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

[Sydney]

No: HPFGUIDX 149671



> >Sydney:
> > Sophist!Dumbledore is a bit of a joker, isn't he?  
> 
> Neri:
> Yes! Couldn't put it better myself <g>.

How amusing of him to joke around with everone's lives like that!  You
still have to assume that every single time Dumbledore assured any
Order member that he trusted Snape, every single time he "wouldn't
hear a word against him", your theory has to narrow down each and
every off-stage conversation so that it is principally about Harry.
So, no conversation could ever have taken place where, say, Lupin
would ask, "Snape know an awful lot about what I'm doing with the
werewolves, and he hates my guts, I'm a bit worried-- are you sure I
can trust him?"  And Dumbledore would say "Ho ho ho, oh yes- of
course, I trust Snape completely."  *snigger*  And then in a stage
whisper joker!Dumbledore would say, "Hee!  I mean, with Harry, of
course!"  It would be incredibly easy for Snape to trip up any Order
member at any time, and to do it in such a way that it couldn't really
be pinned on him.  And, well, LD!Snape couldn't be trusted.

I just think your theory still comes down to basically ignoring every
single thing Dumbledore has every said.  Snape didn't really feel
remorse, in any commonly understood sense of the word remorse,
Dumbledore doesn't really trust him, in any commonly understood sense
of the word trust.  I wouldn't say, "The accountant was really
remorseful about cooking the books-- he got caught".  That's not
remorse.  I wouldn't say, "I trust Joe not to break parole-- he's got
one of those ankle monitors".  That's not trust, if you trust Joe
completely, you trust him with or without the monitor.  If JKR wanted
the books to make sense on rereading, she would have Dumbledore say
things like "Harry, I am certain that Professor Snape would do nothing
to harm you", or "Lupin, Mcgonnegal-- there are many things I cannot
tell you about Severus, but I am sure of one thing: at this point in
time he will do everything he can to protect Harry."


> 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.

Well, no he's not.  Again, this is a version of the term "on our side"
that I don't recognize. If LD!Snape still shares Voldemort's goals,
he's not on 'our side'.  He's on their side but handicapped.


> 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 doesn't "trust Snape completely to save Harry's life".  He
trusts Snape completely, full stop.  This is the teeny tiny problem
with you theory.  He has not been telling Harry and the Order that he
"trusts Snape completely to save Harry's life".  He's been telling
them, "I trust Snape completely".  

Surely when Dumbledore is telling Harry that he trusts Snape
completely, he would be fine if Harry took this to mean, well, he
should trust Snape too?  Like, in a complete way?  Like, if a
situation ever came up when Ginny was in danger, Harry could trust
Snape to help her?  I mean, there's a war on, and lots of bad stuff
can happen to lots of peope for lots of reasons.  If Harry DID trust
Snape to help Ginny, because he took D-dore's assurances in good
faith, when D-dore didn't in fact give them in good faith, and
essentially DE! OFH! totally
untrustworthy-except-for-the-ankle-bracelet! Snape let Ginny die...
joker!Dumbledore suddenly isn't so funny, is he?


> 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.

Straightforward?  Let's go back to Joe and the ankle monitor--
appearantly an ankle monitor that gives incredibly painful electric
shocks.  And he's right on the edge of his legal range, and his loving
parole officer who is totally certain that Joe will do anything to
avoid the shock, but wants him to be good guy at heart is saying,
"Joe.. please..".  And it's totally straightforward that he's pleading
with Joe not to step over the line because it's the right thing, even
though the officer is certain Joe won't step over the line anyways
because for 6 books he's been saying, "Joe will never risk getting a
shock."

The LD theory requires Dumbledore to be saying all sorts of
complicated things like "I know you're going to save Harry anyways but
I'm pleading you in a voice I've never used before because I'm
concerned that your motives won't be pure, I know "Severus, please"
doesn't make that obvious in any way, even to you, but let me look
into your eyes and give you some image that makes this very murky
concept crystal clear".  How is the text even ever going to explain this?

By the way, have you resolved if Dumbledore is pleading about
protecting Harry, or not killing Dumbledore?  Neither of them seem to
work very well.


> 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.

We'll just have agree to disagree on this. Snape is practical man who
is contemptuous of emotion.  He is resolving to correct his guilt by
doing everything in his power to protect Harry and bring down
Voldemort.  I don't see where being tender of Harry's feelings would
even register on Snape's radar.  He just honestly doesn't care how
people feel-- or perhaps, it seems like he'd prefer that people hated
him.  He doesn't care if he makes his kids feel like crap, he cares if
they pass their exams.  That's just who he is. 


> Neri:
> 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 <snip
>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?

I wouldn't say, 'remorseful', I'd say, 'in pain'.  I don't see where
talking about Unforgivables is as, well, to the point as "kill me like
you killed him".  Which is what happened in that moment. 

> 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?

Or, you know, a human effect.  "You killed him".  Simple words indeed.

>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.

Sure Snape always talks about James when he's around Harry.  So does
Sirius.  Harry looks exactly like James, he's chasing after Snape
throwing curses, like James used to do.  Throwing HIS curses, like
James used to do. He's not 'discussing' James, he's seeing a
James-shaped guy doing Jamesy things and saying, 'god I hate that
James guy'.  It is a bit of a fixation, but I don't dispute that Snape
hates James passionatly and probably blames him both for pushing Snape
towards the DE's, and for causing Snape to be a murderer by not
heeding his advice about Sirius.  The reason the LD fits so neatly
into everything is that it's just a magical prosthetic for accepting
that Snape is, below the surface, a decent person who hated being
directly responsible for the deaths of people he had an emotional
connection to-- James by honour, and Lily, IMO, by love, and wants to
atone for his sins.  I can see the attraction for anyone who simply
cannot view Snape as having honest emotions and real honour.


> 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. 

He sends Draco and the DE's through the gate and provides cover fire
against Harry.  Harry's been throwing curses and pushing his buttons
all the way across the grounds.  Then Harry throws one of his own
curses-- Sectusempra, his darkest curse, a curse that Snape probably
invented when he was really starting to go seriously wrong-- Snape is
furious and upset and , Draco's nearly in the clear, and he just plain
reacts, I don't know why this is so mysterious.  His face is full of
hatred because he hates Harry, he hates himself, he hates $#*&
mandrakes, I'm pretty sure there's nothing in the world Snape doesn't
hate at that moment.  

> 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. 

"Kill me like you killed him you coward" is the first time Dumbledore
is brought up directly, as you say.  And personally I think the
'coward' thing is related to the arguement in the forest that Hagrid
overheard.  I think Dumbledore told Snape that he promised to kill him
and that he should do it-- "Dumbledore told Snape that he promised to
do something and he should do it".  I think Snape said that he
wouldn't-- in a 'heated' way.  And Dumbledore told him that was
suicide and that was a coward's way out.  Just my theory, although it
does slot rather neatly, I think, into the "Severus... please..." and
the pleading the moment Snape comes in, and why Snape would find it
particularily painful to be accused of being a coward for killing
Dumbledore. 
  
> > Sydney:
>It would be cool if there was some.. what's a good term,
> > 'situational magic' [involved in the life debt]?  like the
>>DADAcurse 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?

"Deep and impenetrable" does not mean "blunt and obvious like a
shock-jolting ankle bracelet".  How is that deep or impenetrable? 
It's shallow and.. penetrable. <g>  The DADA curse is much more deep
and impenetrable-- it's unpredictable, impossible to pin down to one
effect, there's no point at which you can say, "ah, that was
definitely the DADA curse right there".  It affects it's victims in
ways that could be described as poetical and that they aren't even
aware of, somehow maneouvering them into situations where they true
selves are revealed.  Why, it almost acts like a literary device for
highlighting people's personalities! 

Sydney:
> > 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. <snip> What exactly did you expect him to say in these
> circumstances?

There are a zillion ways you could write that without putting in stuff
that is directly contradictory.  "Funny how people's minds work" is an
unnecessary thing for D-dore to say, and directly contradictory to the
magical compulsion theory.  You can't just ignore it by saying,
"Dumbledore didn't mean that bit.  Just the bits that conform to my
theory".  As Magpie put in her excellent Mysteries post, these books
are meant to be re-read as much as read.  Everything that is told to
us should slide neatly into place and make perfect sense with what
follows.  "Funny how people's minds work" doesn't slide neatly into
place, it  sort of just out like a piece of a jigsaw that doesn't fit.

And are you still arguing that Dumbledore is telling Harry here,
because he's upset at Harry hating Snape:

"You have no idea of the remorse Professor Snape felt when he realized
how V. interpreted the Prophecy, Harry.  I believe it to be the
greatest regret of his life and the reason he turned--"

meaning:

"Harry, if you only understood how remorseful Snape was
when he found out Snape himself could be hurt by turning in your
parents!  It was terrible for him!"  

Yes, I know you think Dumbledore is being ironic or joking or
sophistical here.  Personally, I don't see how that makes any
emotional or narrative sense.

> >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? 

Well, yeah. That's why Dumbledore talks about "wounds too deep for
healing".  Also a physical analogy.  

-- Sydney, guiltily eyeing the clock...