Whose Man Snape?

Sat Jul 12 20:03:38 UTC 2003

No: HPFGUIDX 69753

T.M. Sommers wrote:

> Merely working in the department of mysteries does not mean that 
> Rookwood would have access to the prophecy. That department is 
> highly classified. Not only do others in the ministry not know 
> what it is up to, but people in one section of the department 
> won't know that the other sections are up to. 

>snip<

> Even if Rookwook worked in the prophecy section, there are 
> probably access controls on everything so that he either couldn't 
> get the prophecy, or if he could he couldn't do it undetected. 
> In the magical world these controls probably are more effective 
> than in the real world.

Well, yeah, but my point is, there's no reason JKR couldn't have written it so that 
Rookwood *did* have clearance or access or whatever. Especially given the Pensieve 
crowd's reaction to Rookwood's name -- I'm betting he was a pretty high-level dude.

D. wrote:

> I'm not sure if Snape was the eavesdropper, but there's a possibility that                    
> Mundungus might be the eavesdropper.

Eh. Yeah, you know, I've heard that one before; but why would Mundungus tell 
Voldemort? He never worked for him, did he?

Darrin, who is a lousy smoocher, wrote:

> V-Mort is an arrogant sort. He might not have felt it was necessary to double-check      
> the thing -- but let's assume for a minute that it IS someone important and that     
> someone is Snape.

<Derannimer assumes a patronizing sort of expression.>

But. . . but *Darrin,* dear sweet *corn-fed* Darrin [1] , that is just such a profound 
*Dud* of an explanation. Double-check? *Double-check*? C'mon. We've been told 
about a mysterious *eavesdropper,* it's gotta mean *something.* And really, who else 
would it be but Snape? His past just *has* to have something to do with the Potter's. 
It just has to.

Darrin didn't seem to have any problem with the basic Eavesdropper!Snape premise.

> Ok, with you so far. Snape is evil. He sold out babies to V-Mort.

Yeah.

<hesitates>

You know, in my previous post I mentioned that I hoped Snape *had* been using AK 
on the flies? I'm also hoping that he really did do *horrible* things when he was a DE. 
You wanna know why?

<To judge from the expression on Darrin's face, possibly not, but Derannimer 
continues anyway.>

Elkins once (Message Number 34811) wrote:

> For one thing, if Snape really _was_ always a cut above all of the 
> other DEs -- morally, ethically, spiritually, intellectually, or what 
> have you -- then to my mind that seriously devalues his eventual 
> defection to the side of Good. It makes it a matter of essentialism, 
> rather than existentialism: he was _always_ better than all the rest 
> of them by his very nature, and so he made a choice that none of the 
> rest of them could ever have made. I find this idea...oh, I don't 
> know. Distasteful, I suppose. Both distasteful and severely 
> disappointing. 

You see, I really *don't* want Snape to have been a cut above the others. I want him 
to have been as Dark as any of them, or preferably Darker. Not so much for the more 
general thematic concerns that Elkins raises in that post, but for the specific concerns 
of Snape's own character arc. I mean, if he was never all that bad, what's so 
interesting about his defection? You don't get as much guilt, you don't get as much 
angst, you don't get as Big and Bangy of a catalyst when he switches sides, you don't 
get as much temptation for him to switch sides again, you don't get as much of that 
division between, in Elkins' wording, his instincts and his intellect, you don't get as 
much pain when Rosier is killed. . . I mean, man. Snape as Ever So Dark is just *so* 
much more *interesting.* I've never quite understood the Snapefans who *don't* want 
him to have been all that bad.

Anyway, so yeah. 

Getting back to the point.

> Ok, with you so far. Snape is evil. He sold out babies to V-Mort.

Darrin, however, took issue with which particular baby Snape sold out.

> OK, throwing a bone. I posted a theory right after OoP came out that 
> Snape was actually the one sent to snuff out Neville and he did it a 
> few weeks or so before V-Mort went to the Potters. (Say, because V-
> Mort didn't actually get to the Potters before Sirius made Peter the 
> secret-keeper)

Eh. There's a timing problem, though, isn't there? Granted, there isn't any canonical 
confirmation as to when Snape switched sides, but most people tend to put it at a lot 
earlier than a few weeks before Godric's Hollow. 

There is actually some canonical suggestion for this now: Occlumency. Many people 
have assumed that Dumbledore taught it to Snape, and that Dumbledore did so 
specifically for the purposes of Snape's spying job. I think it would probably take 
longer than a few weeks to learn how to do it so well that you could go spy on 
Voldemort without getting killed. Although I suppose Snape could have learned it at 
some prior point in his life; but I'm not sure when that would have been, or why. 

The other thing is, though. . . 

<Derannimer blushes prettily>

. . . I rather fancy Snape having been the "useful spy" who told Dumbledore that 
Voldemort was after the Potters. And if he was the eavesdropper, and left over the 
Potter's targeting, this scenario would actually make some sense -- he would 
certainly have had the information, at any rate.

<quickly>

I mean, I know I'm giving him an awful lot to do, but hey. He is my favorite character. 
And there's no reason he *couldn't* have.

> Anyway, the theory was that Snape couldn't kill Neville. Call it 
> human weakness or whatever. 

Darrin. I'm touched.

> (This is also my theory of why Neville is 
> so scared of Snape, he's got a subconscious memory of Snape standing 
> over his crib.)

Now, see, I do like the idea of a bigger connection between Neville and Snape in the 
past, like that; but I like the idea of a bigger connection between Snape and the 
Potter's even better. (Btw, about Neville, has anyone observed -- yes, probably -- 
that the possibility of Neville's having been the child in the prophecy may be 
connected somehow to the reason the Pensieve Four went after the Longbottoms?)

> But that is where Snape could have turned, and the general guilt or 
> specific concern would apply.

Yeah. But I like mine better. ; )

I had written: 

> Anyway, I think that a scenario like this would explain a great 
> deal of Dumbledore's caginess with Harry over Snape's past. It isn't 
> just that Harry has no real right to know; Dumbledore is also 
> concerned about letting Harry know because Snape's defection from the 
> DE's is closely connected to the loss of Harry's parents.

And Darrin replied:

> I agree that Harry has no real right to know, yet. At some point 
> though, Harry is going to need to know who is behind him in this 
> battle, because now that we see the prophecy, it really is Harry's 
> head in the noose more than any other.

Oh, absolutely! Anyway, one way or the other, does anyone seriously doubt that Harry 
*is* eventually going to be given the information? More on this below, btw.

Darrin wrote, on the subject of the "never forgive him, never" line:

> He has just lost Sirius. I don't think we can take what he is feeling 
> and base a great deal of predictions on it. I'm not prepared to say 
> Harry's hate lasts for even half the next book.

Well really! Really! I mean to say, what! 

Darrin. That would be so boring. 

Besides, it's not just that Harry's *shown* feeling angry; JKR whops us over the head 
with it and says that he would "never forgive Snape, never." We are *told* that Harry is 
feeling angry -- and he's not just feeling angry, btw, he does seem to hate Snape now 
-- and I think we might be being told it because we're really not supposed to miss it; 
because it is really *important.* 

Anyway, it's so much more interesting that way.

As for *why* it might be really *important,* Darrin's preferred explanation seems to 
be my explanation [3]: Severus Snape Is Ever So Evil!

He added another bit of canon to complement my Double Bluff suggestion.

> You know what make distrust Snape even more? Not Harry's hate, but 
> Hermione and Dumbledore's continual insistence that he is to be 
> trusted.

> It really is a "sheesh, why are you protesting so damn much?" vibe 
> I'm getting.

> I mean, we're setting up Hermione as this insightful oracle and 
> Dumbledore is the Basil Exposition of the series and they keep 
> insisting on Snape's good? 

> Talk about Bangy.

Erg. Darrin, do you get why I hate this sort of post? Have you seen all of those poor 
Sirius Apologists, on that sad, sad boat of theirs? You know how upset they all are? I 
mean, some of them actually *cried,* I think. 

Yeah?

Well, I don't think I'll be as bummed as all that if Snape dies. I mean, I'd put his 
chances of surviving the series at this point as somewhere worse than 50-50, or even 
than 40-60. I don't think I'd be real *surprised* or anything if Snape dies.

But I will be *heart-broken* if he turns out to be Ever So Evil. I mean, that would just 
be awful. 

And here you are, saying things that make it sound more plausible.

Logically speaking, though. . . 

<grudgingly>

. . . if he *does* turn out to be Ever So Evil, I suppose I really ought to *thank* you, 
for preventing it from coming as a complete shock. 

Anyway, as regards this theory, just a couple of pretty unconnected thoughts.

Pro:

1. Hermione. She was *way* too perfect in OOP. She really *ought* to take a fall 
sometime soon. And someone has, I believe -- it might have been Darrin, actually -- 
pointed out the extent to which she is sure of Dumbledore's opinion. Might her fall 
have something to do with that?

Con (whee! lots!)

1. The Sorting Hat's New Song. I know that Darrin is dubious of the existence of Good 
Slyths, but I don't know what on earth that song, and Phineas Nigellus -- who I loved, 
btw -- were there for if not to introduce the Good Slyth concept for Six and Seven. 
Hey, JKR *did* say that a lot of things are set up in OOP for the benefit of Six and 
Seven; this could well be one of them. And if we *are* going to see "All of Slytherin 
House Is Bad" turn out to be a red herring, I really don't think that having the most 
prominent Slyth --we assume -- character to date turn out to be ESE is a great way to 
assist that message. Come on. We've already got enough evil Slyth characters.

2. I think that Dumbledore's *already* taken his fall. I also think that he is quite, quite 
likely to die at the end of Book Six, and I doubt that JKR is going to have him die 
looking like a fool. I think he *would* look like a fool if he had the failures of OOP, 
then turned out to have been fooled by Snape, and then be offed (by Snape's 
treachery?). He just doesn't havce time to make another mistake like that and then 
recover from it, and again, I don't think that JKR will kill him before he looks really 
great again. (Of course, I also thought she wouldn't be cruel enough to kill Harry's 
godfather, so I could easily be wrong here.) I suspect, though, that OOP was kind of 
the low point for Dumbledore in the series. Anyway, I prefer the idea that Hagrid is 
going to somehow accidentally cause, or at least contribute to, Dumbledore's death. 
As for Hermione taking a fall, there are other ways she can do that; I do wonder if her 
apparent -- and comparative, of course -- ruthlessness over the past two books is 
going somewhere. Between the blackmailing Rita Skeeter thing and the Centaur thing, 
I'm not so sure about where Hermione's going.

3. This is Reader Reaction, and kind of nebulous anyway, but. . . 

Wouldn't there be something kind of. . . unsatisfying in *rereading* the earlier books 
if you knew that Snape was a bad guy all along? I mean, the whole plot twist of PS/SS; 
and the Gilderoy Lockhart baiting, and Snape's reaction to the news that a student 
had been taken; and the "Those Darn Kids" breakdown at the end of POA; and, 
perhaps especially, the Egg and the Eye in GOF; and, IMHO, the "He was never going 
to forgive Snape, never" line at the end of OOP -- doesn't all of that *lose* something 
if you read it knowing that Snape is really evil all along? If it turns out that the very 
first impression of Snape was *right,* and all of this time that seems to be spent 
peeling off layers is just a trick? Because I think that's what it would be: a trick. What 
was it JKR said? Something about how readers like to be fooled, but they don't like to 
be tricked? Because I would really feel like EverSoEvilSinceBookOneAfterAll!Snape 
would fit in the second category, and would be a trick. I hope I don't just feel that way 
because he's my favorite character, but I suppose that I might.

Notice, however --

<winces>

-- that none of this last objection, at any rate, applies to 
ReallyDoesTryToSwitchSidesButRelapsesIntoEvilAnyway!Snape. I don't mind that one 
nearly as much though; it would be heart-breaking too, but in a different kind of way. 
I would, I think, consider it a tragedy. 

But not a trick.

4. JKR just ain't gonna spend that much time developing a character who's really a 
bad guy. Face it. As numerous others have commented before, her bad guys don't 
tend to be all that interesting. Whereas most people in the fandom *do* consider 
Snape quite interesting. Now, I'm sure how this one applies to 
ReallyDoesTryToSwitchSidesButRelapsesIntoEvilAnyway!Snape; but I think it's pretty 
good against EverSoEvilSinceBookOneAfterAll!Snape. Which, as I said, I hate far more 
than I hate ReallyDoesTryToSwitchSidesButRelapsesIntoEvilAnyway!Snape. 

So anyway.

> And if any Snapeites find me totally obnoxious NOW, just wait if I'm 
> proved right! Boy, you wait, indeed. 

<frostily>

I can well imagine. Actually, I prefer to be called a Bent Snapefan.

Still on the subject of Harry's hatred, Darrin wrote, about my TheRingIsMine!Harry, 
possible explanation [5]:

> Erggh. OK, let me go with this one.

> I agree that if Harry blindly hates Snape, bad things could happen. 
> Just as Snape couldn't let go enough to do his teaching duties, Harry 
> can't get wrapped up in all this nonsense either.

You know, *this* hypothetical point was where I was thinking that Harry might find 
out why Dumbledore trusts Snape. Not when Harry convinces Dumbledore that he, 
Harry, deserves to know; but when Dumbledore realises that there is simply no way 
Harry can trust Snape enough *without* knowing, and if this lack of trust, combined 
with Harry's hatred, winds up endangering Harry or Snape or both of them. Or once 
this lack of trust, combined with Harry's hatred, actually *has* endangered Harry or 
Snape or both of them.

If this seems like a way too Snape-friendly spec for even *me* to think it's at all likely, 
what can say? I never thought that the Pensieve scene in OOP, or the suggestion that 
Snape comes from a poor and abusive household, was at all likely either.

(Btw, I *do* think that Snape's father, assuming that the man we see in the flashback 
is indeed his father, was probably physically abusive, at least toward Snape's mother. 
The woman isn't described as shouting (in the flashback itself) or weeping or 
something, but as "cowering." Which implies that she was physically afraid. A 
husband and wife yelling at each other, *which is how Harry thinks of the scene,* is 
one thing; a wife observably physically cowering in front of her husband, *which is 
the way the scene itself is actually described,* is quite another. (I think that Harry 
does misinterpret the scene somewhat; has Harry ever seen a really unhappy 
marriage? Let alone a violent one? He does still see some things through a kid's eyes. 
. . ) And I think that the word "cowering" implies that the "quite another" involved 
some truly nasty things. Ugh.)

Moving on, Darrin likes the idea of Snape being hit with the Cruciatus.

> Ooooh... how fun! 

Yes. . . 

<Derannimer goes all dreamy>

. . . wouldn't it be? 

Although I presume not for quite the same reasons for you that it would be for me. ; )

I wrote:

> Oh, and btw -- I fully expect Harry to forgive Snape at some point 
> now. Come on! You just *don't* have a character say that they are 
> never going to forgive another character never unless they *are* 
> going to forgive that other character at some point!

And Darrin replied:

> You do realize that in order to be forgiven, one must apologize. So, 
> Snape needs to do that as well. But, yeah, I can't see Book 7 coming 
> and going without some kind of resolution here. 

Erm. . . no. I can forgive you even if you don't apologize. Right? I mean, hopefully 
Snape *will* apologize -- I would love to see him do that -- and hopefully (I think, 
although I am not a theologian by any means) apology and forgiveness go together; 
but it doesn't always work like that.

Derannimer

---------------

[1] "Betty, Betty dear sweet *corn-fed* Betty. . . " -- Hilary Booth, _Remember WENN_. 
I'm not altogether sure what it means myself.