TBAY: Definitely NOT a Snape Theory (long)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 145377

> Neri:
> Pippin, you are precisely illustrating the point I was making. The 
> canon you quoted is the basic assumption of LID, not of DDM. There's 
> nothing in Dumbledore's words here about Snape's remorse or about him 
> changing sides or being Dumbledore's man, which are the necessary 
> assumptions for DDM. So I repeat the point – Snape's hatred for Harry 
> does *not* follow directly from the basic assumption of DDM, and it 
> *does* follow from the basic assumption of LID.
>

Pippin:
Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought the LID theory  is that the 
obligation Dumbledore referred to is strictly magical. I think it is magical *and* 
moral. See, I think young Snape felt that he had never done anything as dirty 
to James as what the Marauders did to him with the werewolf prank, so when 
he found that he had lowered himself to James's level by siccing Voldemort 
on him, he did genuinely feel awful about it.

 I think up to that time he might have been OFH!, slithering out of action 
as Bella put it, witnessing the deaths of nameless strangers, but the realization
that people he knew were going to die seems to have had an effect on him.
It may have caused him to re-evaluate everything, just as Harry's discovery
of who had written the Prince's book made him aware of the dark potential
of everything in it.

With a little encouragement from Harry, 'Snape gave information to 
Voldemort that turned out to concern the Potters' has morphed into 
'Snape got the Potters killed'  in the minds of some. But the prophecy
says 'those who have thrice defied him.' That would hardly put Lily and James
on Voldemort's fluffy bunny list. It seems to me Snape
had an easy cop-out. He could have said, "The Dark Lord would get
around to killing them anyway -- *I* didn't have anything to do with it."

But he didn't. That may be part of what convinced Dumbledore that
Snape was sincere. Now as to how Snape can treat Harry so badly, the
fact that Snape thinks bullying is an acceptable teaching method is
unfortunate, but not, unfortunately, a moral issue by wizarding standards.
Few people in the WW see that there is anything wrong with bullying
students any more than they see what's wrong with House Elf slavery.
They've always done it that way, it seems to work, nobody's complaining,
so what's the problem? Snape is no more likely to stop being a bully
than he is to join SPEW. Doesn't mean he's not as much DDM as
Hagrid, who also thinks the House Elves are happy as they are.

After all, what is Snape bullying Harry to do? Follow Dumbledore's 
orders, not get carried away with his celebrity, study harder, pay 
attention in class, obey school rules, answer questions truthfully
and speak politely to his teachers-- nothing wrong with those  
things, is there? That's very different from Umbridge or the Dursleys 
or Voldemort.

You know, if you read 'Spinner's End' as straight exposition, presuming
that Snape is telling the truth all the way through, then it is perfunctory
and rather dull, but if you think Snape is DDM! it's like a Chinese puzzle,
and deeply artful. Probably the best argument for DDM I've come up 
with yet. 

Pippin