter behind now. Of course, I’ve been spending my time dodging weather & then reading The Chronicles of Narnia. But I’ll go sit down now & read this chapter.
One comment to start with, though. Harry’s conversation with Scrimgeour. I tend to think Scrimgeour is another one of those characters who’s just there to prove a point & thus gets short shrift from JKR. We don’t really get to know him at all, & I would hope he would have more sense & integrity than to imprison someone who’s obviously not a Death Eater. But with my distrust of government bureaucrats & bureaucracies & remembering Lord Acton’s maxim, I don’t really have too much problem seeing how awful the Ministry has become. It just goes to show that at its best the Ministry is a bumbling den of incompetents or people wound up so much in red tape that nothing gets done & that at worst the Ministry is almost as bad as Voldemort.
Now, some people might take issue with that & say, “But the Ministry wasn’t doing mass killings of people.” No, not yet. Just look at who’s committed the most genocides in the last century, governments. As Washington so eloquently said, “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
How’s that for a discussion starter, Travis?
revgeorge, it’s a great one. Love it when fellow libertarians come together to talk government abuse of power in Harry Potter
And I’m just caught up on my reading after being away last weekend. At last!
I get such a kick out of this chapter–it’s hilarious. The gnome in the tutu, Fred and George teasing Ron and Harry about peeling sprouts by hand, the awful necklace Lavender sends Ron and the maggots given Harry by Kreacher, Mrs. Weasley and Fleur … it’s superb.
It’s also very poignant in spots, such as Mrs. Weasley’s clear longing to believe that Percy really wanted to see them on Christmas.
Great points above, Travis. I love reading this chapter knowing what we know about Lupin and Tonks.
The difference between Fudge and Scrimgeour is emphasized several times; proof positive that there is more than one way of being wrong. When it comes to being manipulative, Dumbledore looks absolutely forthright–or at least subtle about it–compared to Scrimgeour. The Minister tries bribery; Harry’s lucky he doesn’t try blackmail.
It’s a strong pointer to Harry’s strength of character, I think, that he is able to face the head of the Wizarding World, point out the corruptions, and refuse to be used. It just about gives me chills when he holds up his scarred fist in Scrimgeour’s face.
Revgeorge, you say “I would hope he [Scrimgeour] would have more sense & integrity than to imprison someone who’s obviously not a Death Eater.” It’s always interested me that Harry and Mr. Weasley are so convinced that Stan is innocent, when in DH the general impression I get is that he is guilty.
Library Lily, I think the conclusion in DH was that he’s imperiused.
I was thinking along the same lines about Harry’s character. I love watching him take on Scrimgeour in that discussion.
revgeorge, I think your points are proven very well when you look at how easily the Ministry was transformed from its state in Book 6 (alright, it wasn’t committing mass murder) to its state in Book 7. It didn’t take the majority of the Ministry much convincing to get that evil and that abusive that quickly.
Regarding Stan, in HBP the indication seems to be he was a bit of an idiot. Talking about secret Death Eater plans. But admittedly he could have been involved with the Death Eaters, not one of them of course, & just shot his mouth off. In DH there’s a bit more ambiguity to it. Harry claims Stan is imperiused, although technically according what the fake Moody taught us in GOF there’s no easy way to tell. And then there’s the comment the Snatchers make later on about knowing about Stan. That comment’s never fully explained & leaves some doubt about Stan’s loyalties.
Travis, the great thing about my criticism of the Ministry is that it’s so firmly based on the way JKR writes the Ministry. One doesn’t have to be or shouldn’t have to be someone who’s already suspicious of governments or bureaucracies to get the idea that she doesn’t place much trust in politicians or institutions. Now, how that squares with her own political leanings since she seems to be a fan of Gordon Brown, that’s another question.
Travis, your point about the transition of the Ministry from under Scrimgeour to Voldemort is well taken. And the real evil, what Lewis called the banality of evil, is that people pretty much went to work as normal. The Ministry was kept running by the everyday common people who just did their jobs & followed orders. There was no question of their evilness or goodness. It didn’t matter; they were just part of the machine whose levers were being moved by a different set of hands.
Travis, imperiused makes sense. I was thinking about his sending work to the Snatchers, but of course that could be done under the Imperius curse too–and he almost certainly was under it in the fight at the beginning, with his “strangely blank face”.
Revgeorge, I’ll second Travis on his point about your points. How true that is! And I love the quote by Washington.
I just read Animal Farm a couple of weeks ago, and it reminds me a lot of the Ministry: Napoleon and his dogs/Voldemort and Death Eaters, Squealer the Pig/The Daily Prophet, and Dolores Umbridge and her ilk don’t seem to have any more trouble going along with the Magic is Might regime any more than the other pigs with Napoleon after Snowball is run off.
… And good further points about Stan, Revgeorge. He seems to be portrayed as a bit of an idiot all the way through the books (something of a loveable brainless character in book 3), which would make him easy to control if nothing else.
Library Lily, yes, Animal Farm! I think Rowling’s portrayal of the ministry fits well in conversation with that book.
If Stan is under the imperius curse, he would act like a death eater in terms of being helpful, like Rosmerta. The suggestion that he was under the imperius curse is based on the blank look in his eyes during the aerial chase which makes Harry hesistate to stun him. This blank look is similar to the look in Katie Bell’s eyes when she carries the package out of the three broomsticks. Perhaps it’s a question of how strongly or well the imperius curse has been cast, how much the person is fighting it, and/or how long it has been in effect. In this chapter of HBP, the impression was that if Stan were a death eater he wouldn’t talk about their plans and if he were under the imperius curse, he wouldn’t either. In all likelihood he was just talking big while knowing nothing. After a stint in Azkaban, and then presumably broken out with the real death eaters, he would be easy prey for an imperius curse.
It always makes me want to bang my head against the table to read Rowling talk about how after the series ends Harry, Ron, and Hermione remake the Ministry into a much better, good, and helpful place. After writing an entire series about, in part, the corruption of power and the danger of ministry policies and ministry incompetence, she thinks government will be good and incorruptible just because the Terrific Trio take charge. This idea that government will be good if only the right people are in charge drives me nuts!
I will comment more later after I have a chance to reread the chapter. I will say that Lupin is trusting Dumbledore’s judgment of character, not his veracity. When it comes to judging character, Dumbledore seems to be almost always right, with two exceptions: Grindelwald and Riddle (thinking Riddle might feel remorse and reformhis ways). A possible third exception is that he does not seem to sufficiently appreciate the extent of Snape’s reform; I don’t think he expected Snape to mind having to kill Dumbledore.
Trust is a big word. When someone asks me: “Do you trust me?”, my response is “Trust you to do what?”
I took Lupin’s statement about trusting Dumbledore to mean: “I trust Dumbledore to know best what to do about Snape, which is to say, to know better than you or me.” He wasn’t saying that he trusted Dumbledore to tell the truth, to be a good man, or a kind man or an honest man. He was saying that he trusts Dumbledore as his leader in the war.
Which trust was obviously well placed, since Dumbledore’s strategy did win the war – although neither Snape nor Lupin (nor Tonks) survived that war. And Harry himself died before the end. Which is part of what happens in war: the great generals can win wars, but not necessarily save lives.
With government, the right person may mitigate somewhat the incompetence and corruption of power. That’s about the best we can hope for. The wrong person …
Harry: “No one’s that good an actor, not even Snape.” Snape (last chapter): “Where would I have been all these years if I did not know how to act.” Hmm. Either Snape has been a good enough actor/occlumens to fool Voldemort into thinking he is still a loyal death eater, or he’s a good enough actor/occlumens to fool Dumbledore into thinking he is loyal (or still loyal) to Dumbledore. Either way Snape must be a really good actor, or else Harry just thinks Dumbledore is easily fooled, blinded by a soft heart that wants to believe the best of everyone, like he believed Tom Riddle might possibly feel remorse for what he had been doing at the orphanage. Since Harry doesn’t think Snape’s that good an actor, he must believe Dumbledore easily fooled. And yet, he knows, from COS, that Dumbledore never really trusted Riddle and “kept an annoyingly close eye” on him at Hogwarts. The exchange with Lupin of course highlights this point. I’m almost inclined, Umbridge-like, to tell Harry that wizards much older and wiser than him have devised our course of study!
Is that Celestina Warbeck or Snape singing “Oh, come and stir my cauldron,/ And if you do it right,/ I’ll boil you up some hot strong love/ To keep you warm tonight.” (!)
Actually, while Mrs. Weasley is turning up the volume on this song, Lupin is staring into the fire “as though he could not hear Celestina’s voice.” Note the odd phrasing. Is he perhaps hearing the song but in Tonks’ voice? Or is he just trying not to think about Tonks and love?
While Harry is talking to Mr. Weasley (with Lupin listening) about what he overheard Snape and Malfoy saying, Celestina is crooning “Oh, my poor heart, where has it gone?/ It’s left me for a spell. . .” Rather an ironic juxtaposition, both with regard to Lupin and with regard to Snape. (I tend to ignore songs when they’re quoted in books; this time I actually read them with attention.) After the ensuing discussion of Snape quoted in Travis’ original post, Lupin says it might even have been on D’s orders that Severus questioned Draco. After which Celestina finishes her song: “. . . and now you’ve torn it quite apart/ I’ll thank you to give back my heart!” Again, ironically appropriate, but also a little evocative (on reread) of the horcruxes involving a soul being torn apart.
As Harry goes to bed he is “thinking of werewolves and Snape, Stan Shunpike and the Half-Blood Prince.” The parallellism in the sentence structure between Snape and Half-Blood Prince is another quiet clue to the HBP’s identity.
Not only does Mrs. Weasley give Lupin an annoyed look about Tonks spending Christmas alone, Lupin is the one she asks (a few lines earlier) whether he has spoken to Tonks lately. And then poor Lupin being told Tonk’s patronus has changed and being asked to explain why! And then Harry tells him it was big and had four legs! If Lupin didn’t know how Tonks felt before, he does now. Plus Harry tells Lupin that Snape noticed the change, so Lupin knows Snape has in all likelihood guessed what’s going on.
There’s a certain irony in Harry’s conversation with Scrimgeour. Scrimgeour says, “But to the Wizarding community at large . . . it’s all perception, isn’t it? It’s what people believe that’s important.” This in fact is exactly what Dumbledore is planning: to misdirect public opinion into thinking Snape is a killer working for Voldemort so that Snape can come back as headmaster after Voldemort takes over. And Harry’s unwitting role will be to believe in and proclaim Snape’s perfidity. “‘I don’t want to be used,’ said Harry.” Oh, well.
“Dumbledore’s man through and through.” Yes, but shouldn’t Dumbledore’s man have a higher opinion of Dumbledore’s judgment of people?
Red Rocker, agree with your comment on Lupin’s reaction to Dumbledore’s trust issue. His first words are “It’s not our business to know.” Now, that is the response of a soldier who obeys his commander, even if he may have his own personal doubts. Trust is a very iffy word here. Trust & obedience are kind of wrapped up here in one in Lupin’s response. I think this is the kind of ‘trust’ that Harry eventually learns in DH.
I also found it interesting how the incipient discussion on whether or not Dumbledore could be wrong since he admits he could be wrong is side-tracked. By Harry no less, because he goes on to ask how Lupin feels about Snape.
You know, it just struck me thinking of Scrimgeour’s conversation with Harry that Scrimgeour’s use of Percy to try to manipulate the situation with the Weasleys & Harry is much like a lot of other manipulation that goes on. Scrimgeour is quite a bit more obvious in his manipulation than Dumbledore is.
This goes back to the question, is it right when Dumbledore or Harry does it but not when others do it? Or is wrong all the time? I think the question becomes, do we give certain people a pass on their behavior because we’re seeing the story from their point of view & thus see them as the good guys ’cause that’s the only perspective we have & we become emotionally invested in them? Don’t know where I’m going with this but just a thought I had.
I like Travis’s question: did Dumbledore earn this trust, or did he manipulate it?
My answer would be: neither. Trust here is much more basic than that.
Lupin – and the others in the Order – have to make their own decisions about who they will choose to trust. Think about their situation: There’s a deadly war. If Voldemort wins, he will not be merciful to his enemies – especially is they are half-bloods or muggle-born or muggle lovers or werewolves, or such. The people who are supposed to be in charge of the war effort – the Ministry – are useless. They start out from a position of refusing to acknowledge the threat, to a position of focusing on looking like they’re doing something because they obviously don’t know what to do.
What are you – as someone who wants to fight Voldemort – going to do? You’re going to organize your own paramilitary force – the Order – and you’re going to pick as your leader the person who seems most likely to win against Voldemort. The implicit – but binding – bargain is this: tell us what to do and we will do it. Obedience, as revgeorge said, in exchange for defeating the enemy.
I think we have some Tarot symbolism here. Rufus Scrimgeour is “lion-like” and gives an aura of “strength”. This obviously suggests Card 8 of the Major Arcana: Strength. In the Waite deck the card depicts a woman holding open the jaws of a lion, and this is mirrored in the chapter by Fleur opening Bill’s mouth by offering him bits of turkey off her fork.
Mythically, Card 8 is associated with Arachne, the Spider and I am guessing that the Strength symbolism here heralds the death of Aragog later in the book.
Interesting, SPT. Or Card 8, Arachne the Spider, could symbolize Snape as discussed back in the comments on the Spinner’s End chapter. Very very interesting that the lion card is associated with a spider. (I really know nothing about Tarot, but I believe I read somewhere that Rowling has read a lot about it and about fortunetelling methods from other cultures.)
Well, it is associated with spiders only because they have eight legs and it is card number 8 (in the Rider-Waite deck, anyway).
Of course, I can not really be sure that all this is actually symbolism. It is all pretty subtle. But with Trelawney reading the cards in the hallway every couple of chapters it would be foolish not to look for Tarot symbolism.
It would probably be okay to look for Tarot symbolism when it’s directly referenced or tied to what Trelawney is doing but I’m not sure it can be pushed much beyond that. If so, it seems really, really subtly done by JKR.
Actually I think the Tarot symbolism is strongest in Deathly Hallows, where Trelawney scarcely appears. Both final books seem much more solidly “made” (in terms of symbolism and structure) than the previous five. Perhaps that is why they are less fun
.
Red Rocker said, “I like Travis’s question: did Dumbledore earn this trust, or did he manipulate it?
My answer would be: neither. Trust here is much more basic than that.”
I think Dumbledore did earn much of the trust people had in him. And then another equal portion was part of a soldier’s obedience to his commander. Perhaps there was another portion of trust earned by manipulation.
This might be shown by Snape’s trust in DD that DD would help protect Harry & so Snape would spend his efforts doing the same for the sake of Lily but then feeling betrayed when DD says Harry has to die & LV has to do it. DD deflects Snape’s accusation by saying, “So, do you know care for the boy?” Which Snape of course denies but it takes the focus off of DD’s promises of protection for Harry. Does this make sense or am I just rambling?
SPT, I don’t know, many people considered HBP to be too light & comedic except for DD’s death, of course. And DH certainly isn’t fun but it’s my favorite. Would you be able to elaborate on what you consider to be the Tarot symbolism in DH? I think it’s an interesting subject to explore.
There were three images that reminded me of Tarot cards:
The (Lightning-Struck) Tower – Trelawney’s warning, of course (“Calamity. Disaster. Coming nearer all the time …”) foreshadowing Dumbledore falling from the Astronomy Tower after Snape’s lightning AK
The Hanged Man – the name of the village pub in Little Hangleton and Harry hanging upside down when he passed the enchanted mist during the third task in GOF
The Hermit – Snape ‘welcoming’ Harry at Hogwarts with his lantern
JKR uses a lot of symbols and imagery from several traditions. But you never know. Often there is – or at least seems to be – a deeper meaning. Sometimes she may just have loved the image.
Amen Lily Luna! This chapter was very annoying. It was just the wrong people in charge that messed everything up! And then, when Harry gets in, EVERYTHING will be different. (Something we’ve have shoved down our throats here in the US). Rowling’s politics in this chapter and the 1st become dangerously close to breaking the 4th wall, where she enters with her personal opinions about the administrations at the time, instead of just letting the story tell itself.
I was so sad when she said that the Trio ended up in the Ministry . . .
Re the expressed disappointment that JKR believed that the Ministry would become a force for good when Harry and his friends joined: how do systems change if not through the actions of people who work to change them for the better?
Is the argument that governments and bureacracies inherently and inalterably corrupt and ineffecient? Is that a libertarian stance?
To be fair, I thought her criticism of governments and politicians qua politicians in her novels was fine and non-specific to particular administrations. In fact HBP kind of makes the point that there’s a new M’erOM, but he’s just as ineffective. It was the post-DH comments I found highly ironic and naive. But then she gave what, a million dollars, to the Labor party.
I didn’t mind Harry being in the auror office and improving it; that’s the equivalent of the FBI and it was his dream. And Hermione fighting for more rights for house elves and becoming head of the dept of magical law enforcement seemed okay to me, too. It was the idea that they revitalize the whole ministry, make it a better place, make it good government that had me shaking my head.
Red Rocker wrote: “Is the argument that governments and bureacracies inherently and inalterably corrupt and ineffecient? Is that a libertarian stance?”
Pretty much.
It’s a bit more complicated than that, but I’ll let Travis explain if he wants to, since only he can tell how much politics he wants here.
But looking at the books, Jo does seem to be saying that the Ministry is corrupt & inefficient until the Trio & Kingsley take over. So, theoretically she believes that good people can reform bad institutions. Which unfortunately seems to go against human nature which shows that primarily bad institutions corrupt good people or else negate their efforts at reform. Lord Acton’s maxim applies even to good people & couple the desire to do good with a monopoly on the use of force like a government & one can see how true the old saying is that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
I meant to say, “primarily shows that bad institutions…”
I have to go prep some burgers, but the very short answer, Red Rocker, is that government is improved and corruption fought through improved laws (strengthening ability to enforce contracts, improving property rights, reducing laws over-regulating behavior, reducing regulation of economic activity, etc). Merely having better people in office is not sufficient.
And I second what revgeorge said.
Also, I should have said a million pounds, not dollars (doh!).
Agree that bad laws can be abused, and merely having good people wouldn’t prevent that from happening as soon as the good people had moved on. But wouldn’t intelligent good people – such as Hermione – who think about systemic issues – wouldn’t they try to change the laws that make abuse possible? I’m thinking that Hermione in particular would soon dismantle whatever law exists that enslaves house elves.
My point is this: without people of good will working to change the system, how on earth would any system change?
Red Rocker, agreed. The libertarian would argue, though, that the system itself should be small with very, very limited power to begin with, to limit the ability of anyone to abuse power and restrain freedom.
In Deathly Hallows there are:
1. A pretty obvious Hanged Man in the first chapter when Charity Burbage is hanging upside down over the conference table. This could forshadow Moody’s sacrifice. Or Harry’s. Or perhaps it exists to set the tone for the whole book.
Alternately (and I like this idea better) JKR could be using the older meaning of the card as a clue to readers. “The Hanged Man” was originally “The Traitor” and perhaps this is a hint that someone at the table is a traitor to Lord Voldemort….
2. The Hierophant. (There are no Wikipedia images for the Thoth Tarot and I didn’t want to link to people’s sites, so you will have to do a Google image search for “Hierophant Thoth”.) Examine the image and compare it to the description of Xenophilus Lovegood at Bill and Fleur’s wedding. Yellow robes, cap, symbol around neck. An almost perfect equivalence.
An indeed, Xenophilus fills exactly the role of Hierophant later in the book— he introduces the trio to the mysteries of the Deathly Hallows.
3.The Devil seems a likely origin for the Riddle-Harry and Riddle-Hermione who emerge from Slytherin’s Locket. The chain anchor at the center even looks vaguely like a locket.
The Devil has a number of divinatory meanings, but the simplest predictive interpretation is “making a mistake”. And, lo and behold, a few chapters later, Harry makes a serious mistake when he speaks Voldemort’s name and the trio are captured.
4. The Star strongly suggests the starry ceiling of Ravenclaw Tower and its midnight blue carpet. And a few chapters later Harry goes to his death calmly and peaceful, full of faith that the result will be alright.
Note that I am not suggesting that JKR has some sort of occult “agenda” by including this sort of symbolism. In my opinion, she is just doing what writers do, improving their writing by adding layers of meaning. By itself this sort of symbolism says nothing about her beliefs.
SPT, thank you for the references. Very intriguing. And I agree that JKR doesn’t have any occultic agenda by using such imagery. Although I’m sure certain Harry Haters would freak out if they read your speculations.
Very interesting again, SPT. The Traitor could also mean Charity Burbage herself (in Voldemort’s eyes) – a “blood traitor” like the Weasleys for passionately defending muggles in a public forum (her article).
Also, The Hanged Man was the name of the muggle village pub in Little Hangleton, home of V’s ancestors. Burbage defends muggles, she gets treated like the hanged man and AK’d like V’s father and grandparents.
Regarding Snape’s loyalty, I’d found it annoying in HBP that Harry couldn’t quit harping on Draco as a Death Eater (even though I believed him). But it makes more sense now — I think Rowling wanted us to think, “Well, Harry was right about Draco when nobody believed him. So he must have been right about Snape all along.” And when Dumbledore’s faith/inaction with Draco leads to his downfall, it would be natural to then question his faith in Snape. A nice pairing on Rowling’s part.
“To be fair, I thought her criticism of governments and politicians qua politicians in her novels was fine and non-specific to particular administrations. ”
I would agree Luna, except that in Ch 1 she refers to the ‘President of the….’ (convieniently cut off) as a ‘miserable man.’
That came off as being specific to me.
This chapter was a sort of sequel, imho, to that theme.
That said, I see Harry as being absolutely right in what he says, but also absolutely wrong in judging the M, in that he is NOT in the Minister’s shoes who has not the luxury of being able to be true to himself, being in the system.
(Though the M should have known better than to solicit Harry as a mascot)
I really hope you won’t mind a bit of necromancy here. This is one of my very favorite chapters.
Lupin’s line on Snape is bewildering to Harry partly because he doesn’t understand what it is to live in a werewolf’s skin. Lupin trusts Snape, or is willing to trust Snape, not just because Dumbledore trusts Snape, but also because Dumbledore trusts *him.* For Lupin, that is a gift. Knowing who he is, and how damaged and potentially dangerous he is, and that someone trusts him anyway, matters to him.
I think that’s one of the keys to Lupin’s character: gratitude, and the desire to “pay it forward” by teaching and serving. Knowing what and who he is, he can accept that Snape deserves the same level of trust. Living with other werewolves, however, especially Greyback, has started to break him down, to the point where he is almost incapable of forming an adult relationship with anyone. Accepting actual love: always the hardest bit.
In addition to what you said, Moonyprof, Lupin trusts Snape in part because he made the Wolfsbane Potion perfectly for him while he was at Hogwarts and didn’t tamper with it. Although I think Snape took pride in being one of the few wizards who could make that potion correctly and he also wouldn’t want Lupin running the castle as a werewolf potentially hurting students. And of course Dumbledore would be furious if he did tamper with it, so I don’t think that alone is probative of Snape’s trustworthiness. However, Lupin doesn’t see it that way.
I wasn’t able to get into the read-through until later, so I missed this chapter–great discussion.
Travis: “’I neither like nor dislike Severus Snape.’” How’s that for typical non-committal on Lupin’s part?” I think it’s less noncomittal than evenhanded. Unlike Sirius and Severus, Lupin has matured beyond old adolescent pride and prejudices. He’s neither embracing nor rejecting Severus, as a person, based on past personal history.
Mooneyprof: “Living with other werewolves, however, especially Greyback, has started to break him down, to the point where he is almost incapable of forming an adult relationship with anyone.” Absolutely. Consider the reason for this: by living with the werewolves, led by his own attacker (Greyback), Lupin is forcibly faced every day with exactly what he really is–a dangerous horror. His sense of *who* he is is being steadily distorted by *what* he is. Thus he has an even more skewed view of himself andthe possiblity of a romantic, wedded relationship.