TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long)

[nkafkafi]

No: HPFGUIDX 145253

>
> SSSusan stumbles into the Royal George, blinking furiously in the 
> light and spots quite a crew assembled on the *down* staircase.  
> "Huh," mutters SSSusan, "never knew *that* staircase was there."
> 
> [Okay, SSSusan is too exhausted to continue TBAYing at the moment.  
> My humblest apologies.]
> 

Neri:
Accepted. Now I have a good excuse to stop using it too.

> So... Neri has Faith expounding her theo--, erm, hypothe--, um, 
> Innocent Intellectual Exercise in LID!Snape and claiming:
> 
> "DDM doesn't explain why Snape hates Harry so much – LID does. DDM is 
> yet to find a satisfactory explanation of what had happened on the 
> tower – LID doesn't have any problem with it."
> 
> 
> SSSusan responds:
> Oh, I don't know about this, Faith.  I mean, I know you don't like 
> SPECULATION, but at this point, we've got to have SOME of it.  Jo 
> left us scratching our heads and with jaws dropped *on purpose* at 
> the end of HBP, you know.  
>

Neri:
If you are trying to convince Faith to start making explicit
speculations I suspect you are wasting your time. Of course, I don't
let her prevent me from speculating, so I don't see why anybody else
should. 

> SSSusan: 
> And honestly, I don't see why DDM *doesn't* explain Snape's hatred of 
> Harry.  Why would any of the three positions *not* be able to explain 
> Snape's hatred of Harry?  To me, a DDM!Snaper, it's independent of 
> the position.  IOW, Snape hates Harry; he just DOES.  Whether that's 
> because of James, whether that's because he finds the kid annoying as 
> hell (a rule-flaunting, endangering-himself-and-others-without-a-care 
> kind of brat), whether he hates the attention Harry gets and resents 
> the importance the WW places on the kid & his role, who knows?  But 
> the hatred can be real, true, and deep and STILL have Snapey be DDM, 
> no?  
> 
> I mean, yes, Snape's a royal ass to Harry.  He's nasty and surly and 
> sarcastic and demeaning and never misses an opportunity to put him 
> down.  But why does the DDM position not allow for this?  After all, 
> the DDM position has to do with Snape's loyalty to DUMBLEDORE, not 
> with his loyalty to Harry or even to The Order, necessarily.  As long 
> as Snape can be loyal to DD and be hateful towards Harry at the same 
> time, where's the problem?  
> 

Neri:
What Faith neglected to clarify (always blame the personification,
that's my motto <g>) is the way she was using the term "explain". You
see, the way Faith and I were using it, there's a big difference
between a statement like "Theory A *explains* canon fact B" and (as
you wrote above regarding DDM) "Theory A *allows* for canon fact B".
The second statement is almost always true if you are creative enough. 

For example, the ESE crew would argue that their theory allows for
ESE!Snape saving Harry's life several times. He just did it because he
didn't want to blow his cover. They can even say that their theory
allows for ESE!Snape saving Harry in the end of HBP after Dumbledore
was already dead. He did it because Voldemort warned the DEs that
Harry belongs only to him. Now, would you say that the ESE!Snape
theory *explains* why Snape keeps trying to save Harry's life? I
wouldn't. It merely *allows* for it if the theoretician is creative
enough. On the other hand, DDM *explains* why Snape keeps trying to
save Harry's life. And LID explains it too, although in a different way.

Attempting a more formal definition of the above, I'd suggest that a
theory can be said to "explain" a certain canon fact if this fact
follows directly from the basic assumptions of said theory. A basic
assumption of DDM is that Snape is loyal to Dumbledore. From this it
directly follows that he'd try saving Harry's life. A basic assumption
of LID is that Snape owed a Life Debt to James and now to Harry. From
this it directly follows that he'd try saving Harry's life. The basic
assumption of ESE is that Snape is loyal to Voldemort. From this it
does *not* directly follow that he'd try saving Harry's life.

Just to clarify, the fact that ESE doesn't *explain* some Snape
questions doesn't mean that ESE (and what it allows for) can't be
true. It only means that I hope JKR would do better than such sorry
excuses.

Using my suggested definition above, I'd also repeat my former
observation regarding the Unbreakable Vow (this is also an answer for
Miles and other members): ESE, DDM, OFH and LID don't explain why
Snape made the UV. Sure, they all *allow* for this and that creative
explanations, but they don't *explain* it. ACID POPS does.

Now, after this long clarification of terms, let's go back to Snape's
hatred for Harry. A basic assumption of DDM is that Snape's remorse
about his part in the death of James and/or Lily is genuine. Even more
than genuine, it is so strong that even today, 15 years later,
DDM!Snape constantly risks himself and, as Pippin put it, would
sacrifice his life for Dumbledore's cause. Such Choices would show the
present day DDM!Snape to be an extremely moral person, despite his
past mistakes that he now deeply regrets. Such a moral person don't
"just hate" an innocent 11 years old kid. Most surely not the orphan
of the very parents that that moral person feels such remorse about.
If such a moral person just can't help feeling this hate, then
logically he'd be ashamed of it and try to hide it, most especially
from that kid himself. He wouldn't revel in such hate, he wouldn't
make it his flag. He'd surely try not to allow it to hurt the very
cause he's risking everything for. IMHO, Snape's hatred for Harry
doesn't follow directly from the DDM basic assumption. Sure, DDM can
allow for it, if you are creative enough.

> SSSusan:
> As to the contention that DDM doesn't explain the events on the 
> tower, I beg to differ.  There IS an explanation that many of us find 
> quite satisfactory indeed.  (True, OFH!Snapers and ESE!Snapers don't 
> care for it, but it makes sense to DDM!Snapers.)  

Neri:
Tell me frankly, did you become a DDM!Snaper because you found this
explanation convincing, or do find it convincing because you are a
DDM!Snaper?

Personally I was never a Snape fan, but I was never a Snape hater
either, and until HBP I believed him to be on Dumbledore's side. I'd
still accept a DDM resolution gladly, *providing* that JKR's
explanation for it would be convincing. Much more convincing than
"Dumbledore asked Snape to finish him off" or any other tower theory
I've heard until now. If JKR had the nerve to end HBP the way she did
and *still* go for DDM!Snape, then she'd better have up her sleeve a
solution that is at least as brilliant and as shattering as the PoA
resolution or the GoF resolution. But you know, there is a possibility
that what happened on the tower was very much what is seems to be, and
the shattering resolution would come from other things. 

> SSSusan:
> And that is, at 
> least in my version (sorry, Faith! – I told you, with this scene 
> we've just GOT to do some speculating!), 

Neri:
Faith invested some work in showing that with LID you can get
everything you get from either ESE, DDM or OFH, but with nearly zero
speculation. Where is the hole in this theo
 construct?

 
> Neri went on, offering this assist to Faith:
> "Hey, that part can actually be made even more convincing," said Neri.
> "Del and I posted about it. You see, if the Life Debt magic kills you
> when you take a part in killing the one you owe to, then Snape should
> have died after GH, but if Dumbledore saved him by magically
> transferring his Debt from James to Harry, then Snape would owe a Life
> Debt to Dumbledore too! That would certainly make Dumbledore trust
> him. And after Snape saved Dumbledore's life back from the ring curse,
> he could kill Dumbledore, but he still owes Harry..."
> 
> SSSusan:
> Hmmm.  This would only work if the Life Debt only prevented the 
> person ONE TIME from participating in the death of the person to whom 
> he owed a Life Debt, then?  That "Snape saved DD once and so now's he 
> free to kill him" notion.  Is there a reason in canon to suspect it's 
> a "one time and out" kind of thing?  
> 

Neri:
Reason in canon? Of course not. This is why it was a speculation and
Faith didn't want any part in it. But since I'm not Faith I can think
of other reasons to like it beside canon. For example, that one time
would be simpler and more elegant than two. Or three or seven. Of
course, with JKR it might very well be seven. And I wouldn't be
surprised if she got the count mixed up too. 

> SSSusan:
> Anyway, more to the point for me... considering both this possibility 
> and what Faith was just saying about what LID can do that DDM can't 
> do, what I'd like to know is this:  Exactly how does LID explain WHY 
> Snape killed DD?  What, in LID, was Snape's motivation on the tower?  
> *If* you're right (and this is, imo, a pretty big "if") about being 
> freed from any Life Debt he owed DD after the ring-horcrux saving 
> thing, and thus COULD now kill DD safely, LID!Snape still doesn't, I 
> don't think, explain why Snape WOULD do so.  Would LID!Snape's 
> explanation be that, in killing DD, Snape would be better able to get 
> Harry out of Hogwarts, to ensure his safety from the DEs?  Or 
> something else?
> 

Neri:
Going with LID!Snape the way Faith would like it, Snape's reason to
kill Dumbledore would be the most canonical and the one that would
require the less convoluted reasoning. Namely, killing Dumbledore was
the only way Snape could save his own life from the terms of the UV.


> 
> I had also been wondering the same thing a couple of others have 
> brought up as well.  That is, WHY would Snape still owe Harry, and 
> specifically, didn't the 1st-year Quidditch rescue count?
> 
> Neri offered this up:
> "Well, for repaying a Life Debt, this case wasn't exactly what you'd
> call clear-cut, was it?", said Faith. "I mean, from literary
> considerations wouldn't you expect something more dramatic? And the
> other cases of Snape saving Harry's life are even less clear-cut than
> that."
> 
> SSSusan:
> Sorry, but this seems a weak argument for the Quidditch save not 
> counting.  
> 

Neri:
I could bring other arguments, such as Quirrell saying that he would
have succeeded in unbrooming Harry even with Snape countering him if
not for Hermione intervening. But I don't think the original argument
is weak. In a story like HP, if a main character like Snape has a Life
Debt to the hero, and to his father before that for many years,
especially because of such a dramatic event as the famous Prank, I'd
expect the way he repays this debt to be *at least* as dramatic. "He
delayed Quirrell until Hermione intervened" just doesn't cut it,
sorry. OTOH, saving the hero from the evil overlord in the seventh and
last book of the series would be just perfect. And all the more so if
they weren't on the same side at the time.

> Yet Faith asked us:
> "So tell me, what do you think is Snape's opinion? Does he behave as 
> if he thinks the account was settled after that Quidditch match? Or 
> after the end of the year? Or after the night of the Shrieking Shack? 
> Has he really `gone back to hate James' memory in peace'? Was there 
> any change in the way he treats Harry?"
> 
> SSSusan:
> Well, no, he hasn't changed... but imo that can actually argue for 
> DDM!Snape.  I mean, let's assume the quidditch save DID end the Life 
> Debt.  Then for what reason would Snape continue to act to protect 
> Harry?  Because of his LOYALTY to DD!  His dislike of Harry is true, 
> but he continues to watch over him and protect him because DD wants 
> him to, expects him to.  And so he does, all the while despising the 
> little bugger.  Out of loyalty to DD.  
> 

Neri:
It can argue for DDM, sure, but wouldn't that be poorly plotted? I
mean, if he saved Harry later because he was DDM, why couldn't he save
him in SS/PS because he was DDM then too? Why did we need the whole
"be quit with James' memory" story at all? And the whole debt plot
would be backwards – first JKR tells us that Snape is finally quit
with James, *then* she tells us how he came to be indebted in the
first place, and then she raises the stakes in the Shrieking Shack.
This is backwards. Repaying the debt should be the *resolution* of the
debt plot, not the first thing we are told about.

> SSSusan: 
> Lastly, Neri asks:
> DDM too requires an explanation why Dumbledore refused to give his 
> reasons to trust Snape. What's the DDM explanation?
> 
> SSSusan:
> Well, I know you don't like this, but one possibility is LOLLIPOPS.  
> IOW, when DD considered telling Harry the reason in HBP... paused... 
> but elected not to... it might have been that he believed the 
> revelation simply too personal.  
> 

Neri:
Well, like Faith said it *can* be LOLLIPOPS. In fact I pretty much
agree with her that it must be either LOLLIPOPS or LID, because
nothing else explains why Snape first told Voldemort about the
prophecy and then went to Dumbledore when he heard it's the *Potters*
that Voldy is after. But LOLLIPOPS would have actually made more sense
without the DDM part, because as I wrote above, such a strong remorse
just doesn't go well with such vengeance. And LOLLIPOPS+DDM still
don't explain (in my sense of the word) what happened on the tower,
while LID has no problem with it. And LID has considerably more canon
support than LOLLIPOPS (which has approximately zero canon). Add to
this the considerable meta advantages that Faith discussed, and LID
seems by far the better contender.

Regarding the "too personal to tell Harry" excuse, it simply doesn't
explain why Dumbledore couldn't tell it to Lupin, McGonagall or Moody. 

> SSSusan:
> Given the relationship between Snape & Harry, the degree of animosity 
> already present, and all that Harry blames Snape for, how would Harry 
> likely react to the news that DD trusted Snape because he had turned 
> back to DD when he realized Lily was in danger and wanted to protect 
> her?  Exactly! "Eeewwwwww!!! Don't tell me that!" Harry might be 
> expected to yell.  If (and yes, this is a giant "if" of my own here) 
> DD knew he was dying or likely would die soon, and if he hoped that 
> somehow Snape & Harry would be able to set aside their dislike and 
> loathing and work together, would he risk a revelation that might 
> make that even LESS likely than it already was?
> 

Neri:
If Dumbledore thought he's likely to die soon, then all the more
reason to tell several other Order members why he trusts Snape.


Neri