Why Snape may know what he knows WAS Re: The Gleam Revisited

[marinafrants]

No: HPFGUIDX 45141

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grey Wolf" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> Marina wrote:
> > See, this is what I continue to have trouble with.  From where 
I'm 
> > sitting, the entire MAGIC DISHWASHER theory is built on a single 
> > metathinking supposition -- that JKR is writing a LeCarre-style 
spy 
> > thriller -- and all the support for the theory comes from 
reasoning 
> > backwards from that supposition: *if* you assume the theory is 
true, 
> > *then* canon must be interpreted in a particular way.
> 
> No, it's not a metathinking assumption of any kind. For one, I 
have not 
> read Le-Carre *ever* so I couldn't identify his style even if I 
tried. 
> I joined the spy-game train after reading Pip's first post on the 
> matter. I had grown unconvinced on the accepted vision on the 
books, 
> *because* it was metathinking: what I call the ego-centric Harry 
(Harry 
> is the centre of everything that happens - see bellow for my 
reasoning 
> on why it's metathinking). Pip's theory, on the other hand, takes 
a 
> step back and asks what is *really* going on? and grows from that: 
from 
> observing what was going on in the Potterverse *before* Harry 
entered 
> the picture. Let me give you a run-down:
> 

<snip discussion of First Vold War and its parallels to real-life 
terrorism>

> 
> Note that I haven't mentioned JKR other to put examples of 
terrorism 
> wars, and I have not mentioned the fact that HP is a book, nor 
that in 
> it JKR is God and Creator. At all points I treat Dumbledore et co. 
as 
> if they were real beings, capable of abstract thought. NOT as 
secondary 
> characters of a literature piece called "the Adventures of Harry 
> Potter". As I said, MAGIC DISHWASHER is NOT metathinking.

Okay, we're using two different definitions of metathinking here.  I 
think I was confused by the fact that you seemed to be setting 
up "meta" and "canon-based" as opposing concepts, which I now see 
they're not. You're limiting your definition of "meta" to the "lit-
crit" approach, while I was defining it in more general terms as any 
extratextual thinking, in which the reader's interpretation of the 
text is filtered through considerations from outside the text.  In 
the case of the DISHWASHER, the filter is your knowledge and 
understanding of the way anti-terrorist campaigns are conducted in 
real life.  We can call it "external thinking," or some other 
suitable name to distinguish it from the lit-crit method. This is a 
perfectly valid approach -- I think the DISHWASHER theory is very 
well thought-out, even if I disagree with it -- but it's no more 
canonically rigorous than the lit-crit approach, or the 
philosophical one, or any number of other methods people use to 
interpret the text.

> Read Pip's post 39662 for the full description, but the fact is 
that 
> Snape shows some pretty strange behaviour during the scene. 
Strange, 
> that is, until Pip's examination wrings some sense into his 
movements. 
> Taking Snape's actions at face value would almost mean that he's a 
> dangerous sycopath, which we know he isn't. He was under 
preassure, 
> when he was in no particular phisical danger, so it must be 
something 
> else he's worried about...

Not if you accept that Snape truly believes that Sirius is a highly 
dangerous mass-murdering psycho and Lupin is in cahoots with him.  
*We* know Snape was in no particular physical danger, but Snape 
didn't.  As far as he was concerned, Snape was in a heck of a lot of 
danger -- if Lupin and Sirius attacked him together, he'd be toast.  
And it's not just him, either.  Three stupid, inconsiderate, 
disobedient brats have gone out and put themselves in danger too.

Later, of course, once Snape is talking to Fudge, the danger is 
past.  But by then you have to make allowances for the emotional 
roller-coaster he's been put through.  Fifteen years' worth of 
anger, finally presented with an outlet and a target, as well as 
with a chance at vindication -- and then it all gets snatched away.  
Considering that Snape, in general, is not a man known for his mild, 
even-tempered disposition, I think he handled it remarkably well.

>> I have to disagree strongly here: *making* Harry the centre of 
all 
> theories *just* because HP is a book with his name and he's the 
one who 
> almost always the story centres in IS the most pure form of 
> metathinking. Read, for example, a similar book, the Belgariad, 
were 
> the main character IS the centre of almost everything that goes 
on. And 
> not even then, since there are things that go around him that have 
> nothing to do with him. In a good fantasy world, the universe 
shouldn't 
> spin around whomever happens to have his name in the cover. 

I never said the universe revolved around Harry, I said the *story* 
revolved around Harry.  Now I suppose you're going to say that by 
bringing the concept of story into it I'm indulging in meta-
thinking, but I think that attempting to analyze a literary text 
without ever acknowledging that it *is* a literary text is a highly 
artificial and pitfall-laden approach.  Of course, a lot of it has 
to do with what your goal is.  If a theory is intended purely as an 
intellectual exercise, then anything goes.  But if you're actually 
trying to predict where the story will go, then you have to deal 
with the fact that it is a story, not a news report or a historical 
chronicle, and examine the literary underpinnings.

Example: if you were trying to predict the ending of a traditional 
cozy British mystery, you would not say "the killer will be the most 
likely suspect" or "the killer will be an anonymous drifter with no 
connection to anyone in town."  That may happen all the time in real 
life, but that's not how it happens in cozy British mysteries.  Now, 
the HP series aren't quite as genre-bound, but I still don't think 
you can just ignore the fact that Harry is the protagonist of the 
story, or that free choice, morality and the power of love have been 
established as major themes.  Many people have said that the final 
outcome of the Harry-Voldemort conflict will not depend on who's the 
more powerful wizard.  I agree with this, and I also think that the 
outcome will not depend on which shadowy puppet-master does a better 
job of manipulating his pawns.

Marina
rusalka at ix.netcom.com