LID!Snape rides again (was: High Noon for OFH!Snape)
Sydney
sydpad at yahoo.com
Tue Mar 21 17:44:56 UTC 2006
No: HPFGUIDX 149868
> Neri:
> As for my hypothetical stage 2, I don't know when Snape was kicked
> into it. If the Life Debt is indeed a bond that causes you to
> empathize with the suffering of the victim, then it makes more sense
> that the actual pain symptoms only started when James died, although
> he would perhaps feel some remorse before that, maybe from James' fear
> for his family.
Sydney:
You know, arguing against this theory is starting to feel like
wrestling with Proteus-- it seems to take whatever from is handiest
for countering an argument. Your original LD theory was pretty
straightforward:
Neri a week ago, in 149736:
>If OTOH we assume that the Life Debt magic is really more similar the
>UV. Say, it kills you if you kill the one you owe to, or I you take a
>part in killing him. And (in order to account for Snape's strange
>behavior in "The Flight of the Prince") lets say that the Debt is
>kind enough to give you a painful warning or a reminder if you are
>*about* to kill or hurt that person. So by informing Voldemort about
>the prophecy, Snape made himself a part of Voldemort's scheme to kill
>the Potters. He realized that he would die if Voldy kills James. >Snape
>has no way to convince Voldy to give this up, so he ran to Dumbledore
>and told him about it.
>Both Dumbledore and Snape would realize that this effectively places
>Snape in Dumbledore's side.
Sydney:
Have you altered this scheme now? Perhaps because you are seeing how
it makes very little sense? I take it my devastating arguements have
had an effect.
Now, back to today's theory:
Neri:
>He'd be then in a state similar to that of Peter in
> GoF. And Peter was certainly affected by the Debt in GoF. He was
> risking a lot when trying to convince Voldemort to use another wizard
> for the resurrection in GoF, Ch. 1. When he was tying Harry to the
> gravestone his fingers were "trembling uncontrollably" and he wouldn't
> meet Harry's eyes.
Sydney:
Well, he knew he was about to cut his own hand off. He calmed right
down after he got his shiny silver one, didn't he? I seem to remeber
a lot of beaming and "Oh thank you mastering!" Surely if we were to
have a hint of the life debt=death thing, it would have been, oh,
right after that, when Vmort prepares to kill Harry? And I don't
quite see how this is out of character for Peter. He looks ill when
Bertha Jorkins is brought up as well. And using Harry is stupid and
unnecessarily risky. And he wasn't really 'risking a lot' by
complaining about it, Voldemort's obviously used to Peter squeamishly
complaining about things and then going right along with them. Now,
if Peter was otherwise stone-cold killer man, and only started his
writhing with Harry, you might have a point; but he doesn't.
Neri:
>But unlike Snape during VW1, Peter doesn't have the
> option of going to the other side anymore, certainly not as a
> double-agent the way Snape did. Peter has to rebel against Voldy
> openly or continue following orders and hope that Harry would somehow
> escape death.
Sydney:
Or, of course, he could simply not have gone to Albania and
single-handedly resurrected Voldemort.
Shall I type that again? Or, he could not have gone to Albania and
single-handedly resurrected Voldemort. Boy, I bet he slapped his
forehead with a resounding slap after he did that one!
Funny how Snape's "not having a choice" and Peter's "not having a
choice" seem to be completely different things! It's almost like they
BOTH had a choice, and made diametrically opposite choices!
Neri:
>Of course, it's interesting that in HBP we see Snape and
> Peter together in the same house, with apparently no plot reason. One
> wonders what does this foreshadow for Book 7.
Sydney:
Their hilarious sitcom of course! Sorry, nothing to do with the
argument, I just think they really do have a hilarious sitcom. And as
for why Peter was there-- you're right, it is interesting, although it
might just be that JKR didn't have any place to put Peter in OoP and
thought she needed to stick him in somewhere to remind us of his
existence.
> > Sydney:
> > -- If Snape is merely driven by a basic need to keep Harry alive for
> > his own selfish ends, why did he murder Dumbledore, Harry's greatest
> > protector, and in a such a way that he would have to leave the scene,
> > thus leaving Harry entirely exposed when Voldemort is at full power?
>
> Neri:
> You got me completely confused now. Here I am theorizing that Snape's
> remorse is a very specific thing, only about saving Harry's life,
> perhaps only once, and you say Snape killing Dumbledore is a problem
> with that?
You're confused because you think we're talking about MY theory, but
we're not. We're demolishing ankle-monitor!Snape here, now focus.
Your argument on why Dumbledore "trusts Snape completely" is the
following:
Neri, 149736:
>Snape can only stay alive if Dumbledore
>and the Order manage to win the war and guard James, so Snape would be
>a fool to harm anybody in the Order. And if the Order wins and
>Voldemort loses, Snape would need Dumbledore to save him from Azkaban.
>In such a situation Dumbledore has a very good reason to trust that
Snape is on his side.
And then, to explain the UV, you add that Snape must also owe a Life
Debt to Dumbledore, because Dumbledore magically transferred the Life
Debt to Harry, that would otherwise have killed Snape when James died,
and then THAT Life Debt was paid off when Snape saved Dumbledore, so
now Snape is free to kill him, which is why he took the UV. Which,
may I say, just goes to show you why "Dumbledore trusts Snape
completely because of the Life Debt to Harry" makes no sense
whatsoever. Because if someone's a stone-cold killer except for this
one little thing, they're going to do things like that. Silly Dumbledore!
Now if you're going to BEG for a reprise of my UV theory, which I DID
lay out in painful detail in post #149418, "High Noon for OFH!Snape",
well, I just can't let you down. Now this goes to, how did you put it?
>How about your theory, saying Snape is generally remorseful
> and absolutely on Dumbledore's side
My Snape is generally remorseful, and he's, if not suicidal, then at
least flirting with death rather a lot-- this goes to the DADA curse
hankering as well, which is still bugging me. So, he's seeing a
weeping mother begging him to protect her son (Lily!), and he sees he
has a chance to do some good, and he can't see any way to protect
Draco from Voldemort's wrath without essentailly putting himself
between them-- but being Snape, it's with a Dark Magic inversion of of
the Love magic that saved Harry. When the third clause comes up, he
either can't stop because there's a snake made of fire tied to his
wrist, or he doesn't stop because he's prepared to die, or most likely
both. Bear in mind that Snape ready to risk dying for another person
remains necessary for any UV theory, unless you want to start
inventing spells to forestall that.
After that it all follows straightforwardly and canonically:
Dumbledore appoints Snape to the DADA job, because one way or another
the s**t is going to hit the fan this year; Dumbledore does an
intense, unprecedented mentoring thing with Harry all year;
Dumbledore has a heated arguement with Snape that "you promised to do
it and you'll do it"; Dumbledore heads out and drinks a barrel of
poison; then when Snape appears on the tower, Dumbledore says,
"Severus... please..." before Snape kills him, because he knew Snape
really, really didn't want to do it, but Dumbledore wanted Snape to
save the mission and the boys, rather than Dumbledore. The end!
> > Sydney:
> > Seeing as Snape's fear of James getting hurt would be what, by you,
> > "forced Snape to be effectively on Dumbledore's side", what's
> > different now?
> >
>
> Neri:
> As I have explained in recent posts, I think Snape didn't intend to
> kill Dumbledore before he can save Harry's life and repay the Debt.
> Draco's unforeseen action forced Snape to kill Dumbledore on the tower
> or die.
*puzzled* Snape didn't foresee that Draco couldn't kill Dumbledore?
Is that why he took the UV, because he thought, "ha! Dumbledore
hasn't got a chance against Draco Malfoy"?
Neri:
>If Peter's Life Debt is the only Debt around,
> and it's a done thing, then I don't see why JKR couldn't clarify the
> status of Ginny's "not really" Debt.
I never said Peter's debt was the only debt around, and I've certainly
never said that the Life Debt Snape seemed to have owed James won't
play a part. I have no idea what sort of part. Although I still say
that Dumbledore saying Snape "feels" he owes Harry and "funny how
people's minds work" is totally inconsistnet with his LD being
anywhere near as solid as your theory requires.
> > Sydney:
> > -- Replacing compassion for another person with jolts of electric
> > shock and threat of death, still feels like Torquemada's version of
> > Christianity more than Rowling's. By your theory, Snape still isn't
> > feeling even remorse, he's just feeling pain and fear of dying
> > himself.
>
> Neri:
> By my theory he's feeling the pain of another person, pain that he has
> responsibility for. And he feels it against his will, but he's unable
> to shut it down. A magic that in RL we call... yep, remorse.
>
> Christianity umm... no. I'd better not go there. I'd just point out
> that Christian JKR made Lupin become a rabid monster once a month
> since he was 5 yrs old kid. She made Sirius spend half his life in a
> jail where everybody goes insane, and then killed him a short time
> after he got out. Her main character she killed both his parents when
> he was a baby, and put in his forehead a magical scar that connects
> him directly with the mind of the sociopath evil overlord. And these
> are the *good* guys. All things considered, I think LID!Snape got away
> relatively cheap.
I'm not saying that JKR doens't LOVE to make people suffer, because
she certainly does! I'm saying that she wouldn't see using magic to
FORCE people to feel things they otherwise wouldn't as a good thing.
And your theory has now changed to the point that Snape isn't just
prevented from harming Harry, he's connected in some deep way to any
suffering that Harry feels. And I don't see that AT ALL. If there's
one thing that's clear, it's that Snape doesn't give a damn what Harry
feels, in fact, he'd rather Harry feels like crap generally, but he's
willing to risk his life to protect him from physical harm, which is
the sort of harm Snape can understand. This is actually a lot more
consistent with anklemonitor!Snape, than your new, soul-connected
Snape, so I'd advise you to go back to it.
And your prosthetic remorse-- sorry, still not remorse. As
justCarol's excellent post had it, remorse is about feeling crappy
about yourself because you're a bad person and have hurt others.
Which sounds like Snape all over to me.
> > Sydney:
> > -- If Snape is just feeling Harry's suffering generally, why haven't
> > we seen more of this?
>
> Neri:
> If Snape loved Lily, why haven't we seen *any* signs of this?
Oh, you can see the signs if you look, Neri. You really can <g>.
Before HBP, I would have said, "It's just a hunch based on similar
books I've read-- Victorian books, mostly- and the fact that something
has to tie Lily back in to the heart of the story". After HBP, I'll
say, what's up with Potions!Genius Lily, who seems to have been using
the same book as Harry?
> > Sydney:
> > Why could he give him pounding headaches for
> > hours in Occlumency lessons? Why did he feel sure Harry was a
> > pampered kid when he came to Hogwarts, when presumably he would have
> > been lying awake at night in wretched pain because of little Harry's
> > suffering under the Dursely's, for which Snape is indirectly
> responsible?
> >
>
> Neri:
> Apparently all this stuff isn't significant enough to break Snape's
> defenses. As Del noted, a Life Debt just might be about, you know...
life.
Aaaand, we're back to ankle-monitor Snape. I thought the LD didn't
allow Snape to HAVE defenses? Oh, now, where did I read that? I
dont' think I even have to go back to last week, I think it's in the
very post I've been replying to:
Neri:
"it *is* actual remorse, that the
Life Debt magic merely prevents Snape from shutting down"
Dude, go back to the anklemonitor. It doens't make sense, but it at
least makes more sense than this "Snape feels Harry's pain" thing.
> Neri:
<massive snippage all going to, Snape goes ape in the Shrieking Shack
because of the suggestion that Sirius is innocent>
> But you see, if Sirius is actually innocent as Hermione suggests, then
> Harry wasn't in danger from him. And if Harry wasn't in danger, it
> means Snape didn't save his life. And *this* is unthinkable for Snape.
Sirius being innocent is unthinkable for Snape because he's been here
before-- he's been trying to convince people not to trust Sirius, and
people didn't listen to him, and people died. That's why he says,
"DON'T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND", and why he screams at
Harry for suggesting that Snape is prejudiced against Sirius "just
because he made a fool of you at school", which is probably JUST what
James said 14 years before, when Snape was trying to convince him not
to make Sirius secret-keeper. I think he just can't BELIEVE he's
still having this conversation. I mean, picture Harry at some point
in Book VII if someone was trying to convince him that he was wrong
about Snape!
Of course this can work for either a Snape motivated by the Life Debt
or by Lily, but I think the rage and the thrist for the worst revenge
he can think of are more consistent with the latter. And I'm still
not seeing any sign of "yay! I'm free!" Snape when he rags on Harry
about ingratitude. Why the heck would he care about Harry's
gratitude? I'm sorry, I reread that passage, and it just doesn't read
to me like Snape is saying, "I just saved your life, and this means my
whole life is now changed." It reads like, well, what does he say?
"Like father, like son, Potter! I have just saved
your neck; you should be thanking me on bended knee! You would have
been well served if he'd killed you! You'd have died like your father,
too arrogant to believe you might be mistaken in Black now get out
of the way, or I will make you. GET OUT OF THE WAY, POTTER!"
It reads like, "Well, isn't this just typical. Now, can I kill Sirius
please? Because, you know, the last time everyone was all "Oh, Sirius
wouldn't betray us!, I seem to recall that didn't really work out."
(and I'll just add, for my sake, "And the woman I loved died").
That's all I'm seeing.
And duh, Snape doesn't bring up Lily. Snape never, ever, brings up
Lily. Don't you think that's just a little odd, in 6 books, when
Snape throws every thing else he can think of at Harry? I'm pretty
sure oxen and wainropes couldn't drag it out of him.
Neri:
> He has just saved Harry's neck. That's what important for Snape.
No, again, it really seems to me that wringing all the pain he can out
of Sirius is what's important for Snape. He just seems to give that
way, WAY more energy than the life-saving thing. Anyhoo, wrapping up:
> Neri:
I>t *is* actual remorse, that the
> Life Debt magic merely prevents Snape from shutting down.
Sydney:
Now, if your theory is merely going to be, the Life Debt, when he
endangered James, somehow opened Snape up to remorse, and to a horror
of what he was doing, and thereafter what Snape has been feeling has
been indistinguishable from actual remorse, well, I can't really argue
with that, seeing as you can't slide a piece of paper between that
Snape and DDM!Snape. Or Snape/Lily.
> > -- Sydney, who will call Neri's theory the "ankle-monitor" theory, as
> > opposed to the Life-Debt theory, seeing as it's a bit unfair to hijack
> > a name for an impenetrable magic thingie we know nothing about and
> > apply it to an elaborate spell essentially made up from whole cloth.
> >
>
> Neri:
> Umm... now you got me confused about your terminology. What *is* the
> thing you call "the Life Debt theory" and what exactly is the
> difference between it and what you call the "ankle-monitor" theory?
Sydney:
I don't have a "Life Debt" theory, I don't know enought about the
spell, and I can't think of a literary precedent that would hint at
it's story function-- aside from Frodo saving Gollum, which has the
DADA-curse-like effect of Gollum accidentally destroying the ring. I
have no idea where JKR is going with the Life Debt, I'm just
reasonably sure that she, a) doesn't use magic to replace people's
feelings, ever, unless it's a bad thing, and b) is mostly concerned,
in the Snape storyline, with reconciling him with Harry, and the LD
thing seems to move Harry away from that by making Snape's good
actions artificial.
I'm just heading you off at the pass <g>, on claiming ANY operation of
the Life Debt as fulfilling your theory, which, while constantly
mutating, keeps the central characteristic of trying to avoid Snape
(who you seem to have realized is effectively DDM, anyways) having
good-guy motivations.
And if we're going to cattily bring up other people's theories <evil
g>, have you dropped your missing five hours thing from OoP? Because
surely anklemonitor!Snape would never risk leaving Harry with a load
of DE's for that long willingly! Incidentally, woulnd't that be close
enough to pay off the Life Debt: Snape endangered James by reporting
a conversation, and then he saves Harry by reporting another
conversation. Yay! All done.
Sydney-- home sick! whoo!
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive