High Noon for OFH!Snape

[Sydney]

No: HPFGUIDX 149557

Sweet baby jane, you say to yourself "Okay, no HPfG this weekend, I
have to work", and before you know it, you have to address literally
dozens of posts!  I have no idea how to make this coherent, so... I
won't.  The following points will be in totally random order:

Nora:

>Sure.  He doesn't think that he could possibly fail in his task, so
>the whole death thing is more of an idle threat.

He doesn't think there's ANY way he can fail to both protect Draco
from all harm for a year and kill Dumbledore?  At the same time?  Wow,
this arrogant!Snape is sure something!

But, arrogant or not-- remember the milk example from my initial post?
 Let's say your babe calls and says, "Hon, be sure to pick up milk on
your way home."  So you're all, of COURSE I'll pick up the milk, I
want the milk even more than you do, so why are you even asking?  And
your babe is, like, "Okay, I believe you, but just to be sure, can you
sign this magic thingie that means you will DIE if you don't bring
milk home tonight?"  Wouldn't not be a bit, "Wait... what?  Did you
say DIE?"  I mean, you're not against bringing in the milk in any way;
 you're pretty confident in your ability to get a carton of milk,
but... DIE?  What if your car breaks down?  What if there's a late
meeting?  What if there's a shock milk crisis?  Would not you be most
likely to say, "Uh, babe, can we just go on trust on this one?  'Cause
it seems a bit much for you to ask me to die if I fail.  Plus, the
boss wouldn't like it.  Plus, I don't want to DIE.  I'll just make a
straightforward promise, I will bring in the milk-- stop crying, in an
hour you'll have the milk anyways and then you'll be happy."

If OFH!Snape just wanted to make the Malfoys happy, surely the logical
thing to do would be to say "Yes, of course I'll do everything I can
to protect Draco.  No, I can't take an Unbreakable Vow to go against
the Dark Lord's wishes, he'd crucio me into next week and then I
wouldn't be any good to you.  I know you're very, very upset, but
you're just going to have to trust me, and believe me, when I have the
task done and Draco safe-and-sound here, you will be so happy you'll
forget all about this."  So, he loses a bit of ground for while, but
(arrogant!Snape here) obviously he'll do everything she wants anyways
so he'll gain it all back before you know it.  I just don't see in
that scene where he HAS to take the Vow or lose somethig vital that he
can't get any other way.

Nora:
>a good portion of the DDM!Snape argument
>is based on thematic arguments of personal preference.  "Oh, it would
>be so mean and unfair if he weren't good in the long run.  JKR would
>be sending bad messages about second chances and Slytherins and
>underdogs.  It would totally ruin Dumbledore's character if he were
>mistaken about Snape and Harry were right, because Harry is the
>student who has to learn from his mentor.  It would totally ruin the
>entire theme of the books."

>I got into a discussion once where the other person stated that if
>Snape were evil, JKR had totally destroyed all the value in her
>books, and she would continue to believe in her reading because it
>would be better than what JKR wrote.  (Yes, I have seen all of these
>arguments.)

You know, it's a good thing no evil!Snapers around here have been
saying they'd throw out all their child-abuse celebrating HP books and
projectile-vomit if Snape turns out to be DDM, 'cause otherwise that
would be really ironic.  Do I mean ironic?  I think I just mean
'funny'.  (note to self:  stop using 'ironic' when you just mean 'funny').


Nora:
>Let me simply interject to note that I'm personally wary of labels
>such as 'geek' (and by implication, 'jock' and other fellow
>travelers) in the Potterverse.  They have such definite overtones for
>most of us of American high school, but I'm not sure that's a good
>model.  It doesn't ring true for me in the social structure of
>Hogwarts, and it can tend to bring out some strange models of
>identification with characters.

Well, insofar as Hogwarts is based on your basic English school
society... I lived in England for years and am engaged to an
Englishman who went to your basic English school.  'Geek' in the UK
means exactly what it means here, and yeah, sporty, popular British
boys beat up anti-social, loser British boys with the same montonous
regularity that they do in the US.  As far as I have any knowledge. 
Any UK-ers want to dispute this?  


Nora:
>No, he just doesn't have to be what any of us *want* him to be.  So
>many of the arguments do have a layer of "This doesn't make sense to
>me, therefore it can't be what JKR is writing."  If you want an
>illustration of the dangers of that, look at everyone who got
>poleaxed by Ron and Hermione hooking up, because they totally thought
>there was nothing there or it would be an abusive relationship, ad
>nauseam.  

Wow, that is SO weird!  I was JUST thinking to myself, 'why can't
those bad!Snapers see they are as delusional as the old H/Hr crowd? 
And then I decided not to put it in my post because it wasn't really
an argument.

But speaking of H/Hr... I actually have something to say on a
non-Snape subject!  *gasps all around*

This is just apropos of how I think about story, and what I mean when
I say 'structurally so-and-so wouldn't happen'.  Because I don't mean,
"I dislike it on a specific emotional level".  I dislike all kinds of
stuff on an emotional level in HP:  I can't bear the twins and dearly
wish the they would turn out to be paying protection money to the
DE's. I was horrified by the SNEAK jinx (note to Hermionie:  branding
people on the FACE is something evil people do. It's the epitomie of
dehumanization.  You might want to look that up in a book or
something).  But I don't get any sense that the narrative is setting
me up for anything there.  I mean, it might happen, but I don't feel
any necessary energy towards it.  Does that make sense?

Ron and Hermionie, Harry and Ginny, is something else.  When I found
all the HP fandom online after GoF, I was amazed to discover there was
such a thing as people who thought Harry/Hermionie was a possiblity. 
It just felt totally wrong.  And I was even more amazed when I found
that the main tide of arguement was that, in terms of close-text
detail and real-world compatibilty R/H was justified;  but in
structural terms H/Hr was justified.  Because "The Hero Gets the Girl".

And I thought, but Hermionie's not a GIRL.  She's a SERVANT.  

Okay, that sounds really, really awful.  Bear with me.  The thing is,
in comedic romances like HP, there's usually two levels of characters.
 There's the upper, heroic level, the characters who are noble or
destiny-laden or just in some indefinable way above the normal run of
humanity, whose fate is in some strange way tied into the fate of the
whole community.  And then there's the lower, comedic or satyric
level, historically occupied by working-class characters, who are more
objectivized, more comic, and in some indefinable way, 'lower', and
who are devoted to the upper characters.  In a big epic romance you
might have a knight on a quest, and his angst and pain and adventures
are Important and Deep; and then he'll have a Squire, who has comical
hijinks and ridiculous courtships with village-wenches and so on. 
Most of our theatrical tradition in the west, from Greece onwards, is
built on comic romances where you have a sentimental, ennobled couple,
and a comic, bickering couple.  It doesn't mean that the noble couple
are more interesting or better-- if you've ever seen "Much Ado About
Nothing", who the heck remembers what-is-name and whosits, when
Beatrice and Benedict walk away with the show?

But the two levels don't mix in the 'happy ending'.  Never.  It just
feels totally wrong.  Papageno wouldn't wind up with Pamina in "The
Magic Flute".  Bingely can't end up with Elizabeth in "Pride and
Prejudice" (structurally, Bingley and Jane are the Noble couple,
innocent, pure, and having the devotion of the 'comic' pair, Elizabeth
and Darcy).  Whatever that other couple is in "When Harry Met Sally"
can't end up with either Harry or Sally.  And Hermionie can't end up
with Harry.  She has to end up with Ron, her comic, servant
counterpart.  It doesn't, at root, have anything to do with
psychological compatibility, it has to do with story compatibility. 
Obviously reversing the 'comic' and 'noble' characters has been a game
in literature since "Don Quixote", but it resists inversion pretty
stubornly, so Quixote's angst remains more tear-jerking than Sancho's.
 And Harry's Angst is the Angst with a capital A, while Hermionie can
be pretty much completly estranged from her parents for most of her
childhood and it's just, meh, what are you gonna do?  

On a like/dislike level, I personally happen to like the R/H romance
very much.  I totally identify with Hermionie, even with the ruthless
tendency to evil... wait, maybe because of the ruthless tendency to
evil.  I think Ron is good for her, they make nice foils to each
other,etc.  The H/G romance, not so much.  

Obviously, I like the thematic stuff that's implied by DDM!Snape.  
But I don't think that's why I'm saying I think it's going to happen.
 Reason #1:  Harry's hatred of Snape, which is amped up a notch every
single book.  That's one of the strongest energy lines in the series.
 Now it's stretched to the breaking point.  People are arguing that
Harry will just feel a sort of pitying contempt for Snape in Book VII.
 But that's not the counter-force to Harry's feelings, it's just a
relaxation of the tension in the same direction.  A reversal, and a
recognition are required.  It's just story-physics.  Or
story-architecture.  

Now, this reminds me of LifeDebt!Snape.  Because one of the reasons I
tend to dismiss it is that it has no effect on Harry.  Actually, the
only slight effect would be another couple of pounds of pressure on
the "I hate Snape" side, because it allows him to write off anything
good Snape has done so far.  Which, strangely, seems to be it's
principal attraction to Certain Parties!


> 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.

Okay, this needs to be cleared up before we can go any further.  As
I'm using the term 'magical compulsion', the UV ISN'T one.  It doesn't
affect Snape's psychology, it just means on a bare practical level
he'll die if he doesn't do this certain thing.  So it's like, for
instance, the SNEAK hex-- it didn't affect Marietta's thinking, it
just had this physical effect when it kicks in.  I'm contrasting that
to the 'psychological' magics-- the House-Elf enslavement, Love
Potions, Imperius.  Those spells directly seem to control the BRAIN of
the victim in pretty crude ways.  Inicidentally, this goes with my
objections to the DADA curse nudging the victim to display their worst
traits by some subtle, internal means, too.  So, which one are you
proposing the Life Debt falls into?  Is this a House-Elfy compulsion
to serve the Life-Debtee, or is it like the UV, where if the victim
fails in the terms of the injuncition, something physical happens to
them?  If it's the first, then I don't see it at all.  If you're
proposing the second-- that the Life Debt actually does something to
the Debtor if they fail it-- that's a different kettle of fish.

> 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?

That's not a double-meaning.  That's a.. well, a meaning.  When JKR
does a tricky-dicky, when you read back over it, it all lines up. 
Dumbledore assuring various Order members that they can trust Snape
with their lives, when he actually meant, oh, no, just HARRY'S life,
he'd totally sell YOU down the river, but I'm going to be coy about
it, hee hee-- that doesn't really line up for me.  

And, (I don't have my books with me, but off the top of my head),
Dumbledore testifies in court-- the sort of thing I presume he swore
an oath to -- that Snape came over to OUR side before V-morts fall,
that "he's now no more a Death Eater than I am".  And Harry asks him
in HBP, "How can you be sure Snape's on OUR side?", and D-dore says,
"I'm sure.  I trust Severus Snape completely".  He's saying, he's on
OUR side.  Meaning, yours and mine.  Our.  Side.  This is another
argument that he's not actually saying he trusts Snape completely when
he says he trusts.. Snape ... completely... I dunno.  I think you're
clipping bits off the jigsaw-piece here.

>You've got the wrong end of the stick
> there, lady. <g>
>

Neri:
>Erm... first of all, that would be a gent <g>. 

Gha!  Sorry!  I must have been deceived by your elegance and keen mind
 <g>.

>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.

I did.  I still find Dumbledore's "Severus... please..." simply to not
fit in with this theory.  You say, he's asking Snape not to forget the
Life Debt.  But why would D-dore need to PLEAD for Snape not to forget
some sort of deadly magical compulsion that's been driving him for
over a decade?    Wouldn't he be using the 'stern and terrible' voice
he used to Petunia?  Why would D-dore be so upset when he was telling
Harry that he couldn't imagine the remorse Snape felt when he found
out the targets?  Seeing as by the LD theory Dumbledore's being kind
of cute here, wouldn't he be calm or even downright twinkly?  I don't
think D-dore would refer to what Snape was feeling as 'remorse' if it
was just, 'crap, I've just accidentally screwed myself'.  

Why would D-dore send Harry to get Snape and no one but Snape when he
was incapacitated by a poison?  And where does the bit where Snape is
described as being in as much pain as a dog on fire fit in with Snape
having no problem AK-ing D-dore?  Or the bit where Snape's face is
suffused with hatred and revulsion, gee, JUST like Harry's was when he
was force-feeding D-dore the poison?  Of course he's cold and angry
and jeering.  That's Snape's defense mechanism.  Hating Harry and
James is totally Snape's defense mechanism.  And the next thing he has
to do is apparate on over to V-mort and talk him out of offing Draco.
 He has to have the Occlumency shields at full power for the
foreseeable future.  It cracks for a second-- dog on fire-- and he
refocuses by concentrating on the James/Harry hatred.

For the record, if anyone is keeping a record, I'm pretty sure
Dumbledore is dead.  I'm agnostic on whether Snape used an AK to kill
him or an ordinary spell mixed with a false AK-- I.. just.. get..
bored.. with the magical mechanics.  And I really think the scene is
constructed to the edge of absurdity so that Snape has no choice:  the
UV, the bizzaro-potion, the Barrier that Keeps Everyone But Snape off
the scene, the most crazed DE's JKR could round up, the
frozen-invisible Harry-- honestly? I thought it was a bit too much. 
In those circumstances.. the thing I'd compare it to is, has everyone
seen "Master and Commander"?  OMG you HAVEN'T?  Because it's the best
movie ever.  Go see it now.  Once you've seen it--- SPOILERS FOR
MASTER AND COMMANDER!!!!!!--- , you will remember a scene where the
ship is in a terrible storm, and one of the masts breaks, and falls
into the ocean with a sailor hanging on. And everyone is yelling,
"You're going to make it!" to the sailor.  But the captain realizes
that the mast, still held to the ship by its ropes, is dragging the
ship down.  To save everybody, he has to take an axe and cut the mast
away from the ship, dooming the sailor.  To make it even closer to the
HBP situation, it was the captain's hubris that led to them being in
this situation in the first place.  Yeah, he felt like crap about it.
 But at that specific moment, there just wasn't a choice.  It was,
everybody dies (Snape from the Vow, Draco from Voldemort, Dumbledore
from one of the DE's, Harry ditto), or just Dumbledore dies.  

<gasp, pant>  Okay, that's it for now.  Obviously I've left a lot of
people's stuff unaddressed, but I really have to make a pretense of
getting some work done!

-- Sydney