A Credo For George

[marinafrants]

No: HPFGUIDX 35541

George fidgets in his chair, stares at his shoes, and wishes rather 
desperately for a dry martini.  He had no idea what he was getting 
into when he sauntered onto the list.  He thought he could fool 
around, play the field, flirt with all the other theories as his 
fancy took him.  But now he's being backed into a corner and asked 
to declare himself, to show some faithfulness, to -- <horrified 
gasp> -- *make a commitment*!  Horrors!  But, hey, there comes a 
time when every half-baked theory must grow up and settle down, and 
I'm sure I can walk George through the process while at the same 
time separating my own beliefs from George's credo.  

Okay, so here goes.


> 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.

Yep, that the deal.  Now, George *has* been rather indiscriminately 
poking his nose into a lot of other topics, some of them bearing no 
relation to Snape at all (such as the EWWWer theory, which I'll 
address later in this post), but that's because I'm interested in 
those topics, and George has been rather attached to me.  It's time 
to cut the apron strings, however.

> 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.

I wouldn't call it a *strong* emphasis.  I think young Snape was 
standing on the edge of a moral cliff, and the Prank (and 
Dumbledore's apparently mild reaction to it) pushed him over, but I 
think he would've jumped all by himself if he hadn't been pushed.  
And George is mainly concerned with the reasons why Snape was up 
there on that cliff in the first place, not why he went over.  My 
personal belief on the matter is summed up in the post you quote 
below:

> > 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.
> 

Bit that's just me.  If we want to boil it down to what George 
stands for, then your summary covers it nicely:

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

and

> (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.

Now, this is compatible with any number of other theories including 
some, like LOLLIPOPS, that I don't personally agree with.  The only 
theory that George won't play with is Big Bang, since George's whole 
philosophy is based on the lack of a single catalystic event.  

> So Why Did Snape Turn?
> 
> 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.*  

Yep.  This is the central point that gives George his existence.  
You can strip away everything else, but this has to stand.

> 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.*

Again, Yep.  Basically, the two quoted sections above form the bulk 
of George's backbone (and he really does have a backbone, no matter 
how spineless he may seem as he flits around kissing every theory in 
the room.)

> 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:
> 

I have to admit, both George and I are wobbly on the James Potter 
issue.  On the one hand, it's appealing because it's a perfect 
example of principle winning over sentiment: Snape *hates* James 
Potter; on the emotional level, he'd be quite happy to see him come 
to harm.  But principle demands that if a man saved your life, you 
don't just stand by and let him and his son be murdered.  So it's 
tempting to see this as a major motivating factor for Snape.  But, 
as you say, the timeline is hard to reconcile, plus it strays 
perilously close to the Big Bang theory, which is George's one 
antithesis.  So we waffle.  Overall, though, I don't think the "life-
debt to James" theory is incompatible with George; it's merely takes 
a bit of work to reconcile, same as LOLLIPOPS.

> 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).

The "Even EWWWWWWWWer" Theory, for those who've lost track, posits 
that Voldemort was willing to spare Lily's life because he'd heard 
some vague prophecy about how Lily's son would win the war for his 
father's side.  LV planned to get rid of Harry and make Lily bear 
him a new son, thus turning the prophecy to his own advantage; when 
Lily would have none of this, he decided to kill her and Harry both, 
and it's at that point that the prophecy bit him on the ass in the 
way most prophecies do.

This theory, as you all may notice, has *nothing whatsoever to do 
with Snape.* And, therefore, nothing whatsoever to do with George.  
He might've been hanging about when I proposed it, but only as an 
impartial observer.

> 
> 
> 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.  

See, I don't think this contradicts George's central tenets at all, 
but now we have to drag some of my own personal views into it.  See, 
I believe that in the ideal, morality and emotion are two separate 
spheres that shouldn't impinge on each other.  Human nature, 
however, make this ideal unattainable.  Highly focused analytical 
thinkers can and do achieve a high degree of separation between the 
two spheres (Kant wrote some really fat and impenetrable books about 
how one might do it), but total separation is impossible; human 
beings just aren't wired that way.  Some natural inclination, some 
visceral push is needed in order to get the moral faculty to engage.

Now, at the time Snape joined the DE's, his moral faculty must've 
been taking a nap (since George maintains that Snape wasn't ignorant 
of what he was getting into).  *Something* must have happened to 
make him sit up and start analyzing the philosophical implications 
of the DE agenda, and I believe that this something was his 
instinctive revulsion at murder and physical torture. In most of 
their aspects, the DEs were a perfect fit for Snape's personality, 
but this was the break-away point. Now, I don't think it's necessary 
for all Georgians to agree with me on this, but I do think that if 
you're going to hang out with George, you must have some idea as to 
how and why Snape's morals kicked in to put him in opposition to the 
DE's.


> 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? 

Yes, but then you need to provide your own explanation for Snape's 
moral conversion.  If Snape genuinely enjoyed everything that the 
DE's were up to, if all the killing and Muggle-torturing was 
actually fulfilling his natural desires, then why did he pause in 
his fun long enough to even start worrying about the abstract moral 
issues involved?  To me, it seems psychologically unrealistic, but 
if you can provide an internally consistent explanation that doesn't 
rely on a Big Bang, George will welcome you with open arms.

> 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

Did I give the impression that I disagree with that?  I must've been 
feeling exceptionally muddy-headed that day, because I actually do 
share that preference -- that is, if you mean that you believe Snape 
had real friends among the DEs, people whose company he enjoyed, and 
would've continued enjoying if he hadn't decided they were evil.  
This is exactly what George is about, after all -- the idea that 
Snape has put principle over sentiment.

> 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?

These are all optional, but I believe they can all be reconciled 
with George with varying amounts of effort.  The only exception 
might be EEWWWW, which places too much emphasis for George's taste 
on emotional considerations over moral ones, and also strays too 
close to Big Bang.

There; I hope that cleared the waters somewhat.  George and I will 
be happy to answer further questions, of course.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com