A logical explanation in Snape's defence...

With the nearing publication of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the most intriguing question still unanswered, and which is the topic of many theories, is that of Snape's true loyalties. I think people who believe Snape is good outnumber those who believe he is evil. Even so, there is a striking (and possibly deliberate) inconsistency I found in books 5 and 6, that could provide us a proof that Snape is actually a good guy and not the deceiving killer as it seems at the end of book 6. Here's why:

Let us assume that Snape is a loyal Death Eater and is spying on Dumbledore for Voldemort. However, it is quite clear that Voldemort did only get to know half of Sybill Trelawny's prophecy, otherwise he wouldn't have been so keen to get to know its full contents when he went into the Ministry of Magic. So when Snape told Voldemort 'half' of the prophecy, either of the following cases has to be true -

1. Snape himself has indeed only heard just half the prophecy and is telling Voldemort all that he knows.
2. Snape is actually lying to Voldemort about what he knows in order to drive him to try and kill the one who has the "power to vanquish the Dark Lord" and in turn bring about Voldemort's downfall.

If Snape is actually a loyal Death Eater, there is no way he would have kept something so important from Voldemort. So that rules out case 2 if Snape is on Voldemort's side.

For the first case to be true, the only way for Snape to hear only half the prophecy is if he was caught exactly in the middle of Sybill Trelawny making the prophecy, because Trelawny must have gone into the trance and made the whole prophecy in one go - its not like she made half a prophecy, Snape got caught, and then she went back to making the rest of the prophecy. Trelawny herself knows Snape was overhearing her interview with Dumbledore, so quite clearly he must have been thrown into the room after she finished the whole prophecy.

Even if he was caught at that precise time, as far as we know, Dumbledore thinks that Snape overheard only half the prophecy. If Snape is in fact such a good Occlumens as to be able to deceive even Dumbledore, then he could just as easily have hid the fact that he heard the prophecy being made at all. Why let Dumbledore know anything? From what we know, he was still a Death Eater at this point in time. So Snape must have heard the whole prophecy and yet told Voldemort only half of it.

So the only possible explanation for this contradiction is that Snape actually is working for Dumbledore and spying on Voldemort. The fact that Snape told Voldemort only half the prophecy (hiding the fact that he would be marking the child his "equal") could be the solid proof Dumbledore has for trusting Snape. Interestingly, only the Potters went into hiding after the prophecy and not the Longbottoms, to whom the prophecy may just as well have applied. If Snape was indeed on Voldemort's side, he could have lied about who Voldemort was going after.

That in turn could mean that Dumbledore hasn't been completely honest with Harry in order to keep Snape's cover intact. Letting anybody, least of all Harry, know about Snape's secret is risking blowing his cover and sending him to his death. Dumbledore may have kept this a secret to protect Snape.


I know this next bit is a stretch, but if we trust the above logical reasoning, I think it could have been Dumbledore's idea that Lily sacrifice herself to protect Harry if the need so arose, when he asked them to go into hiding. Dumbledore has always believed that the power of love was the only defense against Voldemort and he uses this blood-sacrifice theory when he sends Harry to his only blood relatives, the Dursleys. So, this could have been Dumbledore's "Plan B" all along!

All the actual answers will be revealed come July 21, but putting together J.K.Rowling's jigsaw puzzle of clues is a nice exercise in itself!

Two of a kind...

Following in Ramanand's footsteps of serving Duet and Triple Sundaes and Tuesdaes, here's another likeness I discovered recently. If ever Alan Rickman turned down the role of Severus Snape, we have a replacement handy...

What were you thinking, Sam?

All good things have to come to an end at last. Unfortunately the Spiderman movies are no exception. Generally, I don't care much about reviews until I watch the movie, but in this case almost all the early reviews were spot on. Sam Raimi's third edition of Spiderman falls flat given its hype. You have to rack your brain to remember at least one really redeeming feature of the movie among all the smattering of heartbreaks, relationship quadrangles, emotional one-up manship, songs and dancing and what not. Last time I checked, this was supposed to be an friendly neighborhood action hero film, but it turns out to be a been-there-done-that Spiderman meets Shahrukh Khan directed by Karan Johar. Whatever few action scenes come by in all the protracted mushy-gushiness are either unimaginatively stale or just too fast and dark. You know the film has missed the plot when your action hero has to reach for the nearest glycerine bottle after every few scenes and the film starts and ends with a song and has Peter Parker dancing in a jazz club. The humour is all very forced and predictable. The only good thing I guess is the Sandman animation, but in the end even he just vanishes into thin air after getting all emotional about his daughter's medical condition and regret about his crimes. Give me a break. The only person who stays true to his character is probably Eddie Brock Jr. / Venom. The guy is atleast unapologetically evil while others around him fuss about with personal problems like inner darkness, relationships and friendship trouble.

All in all, it won't be so bad if you manage to give this one a miss. The onus now falls on the Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter sequels to rescue the summer movie line up from doom. Both promos looks good, but then so did Spiderman-3's.

Ah those poor cats...

As if extinction wasn't worrying enough for tigers, some of them now face the prospect of actually bearing an uncanny resemblance with Rakhi Sawant. God save the tiger. Really.

Disparity

Observed a strange little thing at a career fair today. As always, the Big Two - Microsoft and Google were there, but the thing that stood out was the number of the people waiting in line just to get a chance to drop off their resumes at Microsoft and the relatively deserted booth for Google! People could almost just walk up to the guys from Google and have a chat. To me, it could mean two things. It could show the extent of Microsoft's brand clout, not just over the software market, but over the psyche of people. Or is it more the case that people think they have a better chance of landing up a job at Microsoft given the famously tough interview process at Google?

Addiction

It's surprising how addicted you can get to a computer during your studies here in the US - lack of a television, unlimited internet connectivity and the occupational hazard of being a software engineer being the prime culprits in growing and sustaining that addiction, of course. There's hardly a significant time of the day when you can be (or want to be) away from the computer. Of the time that I am awake, I would easily be able to narrow down the specific times of the day in minutes, not even complete hours, when I am actually not using a computer at all. Using a computer for such a long time wouldn't in itself be a bad thing (although there exists such a thing as CRRSI) but what makes me call it an addiction is the surprisingly small fraction of it that gets put to productive work.

That's it. I am shutting this thing down now (or at least I am about to try).