High Noon for OFH!Snape

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 149445


> Sydney:
> Geez, that grey little guy that looks like a lawyer? Seeing as the
> LID!Snape theory is so vague, it's hard to counter it with canon,

Neri:
It is indeed hard to counter LID with canon, but that's because it is
so canon-based, not because it is vague. 

> Sydney:
> except to point out that this assumed Life-Debt doesn't seem to act
> anything like Pettigrew's canonical Life-Debt.  Far from having his
> actions restricted, nobody has done more to endanger Harry than Peter
> has.  Why is Snape forced to act by the LD, where Peter can tie Harry
> to rocks and cut him with knives and resurrect folks whose maing goal
> in life is to kill Harry?

Neri:
You forget that Pettigrew's Life-Debt was canonically different of
that of Snape. Pettigrew didn't have a part in killing the person he
owed his Debt to. 

Or rather, Pettigrew didn't until the graveyard scene. When, as you
say, he cut Harry with a knife. And when Dumbledore heard about that,
he had "a gleam of something like triumph" in his eyes. Hmm, could
that be because Dumbledore realized that Pettigrew's Debt had just
been upgraded to the same status as Snape's Debt? 

And note that the young Severus who joined the DEs behaved very much
like Pettigrew after PoA. His Debt didn't prevent him from working for
Voldemort. It seems Snape had only started to be worried about his
Debt when he inadvertently became a part of a scheme to kill James. 

Not that this is necessary for LID. We know very little about the Life
Debt magic (because JKR didn't tell us) but we have Dumbledore's word
that Snape tried to save Harry'a life in SS/PS because of the debt he
owed James. 

> Sydney:
> Who knows!  LID!Snape doesn't seem to
> propose anything specific enough to contradict.

Neri:
Now it's your position that is vague. Do you agree that Dumbledore's
words in SS/PS imply that Snape owed James a Life Debt? If you do,
what part do you think this Debt had played in Snape changing sides?
If not, how do you explain that James saved Snape's life and yet Snape
didn't owe him a Life Debt?
 
> Sydney:
> If it's a
> debt of honour, how is that different from, well, decent!Snape, which
> is what DDM!Snape comes down to?
> 

Neri:
The difference is that decent!Snape wouldn't kill Dumbledore, and
wouldn't make a Vow to kill Dumbledore if Draco couldn't kill him,
while LID!Snape wouldn't have a problem with that. It's *Harry* he has
to pay his Debt to, not Dumbledore.

As I wrote here many times, we don't know how the Life Debt magic
exactly works, and many things are still unknown. After all, JKR must
leave *something* in her sleeve for Book 7. But LID already has more
canon for it than any other Snape theory.

> Sydney:
> Is there any other character in all of canon-- and that is a lot of
> characters-- who is driven not by a normal human motivation, but by
> magical compulsion?  Well, sure there are-- Crouch Sr., under the
> Imperius;  Ron with the Love Potion, Dobby under the House-Elf
> enslavement.  And they all-- ALL-- behave extremely strangely when the
> compulsion kicks in, showing overt changes in their personality. 

Neri:
Erm... aren't you forgetting Snape himself, under the Unbreakable Vow?
He wasn't acting very strangely there. Well, except for AK'ing the
headmaster off the astronomy tower. Answer me about the magical/moral
status of the UV, and I'll answer you about the LD. And what about
"binding magical contracts", like in Harry's obligation to participate
in the TWT? And what about people under the Fidelius, who are
compelled not to divulge certain details? And what about Petunia
sealing a magical "pact" by taking Harry? Was she compelled to keep
him in her house, or was that a moral decision? And what about Harry
himself and the prophecy? It doesn't really mean he *has* to try kill
Voldemort, but he *will* anyway, so the prophecy does work after all.

No, we don't know yet what is the exact moral/magical mechanism of the
Life Debt, but JKR certainly has a wide repertoire to choose from.
Moral/magical compulsions and contracts seem to be the rule rather
than the exception in the WW, and regardless of their exact mechanism
they almost always work.

> Sydney:
> Dumbledore has not been only assuring Harry that he trusts Snape; 
> he's been, according to both McGonnegal and Lupin, giving Order
> members repeated assurances of this, in the face, it seems, of
> argument.  Was the conversation only about Harry every single time
> this came up?  Would Dumbledore be assuring McGonnegal or Moody for 14
> years that he trusted Snape when he meant, only in Harry-related
> manners?  I just can't see this.
> 

Neri:
You mean, you can't see JKR trapping us with double meanings and
taking advantage of our incorrect assumptions? Really? And you can't
see Dumbledore, umm, somehow neglecting to add a few critical words
that would make his statement unequivocal?

Where in canon does Dumbledore say something like "I trust Snape to be
completely loyal to me"? Why doesn't he ever say *what* is it that he
trusts Snape to be or to do?

> Sydney:
> Let's call him atonement!Snape.  And the way you describe it, I'm
> like, OMG that's an AWESOME situation!  It's classic Snape.  Because
> he's going about everything in exactly the wrong way.  He's trying to
> follow a Dark Magic path to make up for his Dark Magic mistakes.  He's
> trying to calculate and force and repress and do damage, even if he
> thinks he's doing it for the right reasons.  That Vow sure looked like
> Dark Magic to me, and even if it seemed logically like an excellent,
> efficient plan, it was bound to go wrong.  *shakes head*  Why are you
> trying to talk me out of this theory by making it seem even MORE
> ironic and awful and tragic?  You've got the wrong end of the stick
> there, lady. <g>
> 

Neri:
Erm... first of all, that would be a gent <g>. Secondly, are we to buy
DDM!Snape who wants to "atone" for his past crimes, thus involving
himself in a Dark scheme leading directly to him killing his patron,
the Epitome of Goodness? This result kind of defeats the atonement
part. And yet during the flight Snape is "sneering" and "jeering" at
Harry. He's not behaving as if he's atoning for his majestically
failed attempt to atone for the previous failures. Well, I guess you
can explain this with the usual DDM!Snape argument "he's acting" but
it would hardly be straightforward reading.

If you still find LID!Snape vague, try reading "The Flight of the
Prince" again, assuming that Snape had no problem AK'ing Dumbledore
but he's magically compelled to protect Harry because of his Debt to
James. All his words, emotions and actions suddenly become completely
straightforward.


Neri