[HPforGrownups] Snape: non-Vampire, emotions vs principles

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 35756

Tabouli:

> I also sniff at suggestions that Snape is a principle driven intellectual 
> who wouldn't let an emotional triviality like Love Of Lily sway him.  
> Snape's personal vendetta against Harry a principled, intellectual, 
> unemotional one??  Snape's reactions to Sirius, from the shrieking about 
> his escape to the snarling, reluctant handshake, purely intellectual and 
> principle driven??  Snape being accused of disloyalty to Dumbledore by 
> Crouch/Moody, gripping the chair when Ginny gets taken by Riddle, sweeping 
> into his first Potions class spouting poetry, a man divorced from emotional 
> reactions?  Ha.  Snape is an emotional man with a sense of the dramatic 
> and, I'd wager, no small measure of acting ability (he was a spy, after 
> 

Perhaps G.E.O.R.G.E.'S. S.I.S.T.E.R. D.I.A.N.A. hasn't been clear on this. Of 
course Snape is emotional, he couldn't be angst-ridden if he wasn't. But I 
think that some of his emotional outbursts are prompted by what his intellect 
is telling him. His anger with Harry when he catches him after the illicit 
Hogsmeade trip, and his reactions to Sirius are both prompted not only by his 
antipathy towards them, but by the intellectual conviction that he *knows* 
what is going on. He does work out quite often what harry's up to. He's 
wrong, of course about Sirius, but the dramatic emotional responses stem from 
his frustration at never being able to prove himself right and in the case of 
the handshake of realising, horror of horrors, that he might have been wrong.
Incidentally, for me Snape will now always sweep into that first potions 
lesson, spouting poetry, but unfortunately that only happens in the film. In 
the book, he starts much more prosaically, by taking the register. (I think 
the film does it better. Shh, don't tell anyone!)

Tabouli again:
> What I see in Snape is a man whose emotions and principles are in continual 
> conflict (similar to but not quite the same as what others have said about 
> his natural tendencies towards evil warring with his better moral nature).  
> In the time where the books are set, he seems to have struck an uneasy 
> balance, where he lets his emotions win the little battles, but lets his 
> 
<snip>

Yes, I agree, we do have emotions and principles at war, but that doesn't 
mean that he didn't have the conflict between  two world-views going on 
simultaneously (and Diana's view is also subtly different from the 'tendency 
toward evil' vs 'better moral nature' satndpoint).

> Tabouli:
> Judging by what happens when you dig up events from his past, i.e. strong 
> emotional reactions (to the Prank, to reminders of his Death Eater 
> history), I'd say Snape's current incarnation as man whose principles hold 
> tenuous sway over his emotions when it really counts may be a reasonably 
> recent development.  If he's a principled intellectual now, I'd say he's 
> one made, not born, probably because letting his emotions take the reins 
> led to some serious trouble in his past.  I'd say as teenager, his emotions 
> were king, and it wasn't until he learned some very harsh lessons that he 
> developed the ability to control his emotional tendency towards nastiness 
> 

Yes, it was the discovery that he *had* priciples that prompted his defection.

Tabouli:

> Which is why I maintain my objections to the "Snape's a principled man not a 
> mushball who'd make important decisions centred around his girl" too EWW to 
> be TREWW line.  In my version of LOLLIPOPS, the decision to *join* the 
> Death Eaters was an emotional one... his decision to *leave* them was the 
> 

In my view, his decision to join the DEs was neither emotional, nor 
principled, except insofar as I believe he wouldn't believe in sitting on the 
fence. He joined the  DEs because that is what a man of his upbringing and 
natural disposition would do. Hogwarts had offered him an alternative, but 
that *was* a principled, morality-based alternative and I have argued that 
from his viewpoint, those principles seemed morally bankrupt . To quote 
myself,

What's the point of allying yourself with goodness if evil goes unpunished? 
Is there any difference between the two sides? Perhaps not. In fact this ties 
in with the way Vodemort recruited Quirrel: convincing him there was no such 
thing as good and evil only those with power and those afraid to use it or 
words to that effect.



Tabouli:
> As a child, as an adolescent, revenge seems to be the major motivating force 
> for Snape... he turned up at 11 having learned hundreds of curses, he was 
> bullied by the Marauders and dedicated years to trying to catch them out 
> and get them expelled, leading to the Prank.  Carefully thought out, 
> intellectual decisions?  Actions based around sound moral principles??  
> Hardly.  He was being driven by an emotional agenda, wanting to punish 
> those who wronged him, and I'd wager that was the agenda behind his signing 
> up to work with Voldemort.  After all, his thwarters were on the other 
> side, weren't they?  

Yes, a lot of his actions were emotionally based. But I really don't *want* 
him to have gone to Voldemort out of sheer revenge. To me, this makes him 
weak. I like my men strong but vulnerable! ( Not an argument, but there you 
are.)

Tabouli:
>*Then* we have a touch of George.  At first Snape revels in the torture of 
his foes, >but once the edge has been taken off his vengeful emotions, the 
rational, >intellectual, principled side began to surface.  What exactly is 
he trying to achieve >by torturing Muggles and strangers?  After the initial 
bloodrush, he doesn't really >enjoy it any more, certainly not like those 
vicious Lestranges and that bloodthirsty >Avery.  As for those unspeakable 
Marauders James and Sirius, isn't he doing to >others exactly what they did 
to him?  He hated being victimised by them, but the >person he has become is 
no better.  He is a murderer now, killing people for no >better reason than 
that a madman is telling him to.

In agreement, although I don't know whether I see him revelling in what he 
does. Certainly, I see him knowing what he's getting involved in. A key 
element of the Diana theory is that he really *was* a DE, not just playing 
around at it. I certainly don't see him as a principled idealist espousing 
Voldemort's cause from deep conviction, but I do think that the espousal of a 
cause, the identification with a cause is something attractive to many young 
people.

Tabouli:
>The LOLLIPOPS angle here is that he already had an illustration of someone 
who >wasn't afraid to stand up for her principles... Lily.  As his doubts 
grow, her memory >is a moral compass for him.  She stood up for him when he 
was bullied, and judged >Sirius harshly; now he's the bully, and she would 
judge him just as harshly, in fact >more harshly... he isn't just taunting 
and Pranking, he's actually killing people.  >What has he become?

>This, I would argue, is actually a moral principle issue, *not* a mushy 
issue.  Lily >as role model as much as Lily the lost love.  By her past 
actions, she awakened >the moral conscience slumbering under Snape's 
vengeful, bitter emotions.  The >threat to her family is what suddenly 
triggers Snape's recognition of the immorality >of his actions, because it 
makes it *real*... someone he knows and loves will suffer >for the rest of 
her life because of his actions.  Something he has already done to >countless 
other people.

>The moral crisis, already building, hits a critical mass.  The vengeful 
emotions that >drove Snape to Voldemort seem childish and abominable; his 
actions since then >unspeakably immoral.  Snape's principles rise up to 
conquer his emotions and he >goes to Dumbledore announcing he wants to change 
sides.  Dumbledore is wary of >this young man, whose thirst for revenge 
turned him into a Death-Eater.  Therefore, >Snape must prove to Dumbledore 
that those vengeful emotions are now controlled >and ruled completely by the 
principles that led him to change sides.  What better >way to do this than 
enlist Snape's services as spy?

Yes, now he has a sense of morality. Morality had nothing to do with joining 
the DEs as it seemed irrelevant to him.  But then, I don't think revenge was 
the *motive* either, although I dare say it was an added bonus.

>I say the decision to *leave* Voldemort was definitely based on moral 
principles, >and that this fits in seamlessly with LOLLIPOPS.  Because, of 
course, if Snape >loved Lily, why abandon the Death Eaters when they were 
going to kill her husband >and son and leave her free for him??  Emotions 
would have kept him firmly under >Voldemort's wing.  Only principles could 
send him to Dumbledore to *save* the >Potters and *save* Lily's happiness, 
while simultaneously working against his own >private longing to have Lily 
for himself.

>Which, of course, makes the fact that Lily herself actually ended up dying >
unnecessarily to save Harry about as horrible an outcome for Snape as you 
could >imagine.

>No wonder he hates Harry so much...

Egads, Cap'n, you make a persuasive argument. The Lollipop's grappling irons 
have caught hold of my poor, inadequate little anti-ship (so insignificant, 
it doesn't even have a name. What would you call an anti-Lollipops vessel 
anyway? The 'Sugar-Free Gum' doesn't have quite the same ring to it.) and are 
pulling me inexorably closer. But no, I will fight (trying desperately to 
sever the ropes), putting off the evil day when I have to eat humble pie and 
wondering how long I'll have to scrub the decks and peel the potatoes. 

Eloise   (who's being extremely irritated by a curly haired little girl who 
keeps jumping up and down and singing some inane song about candy in her ear.)

Oh yes, and who also militates against Snape being a vampire, even though she 
did have a bit of a thing for vampires once, a long time ago. Adolescence is 
a strange thing. 
A lot of what is interpreted as vampire evidence could be more general Gothic 
stereotyping (visions of Snape playing sinister organ music in his dungeon). 
I was interested to note that this particular Snapemyth has made it onto 
Gameboy Advance, which has a character saying that Snape never smiles as this 
would show his fangs.


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