ACID POPS and Teenager Draco

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 157513

> Neri:
> 
> > But it's dangerous to confuse fanon with canon. The fact that
> > in the HP fanon Snape (and Draco) had become much more important than
> > Harry has no effect on JKR.   
> 
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> Neri, please stop using "you're confusing fanon with canon" as an
> argument, unless you can direct me to a point of fact upon which I am
> incorrect. I have done nothing but quote canon;  I don't read that
> much fanon.  I notice you did this repeatedly with the 'Pride and
> Prejudice' example as well.  You  might find it instructive to come to
> terms with the fact that it was you, in fact, who was misremembering
> the plot.  
> 

Neri:
First, I never wrote "you're confusing fanon with canon". I wrote
"it's dangerous to confuse fanon with canon". It was a general
statement, which I think you'll agree with me is valid, and not a
personal accusation. It is generally advisable, before accusing other
people of misremembering, to check first that you don't misquote them
in that very paragraph.

More to the point, in your previous post upthread you wrote:

>> Sydney:
>> 
>> <snip> Snape and Harry though are the central characters of the
>> whole shebang, at least theirs is the central relationship.  

You wrote this as if it was self-evident, without any proof or any
quoted canon to support it. In response I pointed out that
*personally* I don't see this as self-evident at all. I don't see that
Snape and Harry are the central characters, or that theirs is the
central relationship. I did point out that in the fanon Snape *is*
considered a central character, frequently more important than Harry,
and I mentioned that this does not affect JKR. Do you disagree with
these observations?  

I certainly did suggest that the general tendency to see the
Harry-Snape relationship as self-evidently the most important in the
series might have something to do with the state of things in the
fanon (I use the term fanon here in its broad sense, not just fanfic
but also the theories we raise here and anything HP that isn't canon).
I did *not* accuse you personally of being affected by fanon, and for
all I know you may have reached your conclusion regarding the
Harry-Snape relationship only by extensive analysis of canon and with
no fanon influence whatsoever. However, when people "prove" to me that
I'm wrong by the fact that everybody thinks differently, then it does
make me wonder if they are affected by what everybody thinks rather
than by what's actually written in the books. Luckily JKR is not
affected by what everybody thinks. She decided on her general plot and
outcome of the series long before there even was a HP fandom. 

> Sydney:
> 
> If you'll forgive me for saying so, I think you are mistaking your
> preference-- your 'fanon', if you will, for 'canon' about how
> important Snape and Harry's relationship is to the story. You are
> therefore trying to invent stories that drain that relationship of its
> energy and intensity, ignoring the fact that that energy and intesity
> *is actually there in the book*, because you have such an extremely
> powerful desire to remove Snape as much as possible from the story. 
> 

Neri:
This is certainly possible. I said this was the way I *personally* see
things. You see them differently, but this is also a personal opinion,
and just saying "it is actually there in the books" does not consist
of a proof. "Everybody thinks so" also does not consist of a proof.

I'll give you one trivial example, from the books, of what I mean
regarding the importance of central characters. Considerable page time
in HBP is spent on the Ron/Lavender SHIP. This SHIP doesn't have any
significant effect on the rest of the plot. It doesn't have any
significant effect on the development of Harry's character. It doesn't
even make for a very good comic relief. And yet it is there, and JKR
did spend considerable page time on it. Why is that? The answer is
obvious and JKR had even said it explicitly in an interview: she felt
that this SHIP was necessary for the development of Ron's character.
This is what I meant when I said that central characters are served by
the story, and this also shows that Ron is a central character, second
(together with Hermione) only to Harry. The fact that R/L was very
insignificant only shows to what length JKR would go for Ron's
character. She *likes* Ron, in the most emotional sense of the word.
His character is heavily affected by memories of her best childhood
friend. 

I don't see that Snape gets similar treatment from JKR in any of the
books. In that sense he is a secondary character, like Dumbledore or
Sirius. His character serves the story rather than the story serves
the character. If Snape indeed has a SHIP, either LOLLIPOPS or ACID
POPS or any other, it will likely be a plot device and/or because of
thematic reasons of the story.

And I suspect it's going to detract from the energy and intensity of
the story if the "central relationship" is between the hero and a
secondary character. We've seen it in OotP, when what was supposed to
be the driving relationship emotionally was the one between Harry and
Sirius, and at least personally I think it never quite worked. I
accepted as an axiom that Harry feels so strongly for Sirius, but I
never felt it myself, and ultimately this was because Sirius was a
secondary character, with his development mainly enslaved to the needs
of the plot. It would have been very different if Ron or Hermione had
died.

Romantic stories are indeed usually based on a relationship between
two central characters, but I don't think HP is primarily a romantic
story. In Good vs Evil stories the hero is usually left alone against
that evil overlord, at most with the help of a sidekick or two that
don't outshine him. His journey is an internal one, to find his own
choices and powers within himself. JKR said more than once that she
killed every grownup Harry could count on for this reason exactly (in
this sense Lupin's detachment was necessary to save his life, which I
see as a sign that JKR means him to survive). So I don't think that
the Harry-Snape relationship will be *central* (although certainly
important) and therefore I estimate that LOLLIPOPS will not happen, at
least not with any version of DDM!Snape. I do suspect that Snape will
save Harry's life, but not because he's DDM and not because of
LOLLIPOPS.    

 
> Sydney:
> 
> I'm really baffled here.  If Snape's hubris is meant to bring him
> down, why not use some existing weakness of Snape's that we already
> are familiar with and can anticipate? You're spoilt for choice: 
> Snape's hysterical jealousy of Harry, Snape's resentment of what
> Dumbledore demands from him, Snape's temper, Snape's tendency to think
> the worst of people on his own side, Snape's ultimately untenable
> position as a double-agent.  His 'hubris' could have slipped him up on
> any of these points
> 

Neri:
Snape's hysterical jealousy of Harry isn't hubris, at least the way I
understand this concept. Snape's resentment of what Dumbledore demands
from him, Snape's temper, Snape's tendency to think the worst of
people on his own side, all these aren't hubris. Even Snape reveling
in the suffering of other people (sorry, I had to add it to the list)
isn't hubris. Now, Snape's ultimately untenable position as a
double-agent would indeed be proper hubris, but only if he was very
good at it, has become very sure of himself, and then attempted to use
it in order to achieve one more thing, something really unachievable
that he desired for a long time. This one additional thing could be
Narcissa. Spinner's End certainly hints so, both the name of the
chapter and the events in it.

> Sydney:
>I don't think 'hubris' is really thematically
> related to Snape, but if it was, the last thing I'd do is muddy it up
> by dragging in some sort of love angle.  I mean, is he in love with
> Narcissa and selflessly sacrificed himself for her peace of mind?  Or
> is the hubris thing that he has some crazy plan to save Draco, kill
> Dumbledore, stay out of jail, take over the world, and then get the
> trophy wife?  And I don't think you'd get away, for that reason, with
> your one line of dialogue explaining why Snape took the UV, because
> you'd still have to explain why Snape took the UV.

Neri:
I think Snape had meant to prove to Narcissa in Spinner's End that
only he can help her, while her dear Lucius can't. I think he was
working up to exactly this point where she kneels before him convinced
that only he can save her son. At that moment she asked for a bit more
than he was planning on (but perhaps not *much* more if his primary
objective was never guarding Dumbledore's life). Refusing at this
point would have shown that he isn't really her savior after all, so
he did a quick calculation of risks and took it. This theory is based
on detailed sentence-by-sentence and word-by-word analysis of the
canon in Spinner's End, which I won't repeat here (I don't want to
send everybody running in all directions) but you can easily find it
in my previous ACID POPS posts including in this thread.  

  
> Sydney:  
> 
> No, YOU are inventing Snape's love affairs and assigning them an
> importance that has nothing to do with Harry.  ACID POPS and the Life
> Debt and some scattered explanations leave Harry unaffected and so do
> not resolve the tension.  
> 

Neri:
I have explained above and upthread why I think ACID POPS isn't
*supposed* to have much to do with Harry, except that its consequences
were Dumbledore's death and Snape's downfall. I don't accept your
axiom that Snape's love affair must have importance for Harry in
itself. Regarding the Life Debt, this is a different discussion, but I
think that if in Book 7 Snape steps between Voldemort and Harry to
save Harry's life, then it would have a huge importance to both Harry
and Snape. 

As for "inventing love affairs", I'm only theorizing. I had the
impression that this is what this list is for. ACID POPS is a theory,
same as LOLLIPOPS is a theory. And as SHIPping theories go, ACID POPS
has considerably more canons on its deck than LOLLIPOPS. 


> Neri:
> 
> If Snape saves Harry's life in Book 7 because of
> > his debt to James, especially if as a result Snape will find himself
> > fighting against Voldemort, and especially if Snape did kill
> > Dumbledore, then this would give both Harry and Snape quite enough to
> > care about. Snape's love affair would be redundant for making Harry
> > care.
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> And your point is, that Snape's love affair with Narcissa would be
> redudant for making Harry care.  Strange, I thought that was my point.
> 

Neri:
This is not what I meant. The words "with Narcissa" are your addition.
I meant that Snape's love affair, *either with Narcissa or with Lily*,
would be redundant just to make Harry care, because Harry already has
quite enough things to care about in Book 7.

  
> Sydney:
> 
> JKR is not writing random stuff for us to spin juicy theories about. 

Neri:
She certainly isn't. She's writing *deliberately calculated and very
well crafted* stuff for us to spin juicy theories about.

> Sydney:
> She is constructing a story with a strong arc that is all meant to
> make sense.  Her policy about giving things away about Snape is surely
> because they are important, shocking, critical to the plot, and, I
> hate to keep saying this, will have an effect on Harry, the main
> character,  that she doesn't want to happen until the last possible
> moment. 

Neri:
According to my theory ACID POPS already had and will have a critical
effect on Harry, because it led to Dumbledore's death and burning
Snape's cover. Again, I do not buy your axiom that Snape's love affair
must be important and shocking for Harry in itself.

There are many critical events is the series that Harry would never
care about if their consequences didn't affect him personally. Harry
wouldn't have cared about Merope falling in love with Tom Sr if the
consequences weren't Voldemort's birth. Harry wouldn't have cared
about Myrtle dying if she wasn't connected with the Chamber of
Secrets. He wouldn't have cared about Voldemort killing Hepzibah Smith
if it weren't for the creation of the Hufflepuff Cup Horcrux. He
doesn't care now about Regulus Black and wouldn't care about him in
Book 7 unless Regulus turns out to be RAB. In short, Harry doesn't
have to care *directly* about every important event in the books.

I suspect you think that Harry must care about any Snape revelation
because *you* care about it, but this isn't true either. For example,
Harry doesn't care much that Eileen Prince married Tobias Snape. It's
mainly a biographic detail required to solve a certain Snape mystery –
the origin of the nickname "Half-Blood Price" – but it didn't make
Harry fall off his chair or start running in circles. 

> 
> > Neri:
> > Life debt and ACID POPS give you two "What?!?" moments in Book 7
> > instead of just one.
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> And you think that's STRONGER?  And here I was looking for a grand
> unified Snape theory that ties back into Harry on every unanswered
> point.  

Neri:
I am not familiar with any grand unifying Snape theories, and
LOLLIPOPS certainly isn't one. LOLLIPOPS doesn't explain why Snape
took the UV and it doesn't explain several other Snape mysteries. I
doubt it is possible to find any single motivation of Snape that would
explain each and every thing he did in the books. We probably need
more than one motivation, which is why I'm using a combination of two
theories (though they don't necessarily depend on each other).


> Sydney:
> <snip>  And how is "Snape loves Narcissa"
> a WHAT? moment?  

Neri:
You say yourself that LOLLIPOPS is much more popular than ACID POPS.
In fact I'd say any HP reader above the age of 12 probably had thought
about LOLLIPOPS by himself/herself early in the series (I certainly
did, and I had zero connection with the fandom at the time). So for
most readers ACID POPS will be a much bigger "WHAT?" moment than
LOLLIPOPS. Of course, for the few who had the misfortune to read my
ACID POPS posts it won't be such a big "WHAT?" moment.

> Sydney:
> 
> Because Draco is CLOSE to Snape.  Snape was, as I said, his role
> model, a father figure.  The other DE's and Borgin are guys he can use
> and give orders to and doesn't really have to deal with.  Snape is
> someone who is wrapped up with all the *emotional* issues that Draco
> is having.  You will notice that Draco also avoids telling *his
> friends*, Crabbe and Goyle, what's going on.  Because he just might
> start cracking up.
> 

Neri:
Draco has absolutely no logical reason to tell Crabbe and Goyle. With
their intellectual level they certainly can't tell him how to fix the
cabinet. And what's more, Crabbe and Goyle are under pressure from
Snape, including detentions and likely additional tactics that Snape
excels in when he needs to get information out of students. By not
telling Crabbe and Goyle Draco is protecting himself, again, from
Snape. So we are back to the original question: why does Draco have to
protect himself from Snape?
	
And here's another canon clue for you. Why does Draco cut his talk
with Snape (the one Harry overhears after the slug club party) and
storms out? What was the specific point in Snape's words that made
Draco so angry he wouldn't continue the conversation? Want to place a
bet first? Here it goes:


******************************************************
HBP, Ch. 15, p. 324:

"Then why not confide in me, and I can –"

"I know what your up to! You are out to steal my glory!"

There was another pause, then Snape said coldly, "you are speaking
like a child. I quite understand that your father capture and
imprisonment has upset you, but – "

Harry had barely a second's warning; he heard Malfoy's footsteps under
the door and flung himself out of the way just as it burst open;
Malfoy was striding away down the corridor.
*******************************************************

Interesting. Snape mentions *Lucius* for the first time in that
conversation, and Draco storms out within a second. And it wasn't the
"your acting like a child" part, because Snape had made the point
about Draco's clumsiness and foolishness several times before in that
conversation and it didn't send Draco out. Sounds to me like Draco has
an ugly suspicion about Snape conspiring against his father, but for
some reason it's too embarrassing to say out loud. But if these are
Draco's suspicions, why won't JKR make them obvious so we know what
Draco has against Snape? Maybe because it's a clue to something that
is kept for Book 7?

> Sydney:
> 
> "More specific"?  Once again I'm confused by what you want out of a
> story.  Draco's 'coming of age' is a character growing and changing. 
> Inventing a bunch of extrenal factors to replace that emotional growth
> seems to be what you mean by 'more specific'.  "What Draco has against
> Snape personally" is that Snape and Draco are, well, personal.  
> 

Neri:
Draco's coming-of-age is a thematic, meta-thinking reason. I generally
agree with it, but it cannot replace proximal reasons inside the plot.
Even a coming-of-age teenager needs to have specific reasons to
completely turn against a person he liked a lot for five years.
Certainly in a mystery story where the readers are generally supposed
to guess the hidden motivations of suspected characters by their
behavior. 

> Sydney:
> 
> 16-year-old boy... wants to take down father-figure a peg... wants to
> be important and independent...  dang it, what's going on!?  There
> must be some sort of magical device to explain all this bizzareness! 
> Hey, maybe Slughorn made Draco take some sort of 'conflicted
> adolescent' potion or something!  That would explain it!
> 

Neri:
No need for a potion. I've already suggested upthread the universal
Teenage Irrationality Factor. Absolutely *anything* that a teenager
does or says, however illogical, can be explained away with it. It's a
very efficient way to beat any argument based on canon. No need to
even open the book and search for canonical counterarguments <g>.
 
> Sydney:
> 
> Actually, I do think Pippin is wasting her time with ESE Lupin,
> because I think there's a reason so few people hold that theory. 
> Because it's not emotionally satisfying.  If it WAS emotionally
> satisfying, there would be a lot more people on that bandwagon.
> 

Neri:
The problem with the "emotionally satisfying" argument is that
emotions tend to be subjective, and we don't always know what does the
*Author* find emotionally satisfying.  I don't believe in ESE!Lupin
myself, and I don't find it emotionally satisfying, but when I'm
arguing against it I usually try to use canon and rational arguments.
I certainly wouldn't try to convince Pippin that I know better than
her because I'm a Lupin fan. If anything, being  Lupin fan would make
me a *less* objective judge of any Lupin theory, especially theories
that Lupin is evil. 


> Sydney:
> "If nobody thinks so, it can't be true".  Well, I thinks it more, "if
> nobody sees it coming, it can't be foreshadowed as you say it's being
> foreshadowed.  Because nobody seems to see it coming."
> 

Neri:
Hmmm. And you think it is impossible that JKR will actually *want* to
come up, in the last book, with something that nobody has seen coming?

> 
> > Neri, 
> > who notes also that nobody's interested in discussing the juicy SHIP
> > clues in Spinner's End, which is quite strange for HPfGU.
> 
> Sydney:
> 
> "Strange", or "totally understandable because they're not clues". 
> Your call.
> 

Neri:
Or maybe, just maybe, "totally understandable because the clues point
in a direction you don't like"?


Neri