TBAY: ...NOT a Snape Theory - NO Debt Repayment

[nkafkafi]

No: HPFGUIDX 145532

 
> bboyminn: 
> Next, Life_InDebted!Snape is based on a few assumptions whether you
> want to accept it or not.

Neri:
As I suggested in the original TBAY, I think Faith wasn't entirely
truthful when she claimed she didn't use any assumptions in LID!Snape.
She did gloss over some points. But IMO she still has a pretty strong
case regardless, as I'll explain below.

> bboyminn:
>  It assumes how the Life Debt works. Maybe
> 'Life Debt' is not a magical imperative but a moral one or even a
> social one. That doesn't mean 'magic at its deepest' can't be
> involved, but so far we have no evidence that Life Debt creates an
> irresistable magical compulsion to act in some specific way. It is
> entirely possible that the Life Debt can be completely ignore with no
> consequences beyond a guilty conscience. I'm not saying that is
> specifically true, only that we don't know the nature, actions, and
> consequences of a Life Debt. 

Neri:
It is possible, of course, that the Life Debt doesn't create any
magical compulsion, although if so, how exactly is it "magic in its
deepest, most impenetrable"? But regardless of how the magical
mechanics work (or not), for thematic reasons it seems almost
impossible that Wormtail wouldn't at least try to pay his Debt as
Dumbledore predicted, and that Snape wouldn't finally succeed in
saving Harry's life. Both of these debts were highlighted in
Dumbledore's end-of-the-year talks. I doubt very much that they were
placed there just as red herrings.

> bboyminn:
> In fact, exactly what creates a Life Debt is a little grey. For
> example, JKR said in an interview that Ginny did NOT incure a Life
> Debt to Harry for his rescue of her from the Chamber of Secrets. That
> would imply that it is not simply a matter of saving another wizard.
> The action has to be direct, clear, and unambiguos and which saves a
> person from imminent, direct, and indisputable death.
> 

Neri:
This grayness is the reason (beside the ideological) why Faith refuses
to speculate about the nature of the Life Debt. We indeed know nearly
nothing about it, which makes any speculation extremely...
speculative. But the reason we know so little is precisely because JKR
told us practically nothing about it. Now, in the case of theories
like LOLLIPOPS (which also used a similar argument) I can say: "the
reason that JKR told us nothing about LOLLIPOPS might simply be that
there isn't such a thing". But I can hardly say: "the reason that JKR
told us nothing about the Life Debt magic might simply be that there
isn't such a thing". First, it's canon that it does exist; secondly,
all the thematic considerations point out it's going to play big. 

Since you mentioned Ginny *not* owing a Life Debt to Harry it is worth
checking JKR's exact wording when she said it:

**************************************************
http://www.quick-quote-quill.org/articles/2004/0304-wbd.htm

MA: Does she have a life debt to Harry from book two?

JKR: No, not really. Wormtail is different. You know, part of me would
just love to explain the whole thing to you, plot of book seven, you
know, I honestly would.
************************************************

So, there is a "whole thing" to explain here, only she can't because
it would ruin Book 7.

Now this doesn't make Life Debt speculations any less speculative. We
still know practically nothing about it. But it suggests that at least
we are speculating about an important issue. IOW, with the Life Debt
we are in a situation where the less we are told about the details,
the more we are sure that it's because these details are vital.

> bboyminn:
> Another example that illustrates this fine distinction is that while
> James gave his life protecting Harry, his sacrifice didn't count in
> the same way that Lily's did. Lily's actions was far more direct and
> immediate. 
> 

Neri:
Yes, but AFAIK it has never been suggested in canon that James'
sacrifice does count. It has also never been suggested in canon that
Ginny does owe a debt to Harry. But Snape continues trying to save
Harry's life, while giving any other indication that he hates him, and
Dumbledore said he does it because of his "debt" to James. So coming
up in the end with a distinction like: "well, James *did* save Snape's
life and Snape *did* want to pay this debt and this *is* why he tried
to save Harry several times, *but* it wasn't really a Life Debt
because..." is probably going to look like splitting extremely fine hairs.

> bboyminn:
> Further, we don't know the exact nature and mechanism of the Life
> Debt. Any Life Debt theories or non-theories are based in an
> assumption of how Life Debt works.
> 

Neri:
As I'm trying to say, Life Debt non-theories don't necessarily have to
be based on the assumption of how the Life Debt works, because
regardless of *how* it works there are very good indications, in fact
practically canon status indications, that the Life Debt does exist,
that it's important to the plot, and that it's at least part of the
reason why Snape keeps attempting saving Harry.


Neri