Stopper in Death

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 92337

Jo wrote:
<snip> I'd love to re read that quote. At the time, reading the first
book, I thought it a very lyrical speach and it was JKR showing that
Snape is charismatic. Thinking on it now, given that one of the *big*
themes is death, avoiding death, worse things than death etc its got
to be very important. Does the 'stopper' comment really mean 'stopping
death'? Or is it simply a poetic description of poison?
<snip>
 
Also stopping death is very difficult isn't Voldy the only one to 
conquer death without the SS/PS? 
 
So can Snape actually avoid death? If so would he teach his pupils
such things? It seems out of character for Snape to claim to do
something he can't but if he can what purpose has it served in the
past and as you point out what for the future, and what is the price?

So to play your what ifs.....
What if Snape is responsible for immortal Voldy?
What if Harry thinks Snape might be able to help him 'cure' Sirius?

Harry wrote this quote down after all!
 
Carol:
I'm not sure what you mean by "Harry wrote this quote down, after
all." Movie contamination? Harry isn't the narrator; the narrator is
merely recounting his experiences from his point of view (with
exceptions that I've discussed in other threads).

But to get to the main idea here, what Snape means by his poetic
assertion that he can "put a stopper in death": I agree that he
wouldn't claim to do something that he can't do and I don't think he
merely means that he can create poisons (or antidotes, which would
make more sense to me). I certainly do think that the speech serves to
make Snape charismatic, at least to readers, and both mysterious and
dangerous in the minds of his students. Both in terms of his power and
his personality, this is not a teacher to mess around with.

But you're right that it must also mean more, rather like the riddle
he poses as one of the obstacles in the passage to the sorceror's
(philosopher's) stone. As a Snape fan, I much prefer to think that his
role as a (young) DE involved potion making rather than Crucioing and
AKing LV's opponents. His great abilities as a potion maker (combined
with a precocious mastery of occlumency) could have enabled him to
become a member of LV's inner circle at an early age and remain there
during the year or so he served as a spy for Dumbledore before the
events at Godric's Hollow. It also makes more sense that Dumbledore
would hire a young man who had tried to help Voldemort achieve
immortality and regretted it than one who had murdered or tortured
Muggles or Muggle-borns. Surely he wouldn't want someone so dangerous
teaching his students?

As for Snape "curing" Sirius: I don't think Snape or anyone else can
"stopper" death after it has happened, especially when the body has
been snatched away beyond anyone's reach. (JKR has made it clear that
the dead don't return, so if we're going to see more of Sirius, it
will be in memories, photos, or portraits.) Besides, if Snape could
bring anyone back from the dead, it wouldn't be Sirius, and I doubt if
he would teach his students to do so, either.

Anyway, I like the theory that young Snape's role as a DE consisted
mostly of trying to help LV achieve immortality. It fits with both his
abilities and his ambitions (a craving for recognition that has not
yet been satisfied). Maybe when LV started expecting him to do worse
things (Unforgiveable Curses?), he started having doubts and went to
DD for help. But unlike Regulus Black, he was smart enough not to
express those doubts in front of LV or his chief followers.

Carol, who wishes she could get Snape completely off the hook but is
afraid it's impossible