ESE, DDM, OFH, or Grey? (WAS: DDM!Snape the definition)

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 162567

> Magpie:
> I see--you're saying that OFH doesn't for you mean stay alive 
whatever the 
> cost, but that Snape is out for goals known only to himself as of 
yet? But 
> in the battle b/w the Light vs. Dark he doesn't favor one side or 
the other. 

Alla:

Yes, exactly :).


Magpie:
> One question for that, then, is why is he, more than any other 
character, 
> risking his life for it?  I mean, Snape's the character who's the 
most in 
> the thick of this battle, and a lot of his characterization seems 
to turn on 
> that and his ties to both sides.
><SNIP>

Alla:

I really, really disagree that Snape is shown as the character who is 
risking his life for the Order more than anybody else. We have 
Potters, who thrice defied Voldemort, we have Longbottoms, who were 
also heroic aurors, we have real Alastor Moody. We have Lupin, unless 
you dig ESE!Lupin of course, I can give you at least several more 
names, who fircely fight a good fight and I disagree that all of them 
are risking their lifes any less than Severus Snape. I mean he sure 
is shown to risk his life as a spy, but I would say that it is not 
exactly clear that he is doing it for the order.

Magpie: 
> Or do you mean he's very into the battle, because he's planning to 
switch 
> sides depending on which one wins?  Because with that goal I see 
the Vow as 
> more in conflict with his goal since it might out him to one side 
or the 
> other.

Alla:

I think he is planning to stick with whatever side advances his goals 
more and if none - ditch them both, therefore I don't see UV as being 
in conflict with that.

Magpie:
> Of course with DDM!Snape there's the even more direct conflict of: 
Isn't 
> agreeing to kill Dumbledore in direct conflict with being DDM?  But 
that's 
> why the heart of the DDM theory is that killing Dumbledore is the 
ultimate 
> test for DDM!Snape, who would have preferred to die.  And many of 
us see 
> that not so much from wanting to explain away things like the 
murder (as 
> seemed to be suggested up thread), but from things in canon that 
seem like 
> red flags telling us this Things Are Not As They Seem and We Don't 
Know Yet. 
> (Protect Draco, of course, isn't at odds with being DDM, and 
Dumbledore 
> seems to know about the Vow.) With DDM is there actually isn't 
anything to 
> explain away.  The murder is the biggest sticking point, but that 
seems 
> written to be just that kind of question.

Alla:

Well, see you brought the explaining away the murder part, not me, so 
I may as well say it. When I first read HBP and Snape killing 
Dumbledore, I thought to myself - no, there is absolutely no way that 
in the book where author basically beats us over the head with the 
baseball bat that murder rips your soul apart, there is absolutely no 
way that Snape killing Dumbledore can be explained as a **good** 
deed, **noble** deed, the deed of the character who is loyal to 
Dumbledore. I should have known better. :)

Oh, and of course I know all the arguments as to why it can be indeed 
DD!M Snape, know them by heart and can argue them myself, just as I 
am sure everybody who had been here can argue my position. That is 
not my point.

My point is that yes, while respecting everybody's right to argue 
anything they want, I remain pretty convinced that this is indeed 
explaining away the murder, red herrings or not. And yes, shifting 
the focus on Dumbledore asking Snape to do it in my view is blaming 
the victim, instead of the murderer.

As I said, I have no problem cheerfully admitting me being wrong 
after book 7 and apologising to Severus Snape for misjudging him ;), 
(as an aside that would mean for me an absolute condemnation of Albus 
Dumbledore, who would ask his teacher to rip his soul apart), but 
right now this is where I stand. I will swallow that and I will not 
even throw the books out, I respect the written word too much :)
But the only thought which I will spare for Dumbledore if that will 
turn out to be true is that he should have died sooner.

I mean, going back to bathroom scene for a second, Harry is expected 
to feel bad for almost killing Draco while defending himself, but 
Snape's **murder** is a totally different animal and here it does not 
matter that murder is a big deal? Just saying it in general.

There is of course as I said several times in the past **one** 
variety of sort of DD!M Snape which I will be happy with, but I am 
sure that for many DD!M Snape theorists this Snape is not Dumbledore 
man enough. :)

This is of course Severely Siguine Snape. Had been a while since I 
reread her amasing essay ( highly recommended, highly), but the gist 
that I can remember is that her Snape kills Dumbledore because he 
feels he has no choice on the Tower, while is not wavering in his 
loyalty to white hats. I am not sure if in her version Dumbledore is 
indeed dying from poison, but it can be very fitting. The difference 
that I can see between mainstream DD!M Snape and hers is that Snape 
and only Snape made a decision to kill Dumbledore, even if with the 
best possible reasons in mind . Snape and only Snape made a mistake 
of taking UV and that eventually lead him to the Tower. He made a 
choice, he pays consequences. If that Snape is shown to be remorseful 
in book 7, I can even be happy with it.

> Magpie:
> I see what you mean--you aren't, as I think others were, denying 
that Snape 
> is decisive and not wavering.  Your version of OFH is more out for 
his own 
> agenda Snape (perhaps OA!Snape for short). He can be equally 
committed as 
> DDM!Snape, we just don't know what he's committed to yet?

Alla:

Totally, yes.) 

JMO of course.

Alla