[HPforGrownups] Snapetheories: The Cliff Notes Edition (was:Credo for Geo...

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 35547

In a message dated 21/02/02 03:10:57 GMT Standard Time, 
judyshapiro at earthlink.net writes:


> To that effect, perhaps the authors of each of the various theories 
> could provide their basic, stripped down, credo?  What I am 
> envisioning is that each of us would leave the proceeding brief 
> credos on the thread, so that when all the authors have weighed in, 
> we'd have a complete list of all the theories.  
> 

As Elkins noticed, I am certainly having a serious flirtation with George, 
without being totally clear as to his intentions, so I am very glad of this 
discussion (which is also doing what I pleaded for the other day, namely 
clearing up what all these theories *are*).
If Cindy's theory is the 'Big Bang', I think mine could be named after the 
old ( and now, I think, discredited ) alternative theory of the universe, the 
'Steady State'  theory.

This got a bit too long, so precis first, detail ( which has been refined a 
little) after.
                                     ****************************************
The Steady State theory ( short version)

The essential point is that Snape is complicated: his change in allegience 
comes not from a change in his essential nature, but from a growing awareness 
of what that nature is.
It rests on his soul being a battleground between two world views.
Loyalty to Voldemort stems from his background and then his school 
experiences which seem to confirm that good and evil are meaningless concepts.
The defection to Dumbledore results from a growing self-awareness, a 
realisation that he does believe in good and evil. Catalysts may have taken 
place, but are not necessary.
Snape doesn't actually *enjoy* being on the 'Light' side, he is there out of 
conviction, though his temperament militates against it.

L.O.L.L.I.P.O.P.S. (in which I don't believe - yet!) and 
C.U.P.I.D.'S.B.L.U.D.G.E.R. (about which I am agnostic) are, I think, 
compatible, as are ambushes and any other number of embelishments.

                   **********************************************************
Now, as those who have read my posts will know, I am very against Road to 
Damascus 'conversion' theories when it comes to Snape (either joining or 
leaving the DEs). I'm not sure I'm being logical in this, but I instinctively 
rail against it. Yes, they happen, but I'm not sure they happen to people 
like Snape. 

You see, Snape *thinks*. To me, he's the sort of person who's an agnostic, 
not because they just can't make up their mind, or are too lazy to think 
things through, but because they *do* think and they find that things are 
very complicated, although at the same time they may yearn to believe 
*something*, one way or an other. The Pauline conversion demands a radical 
change of mind from one world view to another and I simply don't want to 
think that Snape ever had such a simplistic view of the world, at least not 
once he was old enough to think for himself. 
(Please note, this is not a criticism, in any way, shape, or form of anyone's 
religious beliefs. I'm religious myself. I just happen also to be a person 
who finds things very complicated. My temperament and my intellect are 
constantly at war, so that's where I'm coming from.)

Now, as a good agnostic, he might be expected to sit on the fence, but I 
think that the times militated against that, and that in any case, not only 
is our Snape is a man of action, but that he would consider doing so moral 
cowardice.

If he comes from a Dark wizarding background, as I believe, then I think he 
has been taught that it is power that is important. Concepts of good and evil 
were probably irrelevant. One acts out of self-interest, because that is the 
natural thing to do.
But many of us question the ideas with which we are raised. For a thinking 
person, exposure to someone like Dumbledore would make him ask questions.

My understanding of him is that his soul, psyche (whatever) is a 
battleground, not perhaps, between good and evil, which is how we might view 
it from the Light side, but between the existence and non-existence of good 
and evil.

(One of the things that has struck me is that the evil in HP is basically 
manifested in evil actions, this, along with some distinctly non PC views. 
Good and evil don't seem to be anchored in any kind of belief system. We 
don't appear to have either good or evil higher powers at work. This is 
(IMHO) one of the reasons why we have difficulty in defining exactly what the 
Dark Arts are. OTOH, Dumbledore and Voldemort have more than pasing 
similarities to God and the Devil, at least as, within the Potterverse, the 
embodiments of good and evil, so Snape turning from one to the other *looks* 
like a conversion.Yet actually, the 'Light' side is full of grey characters. 
Even Dumbledore, I think, particularly in the light of recent posts, can be 
regarded as grey. The difference between them and the 'Dark' ones, IMO, is 
that they recognise that good and evil exist.)

Elkins was kind enough to quote me on the subject of his turning to the DEs:

> 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. 

It was a confirmation of the views of his upbringing: forget all this Good vs 
Evil nonsense.
So I think he went in with his eyes open, or as open as anyone else's who 
hadn't yet been initiated into the inner circle of Voldy's army. He wasn't 
joining something evil, because Evil didn't exist, or at least that was what 
he told himself at the time.
Only it does, and poor Severus' fate was to be a DE with conscience. 
Sometimes it is only when we actually *do* something that we know what we 
believe.
I am reminded here of an Ignatian technique I read about. The idea is that if 
one has a tough decision to make, one takes an appropriate length of time, a 
day or two perhaps and lives in the light of each decision in turn, noticing 
one's reactions to each and thus getting in touch with one's inner feelings 
about the 'rightness' of each. (For instance, if unsure whether to change 
job, you would pretend, if you like, that you had actually decided to and see 
how that decision affected you and then do the same for the opposite 
decision). I think that's kind of what he did. He had to make a decision of 
which side to ally himself with. He went with his upbringing, having found 
the alternative no better. But *living* his decision showed him his mistake. 
Yes, there may have been a catalyst, just as the Prank may have been a 
catalyst, but I think it was the cumulative effects of living a life which 
sat ill at ease with his complicated soul. Because the DE philosophy *is* 
simplistic. That's why they seem black to us, not grey. For all that they may 
be devoted to their widowed mothers and be kind to their cats, they follow a 
simple, self-interested philosophy. Snape, as we all ( I assume) agree, is 
grey down to his nightshirt ( a curious detail, I thought) and we have noted 
that 'Light' characters are actually noted for their greyness. 

Because Snape is a principled man and one who acts from conviction, he has no 
alternative but to change sides. But he doesn't really *like* it and there 
are still areas which he hasn't thought out, for instance in the field of 
personal relationships, where he still largely acts thoughtlessly and out of 
self interest. Good and Evil are things which apply to the Big things in 
life, he hasn't realised that they can apply to the small things, too. As 
I've said before, I think that the sarcastic, cruel remarks etc are also a 
bit of a safety valve.

Eloise













[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]