LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 149656

It looks like some DDM!Snapers begin to realize that Snape's debt to
James must have some role in the plot. But it seems to me that
plotwise the logic of LID!Snape isn't fully appreciated yet. So before
I answer some of the posts, lets take a quick look at how JKR has been
developing the plot of Snape's debt throughout the series:

First, in Book 1, JKR has Dumbledore tell us that James saved Snape's
life, that Snape hates it and that he tried to save Harry's life in
order to repay the "debt".

In Book 3 JKR tells us, in a pretty dramatic way I might add, about
The Prank.  She also shows us Snape trying to save Harry's life from
Sirius and Lupin, and refusing to accept, again in a very dramatic
way, that they actually weren't after Harry's life. As Dumbledore
says, "he suffered a great disappointment".

Also in Book 3, JKR has Dumbledore telling us about the Life Debt
magic, and that it's magic "in its deepest, most impenetrable". She
has us expecting this very mysterious magic to make an impressive
appearance sometime in the series, but by Book 6 it still hasn't
(well, not in name anyway).

In Book 5 JKR takes Harry and us through the pensieve to show us
directly, again in a very dramatic scene, why Snape had hated James so
much even before the Prank.

In Book 6 she tells us, again in a very dramatic scene, that Snape was
the one who told Voldemort about the Prophecy. IOW he had made
himself, unknowingly but as a result of his own Choice, a part of a
plot to kill the person he was indebted to. JKR also has Dumbledore
tell us that this is why Snape changed sides.

And throughout the series JKR continues to raise the stakes by making
Snape repeatedly torment Harry, ending with the AK on the tower that
puts Snape officially back in the DEs camp.

Now, if all the above isn't buildup toward the resolution of Snape's
Debt in Book 7, then I don't know what buildup is. I'd bet money on
one thing: in Book 7 Snape is going to finally repay his Debt, and
that scene is going to be more dramatic than any of the above scenes.
Which is saying something.

Now, it so happens that Snape owing a Life Debt to James would explain
the mystery of Snape's motivations and loyalties throughout the series
in the simplest and most complete manner. In fact, the only things
left for JKR to do in Book 7 are to explain the exact nature of the
Life Debt magic (which she probably has to do anyway because of the
Wormtail plot) and explain why Snape took the UV (which would be easy
if Snape wasn't actually committed to guarding DD's life. ACID POPS
would do the job, or a certain clause to the Life Debt magic itself,
or any of several other theories). All the rest JKR has already laid
down, some of it implicitly but easy to figure out once you know the
solution.

So as I see it, the question of Snape's motivations on the one side
and the buildup of the Debt plot on the other side are a mystery and a
solution, both moving like two trains on well-laid rails throughout
the series toward their meticulously scheduled collusion in Book 7. I
fully expect this explosion to lit the sky.

Now, to some of the questions:

> Julie:
> Er, um...huh? Why doesn't Dumbledore just mean what he says, that 
> Snape was loyal follower of Voldemort (i.e., a Death Eater), but he 
> is no longer?
>

Neri:
My point was that when Dumbledore tells us things about Snape he
always neglects to mention a few interesting details that later turns
out to be quite important. Which makes me wonder what does he neglect
to mention when he says things like "I trust Snape completely" or
"he's now no more a DE than I am". 

After all, even most ESE!Snapers agree that Dumbledore still hides
from us the true reason he trusts Snape. So is Dumbledore allowed to
hide from us things that help Snape's case, but is not allowed to hide
things that hurt it?  


>Sydney:
> Sophist!Dumbledore is a bit of a joker, isn't he?  

Neri:
Yes! Couldn't put it better myself <g>.


>Sydney:
> I don't get why
> he'd be jerking Harry around like this.  Or anybody else for that
> matter.   Surely Harry is also concerned for people like Ginny or Ron
> or anybody else when he refers to 'our side'?  What if Snape suddenly
> had reason to kill Ginny, as a DE well might?  Why would Dumbledore
> being doing everything he can to encourage Harry to trust not just his
> own life, but other people's, to this guy when he's only relying on
> him because of a narrow bond to one person?

> Julie:
> And here some talk about how DDM!Snapers must deviate from the 
> straightforward to support their theories! Harry here certainly 
> means "our side" to represent the Order's side/the Good side of the 
> war against Voldemort in general. Dumbledore certainly knows what 
> Harry means. Dumbledore answers Harry's question in a straightforward 
> manner. Snape is on *our* side, i.e., Snape is on the side of teh 
> Order, the side against Voldemort.

Neri:
There is in fact a very simple reason why Dumbledore would regard the
Life Debt as placing Snape's in "our side". I discussed it in detail
in two of my recent posts, regarding the LID explanation of the
Occlumency lessons and the MoM battle. The short story is: Snape had
to save Harry's life and repay the Debt before he could go back to
Voldemort's side, but he somehow had to do it without Voldemort
realizing that he did. Until he could do that the Life Debt was very
effectively trapping Snape in "our side". 

In fact, I think Dumbledore was almost correct in this estimation.
Snape indeed did not intend to go back to Voldemort's side before he
managed to repay the Debt. It was Draco who foiled the plans of both
Dumbledore and Snape, and practically forced Snape, on the pain of
death, to end the double-agent game and go to Voldemort's side before
he paid the Debt. And assuming also Dumbledore didn't know about the
third clause of the UV he indeed had a very good reason to think Snape
is on "our side", at least until he manages to pay the Debt.

Not to mention that, since the only way "our side" can win the war is
by Harry vanquishing Voldemort, a Snape who is compelled to save
Harry's life is indeed on "our side", whether he wants to be or not.
And I predict that in *this* estimation Dumbledore will turn out fully
correct.


> Julie:
> So, even though Dumbledore doesn't really completely trust Snape, and 
> only *hopes* Snape will do the right thing, he's still more worried 
> about Snape than about his protege and savior of the WW, Harry--who 
> could well *die* if Dumbledore's trust in Snape is misplaced? For a 
> man who doesn't completely trust someone, Dumbledore is putting a lot 
> of trust in Snape...
> 
> I think I'm just getting confused! If your theory is the 
> straightforward one, why is it giving me a headache?

> Sydney:
> I'm with Juli-- and people say DDM!theories are convoluted! 
> <snip>  Can I borrow some of Juli's Tylenol?


Neri:
I wouldn't want to give anybody headaches. Lets see if I can make it
clearer: 

Dumbledore trusts Snape *completely* to save Harry's life because
Snape is InDebted, which is a straightforward interpretation of
Dumbledore's words in SS/PS and PoA.

Dumbledore pleads with Snape to save Harry *of his own free will*,
because it's the right thing to do. This is straightforward
interpretation of Dumbledore's character the way it is presented
throughout the series, and also fits with one of JKR's major themes.

It really doesn't look that complicated to me.


> > Neri:
> > It's a defense mechanism that has never made much sense to me if Snape
> > is DDM. A person has such a strong remorse about his part in making
> > some boy an orphan, and he doesn't miss an opportunity to show his
> > hatred to this orphan and to his dead father? 

> Sydney:
> LOL, everytime someone is genuinely mystified by this, I wonder if
> either they lead blameless lives, or maybe I just need therapy! 
> Snape's treatment of Harry just screams 'guilt' to me.  I utterly and
> completely recongnize it.  Personally, I'm never as furious and
> illogical and unfair as I am when I'm trying to conceal that I'm
> guilty about something.  I'm not saying Snape isn't one sick puppy,
> but I really do recognize his sickness as one of guilt.  But if you've
> never felt like that, well-- I'm jealous!  <g>

Neri:
I'm far from saying I have never felt guilt, and even lashed out
because of it. But remorse isn't guilt. On the contrary – remorse is
the conscious recognition of guilt and the resolve to correct it. The
DDM!Snapers would have us believe that Snape's remorse about making
Harry an orphan is so deep, that 15 years after the fact he is risking
his life in Dumbledore's service because of it. Seems to me that such
a powerful remorse should induce a man to at least hide his hatred
from that very same orphan. Certainly not making a sport of tormenting
him. That might be guilt, but remorse it most certainly ain't.


> Julie:
> Actually Snape first STOPPED Harry from even trying an AK, then 
> scorned his *assumed* inability to use an Unforgivable. Snape 
> scorning Harry is simply Snape. 

Neri:
What you dub "simply Snape" is for me a series size contradiction
between deeply- remorseful!Snape and
what-fun-tormenting-the-orphan-I'm-supposed-to-be-remorseful-about!Snape.
And in this specific passage, this contradiction achieves pinnacles of
absurdity such as never attained previously in the series.


> Julie:
> It is Snape stopping Harry from even 
> making the attempt that is more interesting. After all, if Snape 
> really believes Harry is incapable of doing it, why not let him try, 
> then laugh at his failure? Because Harry might actually achieve an AK 
> and harm his soul, something that Dumbledore has no doubt emphasized 
> must *not* happen?

Neri:
You are sidestepping my original question. Snape shouts at Harry "no
Unforgivable Curses for you, Potter! You haven't got the nerve or the
ability." He has no problem saying that only several moments after he
killed Dumbledore with an Unforgivable, and no sign of remorse. His
manner is described as "sneering and jeering". Why then should we
think that, when another minute later he screams in pain with his face
suddenly "demented, inhuman", it's because he's remorseful? What
happened during the moment in between that brought such a dramatic change?

But it's written right there, what brought the dramatic change. Harry
said to him "kill me like you killed him". A pretty impressive effect
for such simple words, don't you think? Or should I say, a magical effect?


> Julie:
> Snape *just* killed Dumbledore, a man he respected to some degree, 
> perhaps even loved. It doesn't really matter what Harry means, but 
> what is foremost in Snape's mind, and I have no doubt Dumbledore is 
> foremost in Snape's mind, and also a fresh and much, *much* more 
> painful memory than James at the moment. (And I suspect Harry did 
> mean Dumbledore, for the same reasons.)
>

Neri:
In case I failed to make it clear, I certainly agree that by "him"
Harry meant Dumbledore. But I think Snape was thinking that by "him"
Harry meant James. Read this interesting conversation again from
Snape's point-of-view. Dumbledore's name was never brought up at all.
James was brought up twice, both times by Snape himself. It's actually
quite amazing, if you think about it, how he insists on discussing
James, even at such hour, right after he AK'ed Dumbledore. Sounds like
a severe fixation to me.


> Julie:
> We don't know the hatred Snape is feeling is directed *at* Harry. It 
> may well be *toward* Harry as it was *toward* Dumbledore, while the 
> focus of the hatred is the task itself--killing Dumbledore to save 
> Harry and get the DEs away from Hogwarts--and Snape's own self-
> loathing over what he was forced to do.

Neri:
Just when Snape's hatred is described he is closing in and looking
down on Harry. If the hatred is self-loathing, why should he close in?
I can understand that on the tower he had no choice but to kill
Dumbledore, but here he has a choice. Draco and the DEs had already
disaparated away, and Snape can easily follow them. Is he closing in
on Harry in order to loath himself? The DDM interpretation of this
conversation gets more and more convoluted, it seems. 

The LID interpretation remains completely straightforward: when
Snape's hatred is described it's because he feels hatred, not
self-loathing. When he insists on bringing up James it's because James
is the very subject, not a diversion. When his manner changes
abruptly, it's because what Harry had just said. When he screams as if
in pain, it's because he really is in pain. All those strange
occurrences fit LID perfectly.

> Julie:
> As for the magic, again I'm not sure I follow. Snape thinks he wants 
> to kill Harry, and feels severe pain because of the Life Debt? 

Neri:
Yes. While we don't know how Life Debts work exactly, this would be
the most obvious explanation here.

> Julie:
> It 
> doesn't track for me, because Snape becomes angry at being called a 
> coward--and if he's so pained and infuriated by that appellation it 
> logically must be because he thinks it's an unfair appellation. He's 
> *not* a coward because he did something that in his mind took extreme 
> courage. It sure wasn't getting James killed. But it could be killing 
> Dumbledore for the greater good.

Neri:
I suspect the coward thing *is* a diversion, because the first time
Harry calls Snape a coward, just a minute before, Snape doesn't act
perturbed at all. The second time Harry says "kill me like you killed
him – you coward". *Then* Snape suddenly gets demented with pain and
screams: DON'T -- CALL ME A COWARD!" This stopping short and changing
tack is significant. As Pippin suggested once, I think the "call me a
coward" is a last second save. He was starting to say something else.


> Sydney:
> In terms of, is Snape magically compelled to save James or Harry?  I
> really don't think so.  I think it may have played a part as a debt of
> honour.  It would be cool if there was some.. what's a good term,
> 'situational magic'?  like the DADA curse seems to involve.  

Neri:
Aren't you forgetting that when one wizard saves the life of another,
a certain bond is created between them, that this is magic in its
deepest, most impenetrable?


> Sydney:
But from
> the basic root of this life debt theory:
> 
> "Well, they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr.
> Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive."
> 
> "What?"
> 
> "He saved his life."
> 
> "What?"
> 
> "Yes..." said Dumbledore dreamily. "Funny, the way people's minds
> work, isn't it? Professor Snape couldn't bear being in your father's
> debt....
> 
> I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he
> felt that would make him and your father even. Then he could go back
> to hating your father's memory in peace...." 
> 
> 
> Why would Dumbledore be talking about how it's funny how people's
> minds work?  If the debt works as you say it does, it wouldn't be
> funny at all, in the sense of strange or illogical.  This doesn't
> sound at all to me like Dumbledore's talking about a straight-out
> compulsion like the House-Elf enslavement. I mean, would he say, "Yes,
> Dobby served Lucius Malfoy all year because he felt it was required by
> this spell.  Funny how people's minds work"?  If you found out about
> the elf enchantment and then re-read D-dore saying something like
> that, you'd be, 'what?  That doesn't even make sense'. 

Neri:
Cm'on Sydney, there are limits to even being straightforward.
Dumbledore could have well told Harry: "you see Harry, Snape worked so
hard to save you this year because he has a magical Debt to your
father. This is the solution to the mystery of Snape's motives and
loyalties, which we are going to run throughout the next six books.
Just don't tell the readers about it, OK? Because it really going to
ruin the series for them."

Dumbledore was supposed to give us just enough of a clue there, before
we were even told that there's such magic as a Life Debt, before we
knew Snape was a DE, before we knew he changed sides, before we knew
he told Voldemort about the prophecy, before we knew that there was a
prophecy at all. Dumbledore had to do that in such manner that
wouldn't scream "REMEMBER THESE WORDS, THIS IS THE SOLUTION TO THE
SNAPE MYSTERY". What exactly did you expect him to say in these
circumstances?


> Sydney:
> I think my post just above yours appeared before you had time to
> address it, so I'll just reiterate this bit:
> 
> "Would this LD theory now presume that, if asked by any Order member in
> a general sense, post-GoF Dumbledore would say: "I trust Peter
> Pettigrew completely"?  That he "wouldn't hear a word against
> Pettigrew"?  Because that's what this theory implies."
> 

Neri:
The answer is irrelevant. Pettigrew doesn't even pretend to be on
Dumbledore's side. The question of trusting him had never come up.
Dumbledore wasn't fighting to save Pettigrew's soul, he was fighting
to save Snape's soul.

But yes, even before GoF Dumbledore was totally cool with Pettigrew
running away to bring Voldemort back. And I'd bet money that he is
going to prove right about this in Book 7.


>Sydney:
> BUT... this isn't Dumbledore saying, I trusted Snape and I was wrong.
> He says, I trust Snape, but this particular task he was too
> handicapped to do.  It's Dumbledore saying, I thought Hagrid could
> squeeze through that tiny hole, but it turns out he was just too big.
>  That's not an "I don't trust Hagrid" moment, that's an "Hagrid turned
> out to be unequipped for this thing I asked him to do".  

Neri:
An interesting analogy. Hagrid doesn't have a choice about having a
big body. It seems that logically Snape should have a choice, if not
about his feelings then at least about how he handles them. Does
Dumbledore, the champion of Choices, believe Snape didn't have a
choice here? Why? Is Snape compelled? Perhaps Dumbledore compromising
his principles here should have been a warning to us. Perhaps it
should have been a warning to Dumbledore himself. 


Neri