TBAY - Choleric!Snape and Dumbledore's Head

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 47121



> Eloise, who had been sitting quietly at the table, suddenly looked up.
> "Snape, much as it pains me to admit it, isn't, apparently, a
> terribly nice, kind, loving person. I'm afraid that I *can* see him
> joining in with the other Death Eaters. Like Elkins, I think that
> unfortunately he *does* have a taste for that sort of thing, although
> I'm not sure whether he actually enjoys it or whether it isn't more of
> a reflex. But for some reason, he began to question Voldemort's
> philosophy. Maybe he twigged that Voldemort was the only one who
> *really* benefited, that even if he sought power for himself, he would
> always be controlled by Voldemort."
> 
> "No, that can't be it, Eloise," Judy replied.  "If Snape enjoyed
> torture, and only left the Death Eaters because he felt that Voldemort
> wasn't sharing power enough, then Dumbledore would have never taken
> him in." 


"Oh, but Judy," said Eloise, "that isn't what I was trying to say. What I 
said was that I wasn't sure that he *did* actually *enjoy* torturing or 
whatever, more that it was his natural instinct. It's the way he acts when he 
doesn't consciously control the tendency. Just like saying 'I see no 
difference' to Hermione. He didn't sit there and think about that remark, did 
he? It just came out. I think he's naturally unkind, just as he's naturally 
envious and resentful.

"I meant that something caused him to realise that Voldemort's philosophy of 
there being no good and evil was wrong and only suggested, as I don't favour 
his conversion being as the result of a Bang, that it might have been because 
he realised that the only person to benefit fully from Voldemort's philosophy 
was Voldemort himself. That the father figure he thought he had seen in 
Voldemort wasn't there, or wasn't the kind of father he wanted (or perhaps 
was too like the father he had). I don't know what made him realise, but it 
was this dawning realisation that there *is* such a thing as good and evil 
and that we *are* accountable for the way we behave towards others that made 
his leaving the DEs imperative. That's core Diana philosphy:

"Giving Evil Overlord's Regime Genuine Effort, Severus Soul Is Severely 
Troubled, 
(Oops, forgotten my own acronym, bear with me while look it up....) 
Eventually  Rendering  Defection Indeed A Necessary Act.
We know there's some as yet unstated reason that Dumbledore trusts him. That 
doesn't have to have anything to do with his reason for leaving the DEs, does 
it?"

> 
> Eileen tapped her fingernails on the table impatiently.  "You keep
> attacking the Sadist!Snape theory, Judy, but you haven't offered any
> alternative.  If Snape isn't a natural sadist, then why was he a Death
> Eater in the first place?  Why is he so mean to the Gryffindor
> students?  Just what's your explanation for Snape's behavior?"
> 
> Judy looked as though she had never been asked a more flattering
> question.  "Oooo, I thought you'd never ask!  My theory is that Snape
> has the sort of personality that naturally angers easily.  Back when
> it was believed that personality was dominated by bodily fluids, he
> would have been said to be full of bile.  I rather like using the
> concept of the four humours when discussing Snape -- he does teach
> potions, after all.  So, I call my theory Choleric!Snape." 
> 
> "Choleric?" asked Diana.
> 
> "It's just an old name for bile," Judy explained.  "In the past, it
> was believed that happy people had plenty of blood, placid people had
> lots of phlegm...
> 
> "Yuck!" George exclaimed from behind the bar.
> 
> "Don't blame me, I didn't come up with that bit about phlegm," Judy
> said. She turned back to her fellow Snape theorists at the table. " A
> sad person was said to have be melancholic -- full of black bile,
> whatever that is -- while someone like Snape was said to be choleric,
> full of yellow bile. So, I'm saying that Snape has a naturally
> resentful, envious personality.  He sees the world as hostile to him.
> He believes he's being treated unfairly, even when he's not.  And
> when he IS treated unfairly -- *cough*prank*cough* -- he's downright
> implacable.  He's mean to the Gryffindors because he's convinced that
> they are getting privileges they don't deserve.  And, I believe that
> he joined the Death Eaters because he thought that those opposing
> Voldemort, even Dumbledore himself, wanted him dead."

"That's right", said Eloise.

"I've lost track," said Diana.

"Diana, that's exactly how you state Snape ended up in the DEs in the first 
place, remember? Severus was schooled in an environment where moral values 
were vaunted, but where his experience was that the guilty went unpunished, 
like in the...
well, you know what I'm talking about", she said, looking over her shoulder 
in anticipation of the Sirius Apologist, who of course, being expected, 
didn't materialise.

"Now, what was it we once said? Oh yes,
> 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. 

"I don't believe he was evil. I believe he did evil things out of a
mistaken belief in a false philosophy. He was taken in by evil, if you
like," 

"I don't buy it," said Eileen. "I understand some of the idea all
right, but are you saying that Voldemort isn't evil because he
believes in this false philosophy?  Now, you could make an argument
for any one person not to be evil on the grounds that they are
deluded... But I think I'd need to see evidence that Severus Snape was
that deluded. You see, I don't have a problem with calling people evil
if they do evil things. It doesn't make them a space alien. It just
makes them... well... evil. And some people are less evil than others.
And an evil person can be good if they stop doing evil things and
repent about them."

"You just can't win round here, can you? Judy complains I'm making him out to 
be too evil and you complain that I'm saying he's not evil. Oh dear!

"Mmm...Yes, I am aware that there are problems with my view and they're 
related to the problems of moral relativism expounded by Dicey. And I'm very 
aware that in out Midnight in the Garden discussions I came down very heavily 
in favour of saying that we can only show goodness through our actions. But I 
do have a big problem with saying that *people* are evil. I suppose the 
corollary is that we shouldn't really say that people are good, just that 
they are capable of both good and evil actions. Perhaps calling people 'good' 
or 'bad' or 'evil' is just shorthand for the way we judge most of their 
actions to be.

"But...it does seem to me that in the Potterverse, the distinction between 
people that JKR is drawing is not one between 'good' people and 'evil' 
people, but between those who believe in a moral code and those who do not. 
To use the religious language which she so nearly uses herself, they are 
those who walk in darkness and those who walk in the light. JKR has removed 
this from sectarianism by having Voldemort's philosophy devoid of any 
morality whatsoever. On the other hand, her 'good' people are far from 
spotless. Both may do deeds which are not in themselves 'good'. 

"As far as Snape is concerned, I think he had been alienated by the 'light' 
side because he saw that they did not always apparently act according to the 
principles they were supposed to stand for, particularly, he thought, where 
he was concerned. I think that he therefore rejected consciously the idea of 
morality and lived according to the code of Voldemort and the DEs. Only it 
didn't work and there was a little conscience still locked away in there 
somewhere waiting to be re-activated. I think the journey he later took was 
one from the position of moral darkness which he had chosen to one of moral 
illumination which became irresistible, a change of perspective which 
demanded a new course of action rather than his *becoming* a *good* person. I 
think for a *person* to be truly *evil*, they have to be aware that what they 
are doing is wrong and persist with it, perhaps enjoy it. I'm not certain 
whether Voldemort falls into this category, or whether he is merely deranged. 
I don't think Snape did. But then I'm biased and I have a theory to defend!

Cindy came to sit down at the table. Eloise, who after her night -time 
exploits on the Big Bang had had the wind taken right out of her sails by not 
being made to walk the plank, keel-hauled or even threatened with the Big 
Paddle, had decided that Cindy must be going soft and moved over readily to 
make space. "Ask to add the theory to the manifest. I ask you! Where's the 
fun in that?" she thought.

"Here, have some brandy, Cindy."
Cindy poured herself a generous measure and offered Eloise the bottle.

"Oh, no thanks, I'll stick to the Scotch, thanks," said Eloise, patting her 
hip flask.

"So, have you thought over what I said?" 

"Just remind me," said Eloise.

"You said that Dumbledore *does* trust Hagrid with his life and Hagrid does 
what Hagrid does -- he fluffs it. Dumbledore dies.  There is weeping 
and wailing and gnashing of teeth and Snape steps in both to protect 
Hagrid from the wrath of the WW and to take credit for the deed 
himself, (it's an 'accident' of course - even Voldemort can't expect 
Snape to go round openly murdering the most respected wizard of the 
age, which would be a bit self-defeating, really) thus 
simultaneously satisfying Voldemort and becoming deeply unpopular 
with the MoM, ordinary wizarding folks and three quarters of the 
school (maybe even McGonagall turning her back on him) though a hero 
to the Malfoys and the rest of the Slytherins. So there we would have the 
proof of 
Snape's loyalty and the terrible death all rolled into one neat 
package –- a package containing Albus Dumbledore's very head -- with 
dear Severus' integrity still intact."

"Yes, I know what I said, but..."

"Look, I like to be accommodating, so maybe we can do something with 
that theory.  But it can't come aboard in its current condition.  I 
mean, right now it is basically RigorMortis!Dumbledore.  Snape shows 
up with Dumbledore's *head* and takes credit for Dumbledore's 
murder?  And Voldemort is so stupid he can't tell that it's a set-up?

"Nah, let's tweak that just a bit.  Snape needs to *apprehend* 
Dumbledore and deposit him *alive* at Voldemort's feet.  Voldemort 
duels with an old and weary Dumbledore and wins.  That's much more 
Bangy in a  -- " the words caught in Cindy's throat, but she forced 
them out anyway –- "MAGICDISHWASHER kind of way.  Dumbledore lived a 
lie, and now he dies a lie.    

"Ah, but Cindy, you left out my second version, didn't you? I thought you'd 
like the Hagrid one because, well, you don't like Hagrid terribly much, do 
you? And I do have a terrible sense of doom about that particular canon. But 
remember my alternative version...

>>You see, I want to suggest that Dumbledore is sending Snape back to 
Voldemort precisely to prepare the way for his own sacrifice. It seems that 
Dumbledore has been unable to tell Harry about his destiny up to now. I 
suggest that he is grooming him for a role that he will be able to take up 
only when Dumbledore is no longer there, that Dumbledore know that he must 
pass his mantle as the greatest living wizard on to Harry. As Fawkes has to 
die before he can rise again, so Dumbledore has to die before Harry can 
assume his mantle and defeat Voldemort.
"Snape, then, has to regain Voldemort's trust and set in motion the train of 
events that will lead to the 'betrayal' of perhaps the one person who has 
ever shown him true friendship. No wonder Snape's pale and Dumbledore's 
apprehensive. 

"What about *that*, then?" she asked defiantly.

"Well", said Cindy,  "I'll be the first to admit that this theory has some 
problems.  Having Snape deliver Karkaroff is a lot more solidly 
based in canon.  JKR wants the reader to *loathe* Karkaroff; there 
isn't a sympathetic feature about the man -– weak chin, furs, lazy, 
fruity unctuous voice, informer, the spit -- I mean, *yuk.*  
Dumbledore, on the other hand, is sympathetic.  Readers might not 
fully accept Snape having anything to do with Dumbledore's demise, 
even with Dumbledore's consent.  All things considered, I think if 
anyone will be the price of admission into Voldemort's lair, it will 
be Karkaroff, not Dumbledore.

"But that's exactly the point! What is Bangy about someone who is set up to 
be unsympathetic (what did happen to that Krum and Karkaroff adoration 
society you set up, by the way?) being bumped off? It's much Bangier for a 
loved character to be sacrificed. And does JKR worry about the readers? Who 
does she write for? Herself, that's who.

"Let's think about who's died at Voldemort's hands so far. Lily and James, 
then Bertha, who's kind of sympathetic for someone we never see and then 
Frank Bryce and Cedric, both set up as sympathetic. Do you remember that 
thread about which character readers pitied the most? I can assure you Frank 
Bryce and Cedric got a lot of sympathy votes.

"And no-one has yet given me any reason why Voldemort should be convinced by 
Snape bringing in or killing Karkaroff. How, precisely, does that indicate 
his loyalty to Voldemort? Why, pray, won't he be able to see that *that's* a 
set-up? 

"Aside from that, I need a lot more convincing that Dumbledore would condone 
Karkaroff's killing as a moral act. I know it's war, I know that right and 
wrong aren't necessarily clear-cut. I am personally sure that Dumbledore, 
either directly or indirectly already has blood on his hands. But I'm sorry, 
I still think there is a clear moral difference between someone being killed 
in the course of battle and someone who is no longer even an enemy being 
hunted down and killed as is suggested in this case. I think there is a 
difference between, say, being in an invidious position where you have to 
decide which of two people will die, or even of deciding whether to sacrifice 
the one or the many and deliberately going out to kill an individual, even if 
it does ultimately lead to a strategic advantage. To me, killing Karkaroff in 
this manner would be the most chilling piece of ends-justifying-the-means 
thinking. It would be Dumbledore stooping to the level of Voldemort. 
Sacrificing oneself for the greater good is one thing, killing someone else 
is another thing entirely.

"Think about it. Isn't *sacrifice* a theme more consonant with these books 
than the ends justifying the means? It was Lily's *sacrifice* that saved 
Harry from Voldemort.  Don't we speculate that Stoned!Harry will make just 
such a sacrifice?"

Cindy didn't look convinced.
"Besides," she said icily.  "If Snape manages to deliver 
Dumbledore, will Voldemort be satisfied with that?  Of course not!  
Voldemort will ask for the delivery of Harry Potter, and Snape had 
better deliver the goods, or . . . "  Cindy drew one finger slowly 
across her throat.  "Are you sure that's what you want?"

"If Snape delivers Karkaroff, what makes you think Voldemort would be 
satisfied with *that*?" countered Eloise, doing her best to sound even icier. 
"Please tell me, because I really don't get it. As for Severus...well, that's 
not up to me, is it? Of course that's not what I want. But I'm very much 
afraid it's going to end in tears sooner or later; I'm sure that JKR has some 
very nasty surprises round the corner for both him and his legion fans.

And now, if you don't mind, I think I'd like to be alone for a bit," she 
said, surreptitiously wiping the corner of her eye, swallowing hard and 
moving to a low chair by the fire, where she fell to contemplating the 
contents of her whisky tumbler.

Eloise.


Hypothetic Alley:

http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hypotheticalley.html

Inish Alley:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?
method=reportRows&tbl=13











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