High Noon for OFH!Snape

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 149433

>Sydney wrote:

> *eye squint*  *tumbleweed*
> 
> It's you or me, OFH!Snape.
> 
> *twitches fingers over revolver*
> 

Neri:
You waste your ammo on that guy. LID!Snape is a much more able contender.

>Sydney:
>  Two, that the oddity of Dumbledore's immediate pleading with Snape on
> the tower, far from being a small detail, means that Snape AKing
> Dumbledore on his specific request is the straightforward reading of
> that scene; and that it is, in fact, the Evil!Snapers who have to come
> up with convoluted, extra-canonical theories to explain it.  
> 

Neri:
LID!Snape explains what happened on the tower in a very
straightforward way. Dumbledore was pleading with Snape that Snape
would continue with his attempts to pay the Life Debt. This is an
especially attractive idea if Snape had realized Harry was also there
on the tower. Like Draco he probably had seen the two broomsticks too,
but unlike Draco he'd realize immediately what they imply. And
Dumbledore's lack of shock suggests, as I wrote here recently, that he
had never trusted Snape to be loyal to him, only to keep trying to
repay the Debt. LID also explains Snape's hatred, and Snape bringing
up James during the flight. You can't beat LID for straightforward
reading. 

> Sydney:
> LifeDebt!Snape:  How does this work again?  It's hard to argue with a
> theory when I don't actually understand what it claims!  Reading over
> the original LID post, I think Snape-loves-Narcissa is brought up as
> an unrelated explanation.  So, Snape is ready to die to save the
> child, not his own, of the woman he loves.  First, this is pretty far
> from being out for yourself;  second, I think that whole scenario
> integrates into the plot a teensy bit better if the woman is Lily and
> the child Harry.  
> 

Neri:
As the original LID post fully admitted, LID in itself doesn't explain
the UV. But (as this post also mentioned) DDM, OFH and ESE also don't
explain the UV, so it's a tie there. It seems we need an additional
motivation to explain the UV. However, most theories of the UV
motivation (the DADA jinx, ACID POPS, Suicidal!Snape, etc.) would
actually work with LID as well as with DDM. 

In fact, in the meta-thinking level I think these motivations don't
work very well with DDM at all, once you connect the UV with what
happened on the tower. Am I supposed to accept a DDM!Snape who made
the UV because he was noble or stupid or suicidal or arrogant, and
then Dumbledore had to die because of it? That would make Snape a very
lousy DDM, more pathetic than tragic, really ("Oops, I was sure I
could bring it off, but the plan went to the dogs and I had to kill my
supreme commander instead". Or perhaps "Oops, I wanted to save Draco's
life but I blew it and so I had to kill my supreme commander
instead"). In contrast, precisely the same motivations can make for a
very good and thematic story if Snape *isn't* DDM. He'd be tragic
maybe, but he wouldn't be pathetic.  

As an aside, it might actually be possible for LID to explain the UV
without any help. This depends on the exact nature of the Life Debt
magic, which JKR took care to hide from us, but it's possible that a
clause of this magic says you can only have one active bond of that
magnitude at a time. So perhaps Snape thought that he could outwit the
Life Debt magic by taking an even graver obligation, the Unbreakable
Vow. This is a wild speculation, of course, but it makes sense with
the canon - as long as the UV was still in effect, Snape wasn't saving
Harry or helping him in any way, but the moment Snape AKs Dumbledore
and the UV isn't relevant anymore, immediately Snape guards Harry
again.    

> Sydney:
> Much as I adore Suicidal!Snape, that doesn't account for the jerk of
> the hand at the third clause of the Vow.  I think that was definitely
> a "gah" moment.  Plus, it's a bit defeatist for Snape's personality. 
> So looking at this from another angle-- what does anybody have to gain
> from the Vow?  Why does Narcissa propose it?  Surely it would be more
> likely to alienate someone you were going to for help, to demand that
> they promise to help you or die?
> 
> I think Narcissa proposed, and Snape took, the Vow, because it was the
> only way to protect Draco from Voldemort.  Voldemort intended Draco to
> be killed, and if he doesn't die in the attempt, he will be killed
> afterwards-- "He told me to do it or he'd kill me".   

Neri:
For some reason you don't give your theory a name. Would Noble!Snape
be fair? He took the UV in order to save Draco's life, without any
additional reason. My problem with this is, as I wrote above, that
Noble!Snape, when taken in combination with DDM!Snape, is no less a
pathetic jerk than Suicidal!Snape. He wanted to save the life of his
student, so ended up killing his headmaster instead. Oops.


Neri