A Credo For George

Thu Feb 21 02:15:42 UTC 2002

No: HPFGUIDX 35530

A sort of meta-message this one, trying to clarify more precisely
the actual parameters of one of the many Snape backstory 
theories/movements/philosophies  floating around on this list.  
Because this is an attempt to clarify, there is much summary here, 
and not all that much that is new.  Those who were heartily sick of
this subject even before it arose, and who only became more heartily 
sick of it when it went through a spate of discussion a week or so 
ago, might wish to take this opportunity to flee now.

---------------------

Marina wrote:

> Woo-hoo! George slicks back his hair, wiggles into his tightest
> jeans, and practices batting his eyelashes in front of the mirror in
> preparation for meeting his very own post.

Oh, knock it off, George.  Honestly!  Sometimes I think that I liked 
you far better when you were a small furry creature soon to be killed 
through over-coddling.

<crosses to door, locks it firmly, then points to chair>

Now sit down and stop giving me those big eyes.  They don't work on 
me, so you may as well not bother.  You wanted a post, you're getting 
one, but until we're done here, you're going to sit right there and 
not interrupt me.  And I'm not unlocking that door until I've 
finished with you, so don't even *think* about squealing to Marina 
for help.  She can't come in until we're done here.  You got that?

<smiles thinly at George, who sinks into the chair, nodding slowly, 
his eyes very wide>

Good.  Now...

----------

A Credo For George

George, for those who don't yet know him, is Marina's name for her 
own set of beliefs about Snape's backstory.  He was formally 
introduced to the list in post 34762.

Or that's what he *was.*  Shortly thereafter, however, he became 
something more like a...a movement?  A position?  A land-locked 
ship?  A theory, at any rate, that othes might wish to espouse and to 
identify themselves with.

This became problematic, however, because George -- to put it 
bluntly -- is a slut.  Marina *did* try to warn us about this, but 
romantic fools that we are, we just didn't listen.  And so when 
George was spotted in the Catalytic Boutique, trying on Road-To-
Damascus-style ballgowns, or batting his eyelashes at James Potter, 
or even once caught locked in a *very* slow dance with Captain 
Tabouli on the deck of the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, we all tried to ignore
it for as long as we could.  "He's young," we said.  "He'll grow out 
of it."  But in the end, he simply broke our hearts.

Now, it seems to me that the problem with George (other than the fact 
that he shares a name with a canon character, which is confusing) is 
that we don't know what's really a part of his *Credo,* so to speak, 
and what remains open to the conscience of the individual.  If we are 
to assume for the moment that George does have it in him to break 
free from Marina's embrace and become a position that others might 
choose to espouse, then we must ask: what are the primary 
characteristics of George?  If one were to declare oneself a 
Georgian, what would that necessitate?

The Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, for example, is so popular in part, I think, 
because it is so very inclusive.  If I'm understanding its manifesto 
correctly (and please do correct me, Tabouli, if I am wrong), so long 
as one believes that Snape Loved Lily, and that this hopeless passion 
accounts for at least *some* of his canonical behavior, then you are 
welcome to clamber aboard.  Beyond that, however, the specific 
details (Love of Lily accounts for Snape's behavior towards Harry, 
Love of Lily led Snape to join the DEs, Love of Lily led Snape to 
*leave* the DEs, Love of Lily led Snape to abandon a belief in the 
Pureblood ethos, Love of Lily left Snape with a phobia of hair-
washing, or what have you) are up to the conscience of the 
individual.  While there is a "hard-line" position -- and even a semi-
official timeline -- belief in these would seem to be optional.  The 
only real Credo is the 'core belief' that Love of Lily accounts for 
some of Snape's behavior.

So what it seems to me that George really needs, if he is ever to 
become a position, rather than merely a personification of Marina's 
beliefs (however these may change over time) is a *Credo.*  We need 
to know what the core rock-bottom Georgian position is, what it 
really *means* to declare oneself a Georgian.  We also need to know 
what unusual or slightly <cough> subversive beliefs George is willing 
to accomodate, and which he denounces as heresy.

(He also desperately needs an acronym.  But that's slightly beside 
the point.)

So what issues specifically does George address?

Well, from his introduction, it would seem that George is primarily 
concerned with two backstory questions: Why Did Snape Join the DEs In 
the First Place?, and Why Did He Then Turn?  Later attempts to 
clarify George's position by asking him questions about Lily, 
ambushes, timelines, and suchnot just muddied the waters, IMO, 
because these were all questions that really fell outside of
George's purview.

So I'd like, if I may, to catechize George on these two questions for 
a little while, to see if we can manage to clarify and distill his 
views and perhaps even emerge at the end of this process with A Credo 
For George.

------------------

Why Did Snape Join the Death Eaters In the First Place?

Marina's original introductory post seems to place a strong emphasis 
on the Prank as a catalytic agent for Snape's mistrust of the Light 
side and his subsequent belief that the Dark Was His Friend.

Marina (in George's introductory post):

> Now I believe that Snape originally joined the DEs not because he 
> had any conviction in their <ahem> ideals, but because they were the
> enemies of his enemies, and he thought they might treat him decently
> and not try to feed him to any werewolves....

Eloise, who would seem to share many of George's tendencies, expanded 
somewhat on this idea:

> It's not so much what the Marauders did that's the problem, as what 
> Dumbledore *didn't* do. I fancy he felt ever so let down by 
> the 'light' side, didn't find justice in the all-wise all-just 
> Dumbledore. . . . What's the point of allying yourself with 
> goodness if evil goes unpunished? Is there any difference between 
> the two sides? Perhaps not. 

Later, however, George seemed to turn away from Prank-as-catalyst, to 
take a more holistic view:

Marina: 

> As I've mentioned before, Snape was very young at the time, 
> probably just out of Hogwarts. He had a general idea of what the 
> DEs were up to, and thought he'd be okay with it. When you're an 
> nasty, unpopular teenager with a suspicious knowledge of Dark Magic 
> and a conviction that the people currently in charge are out to get 
> you, it's pretty easy to go around thinking you're evil and even to 
> get off on the concept (finding it glamorous and empowering, 
> maybe) -- until someone actually says, "Here, torture this baby," 
> and you suddenly find that maybe you're not as evil as you thought.

and (in a later post) Marina again:

> George says:
> Well, Snape is a Slytherin after all, and therefore ambitious. 
> Voldemort and Dumbledore were duking it out for control of the
> wizarding world. Snape wanted to be in on the score, not to sit on
> the sidelines. Sure, joining either team brought certain risks if 
> his side lost -- but it also brought the chance of enjoying the 
> spoils of victory if his side won. No risk, no reward -- and I've 
> already made my argument for Snape's bravery.

On the question of whether or not young Severus ever truly believed 
in the pureblood ethos espoused by the Death Eaters, George has 
wavered.  He initially answered in the negative, but when further 
catechized on this subject by Cindy, George gave the impression that 
he was willing to accept a great deal of differing opinion on this 
particular point:

Marina:

> It's possible that Snape believed it then, but if so then he must've
> dropped the belief somewhere along the way, since he shows no sign 
> of it now...."Purity of blood" may have been another one of those 
> things that sounded really good at the Death Eaters Sunday Brunch, 
> but proved a lot less attractive in bloody practice.

It would seem, then, that George takes no strong stance on the 
question of whether or not Snape ever adhered to the pureblood ethos.

So, if we were to try to distill George's position on Why Snape 
Joined the Death Eaters, we are left with...well, George is a bit 
vague, really.  He offers a number of suggestions: hostility towards 
the Marauders (and thus by extention towards House Gryffindor and all 
of their allies); disappointment in Dumbledore and disillusionment 
with the entire notion of justice; a desire for protection from his 
perceived enemies; raw ambition; the desire to be on the winning side 
of a dangerous political conflict; an adolescent conviction that Evil 
is cool and glamorous; possibly a short-lived belief in a one or 
two of the Death Eater ideals...

But it is really very difficult to tell precisely where George stands 
on any of these issues, which leads me to wonder if the question of 
Why Snape Joined the DEs In the First Place ought really be viewed as 
within George's purview at *all.*  It strikes me that while there 
might perhaps be beliefs on this subject that George would indeed 
consider "heretical," a wide range of opinion is nonetheless 
permitted when it comes to the answer to this question.

George?

<George remains silent>

That's okay, sweetheart.  We'll let Marina in the room in a bit, and 
maybe she can help us out on this one.

In the meantime, I suggest that there are at least a couple of 
parameters of belief that strike me as consistent with Georgianism 
overall.  George will have to let me know later, if I've got this 
wrong.

(1) Snape joined up willingly, with his eyes at least half-way open, 
and with no thought of betraying the DEs at the time.

I could swear that George actually said this at some point, but now I 
can't seem to find the citation.  But I'm fairly certain that none of 
the "he had no *idea* what they were really all about when he joined 
up with them, honest!" schools of thought on this matter, nor the "he 
always planned on spying for Dumbledore" theories would be 
permissable under Georgianism.

(2) There may have been one or more catalytic events which prompted
this action, but none of them were "Road To Damascus"-type catalysts 
(ie, sudden epiphanous realizations that cause a complete ideological 
about-face).  Whatever catalytic agency events like the Prank might 
have possessed, they nonetheless were serving to push Snape further 
down a road that he was already part-way *on,* rather than causing 
him to change direction suddenly mid-stride.

George has never stated this explicitly, but it seems strongly 
implied to me by his, uh, general demeanor and attitude.  It seems 
congruent with George's known beliefs.  But again, I'm not certain on 
this point, so Marina will have to let me know if I've read George 
correctly here.

Those two points are just about all that I can deduce about George's 
Credo when it comes to Snape's original decision to throw in his lot 
with the DEs, actually, and they do seem to me to allow for an 
enormous deal of variation in belief.  So now I find myself 
wondering: are there in fact stricter parameters than the ones 
I've outlined above?  And if not, then are there variations that *do* 
fall within those parameters that are nonetheless categorically 
rejected by George?  What are George's "heresies" here?

----------------------

So Why Did Snape Turn?

Now *this,* IMO, is George's *Real* Issue.  *This* is Where George 
starts to shine and to strut his stuff.  

In fact, I think that George might even work best if viewed as a 
philosophy that seeks to address *only* this question, while leaving 
even the question of Why Snape Joined In the First Place up to the 
conscience of the individual.  But that, of course, is not up to me 
to decide.

George's position here seems relatively clear.  George rejects
"catalytic theories" of Snape's conversion, holding firm to the 
notion that his disillusionment with the DEs was not a sudden 
epiphanous revelation, but rather, a gradual realization that
Voldemort and his followers were evil: their motives selfish, their 
means unjustified, their ends corrupt, and their assumptions just 
plain *wrong.*  

Marina, in George's introductory post:

> I think that the more time spent with the DEs, the more he became
> disenchanted with them. They were crappy excuses for human beings 
> (or whatever other kinds of beings they were); their agenda was 
> evil and destructive; whatever respect they may have given him 
> (assuming they gave him any -- maybe they didn't) wasn't worth it. 
> I don't think there was any one grand epiphany that made Snape 
> realize, "Hey, these guys are evil and must be opposed," I think it 
> was a gradual process that eventually reached a point where he had 
> to turn around and do something, and it's at that point that he 
> went to Dumbledore.

Furthermore, George would seem to favor a view of this realization 
that roots it firmly in the realms of the intellectual and the 
philosophical, rather than the emotional or the visceral.  George 
emphasizes the notion that Snape's defection was not one of emotion, 
but one of *principle.*

Marina:

> No, I think that somewhere down the line Snape came to genuinely 
> hate Voldy and everything the DEs stood for; and to hate them *on 
> principle*, not just emotionally. And Snape has generally been 
> shown as willing, and even determined, to put principle and duty 
> ahead of his emotions. 

The question of emotion, of course, becomes particularly relevant 
when it comes to examining George's relationship with LOLLIPOPS.  On 
the issue of whether Snape Loved Lily, Marina wrote:

> See, I have no idea whether or not Snape loved Lily... but I 
> definitely don't buy the idea that love of Lily turned him away 
> from the DE's. . . .If one is going to turn from the side of evil 
> to the side of good, then one must do it out of genuine moral 
> conviction, a sincere belief that evil is, well, *evil* and must be 
> fought. . . . 

and later, in response to a LOLLIPOPS defense of LOL as a motivating 
factor:

> That's certainly true, but if Lily-love is just one motivating 
> factor among many, then my instinct is to drop the romantic angle 
> and let all these other factors pull the weight.

So it would seem that one can indeed be a Georgian from the deck of 
the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, so long as one does not ascribe to the 
notion that Love of Lily was an important motivating factor in 
Snape's decision to leave the DEs.  As this belief is in fact *not* 
required by LOLLIPOPS, dual adherence would seem to me to be, if not 
likely to be all that common, nonetheless still *possible* within the 
parameters of the two groups' respective tenets of belief.

So if we were to propose a Credo For George on this issue, then what 
might it look like?

I suggest that it might look something like this:

"I believe that Snape left the Death Eaters out of a philosophical 
conviction that their movement was evil.  His defection was a matter 
of moral principle."

"I reject the notion that there was any one sudden catalytic event 
which led to this change of heart.  Rather, I believe that it came 
about gradually, as a matter of observation, consideration, and a 
careful weighing of moral values."

Now, if this is really Core George, then I would be happy to declare 
myself a Georgian.  Sometimes, though, George seems to waver even on 
these most basic fundaments, even when this involves throwing 
overboard his own once-favored timeline of events.  Take this 
message, for example, in which George contemplates the possibility 
that Snape's life-debt to James Potter might have served as the
final straw pushing him from disillusionment into outright defection:

Marina:

> George is helpless to resist. He is smitten. He know maintains that
> Snape's gradual disillusionment with the DEs finally culminated in
> active resistance when Voldemort threatened James.

<Elkins casts the bed on which George is sitting a *very* severe look>

Oh, *honestly,* George!  And after all that time you spent arguing 
for a much earlier date for Snape's defection, too!  What got *into* 
you there?

At other times, George seems to venture far outside of his domain, 
offering his opinions on all manner of things that don't really seem 
to be any of his business (the "Even EWWWWWWWer" Theory, for example, 
which I personally absolutely adore, but which I don't really think 
has the slightest bit of bearing on the issues which George normally 
stands to address).

Most disturbing, however, is when George seems to falter on what I 
consider to be one of the most rock-bottom tenets of his own Credo: 
namely, Snape's disenchantment with the Death Eaters as a matter of 
moral principle.

Marina: 

> Oh, I don't think Snape was clueless. I think Snape knew,
> intellectually, exactly what the DEs were up to, and he thought it 
> was okay by him. But when faced with the visceral reality of 
> torture and murder, rather than just reading about it in Daily
> Propher headlines, he found that it wasn't as okay as he thought it 
> was.

Now, my problem with this is that to my mind, a visceral reaction 
isn't really a matter of moral principle at all.  It is merely a 
matter of squeamishness.  And aside from the fact that I am unable to 
believe for even a moment that Snape might be squeamish, I also find 
this idea disturbingly incompatible with everything that George 
ordinarily seems to stand for.

These inconsistencies are troubling to someone as anal-retentive as I 
am.  They keep me up nights.  They lead me to do things like...well, 
things like writing a long post to try to pin down George on his 
Credo, for instance.  

Lapses in consistency are problematic.  A certain fuzziness to the 
Credo also haunts my sleep.  Again, I find myself wondering: what 
beliefs does George find unacceptable?  What is Credo, and what 
suggestion?  What constitutes Heresy?

Is, for example, my highly idiosyncratic conviction that Snape really 
is a genuine sadist by visceral inclination (if not in current 
practice) actually an acceptable belief within the Georgian belief 
system?  Or is it Heresy?  How about my preference for Greyer-Than-
Black DEs about whom Snape has deeply ambivalent personal feelings?  
Can George accomodate such views in spite of the fact that Marina 
herself disagrees with them, or must I take my leave of George, and 
begin consorting instead with his nearly-identical twin theory, 
er, Fred?

I also want to know where George stands on seemingly "optional" 
theories that he has nonetheless expressed opinions on in the past: 
timelines, ambushes, Love of Lily, EEWWWWWW, EEEWWWWWer, and so 
forth.  *Are* these in fact optional?  Or are some of them indeed
a part of George's Credo?

Elkins wants a Georgian Manifesto!  

Elkins wants a Credo For George!  

<Elkins suddenly realizes that she *really* needs to get out more.  
She glances over to the bed, where George is still staring at her, 
his eyes wide and his lower lip trembling.  She manages a sickly sort 
of smile.)

It's all right, sonny.  Come on, we can have a cup of tea.

Marina!  Come and collect your boy!

-- Elkins