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

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 149959

> 
> 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:
Since it doesn't look like you have read my original LID!Snape post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/145024
and the Double Life Debt post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140493
I'll try to clarify it all again:

LID!Snape is the theory assuming that Snape had a Life Debt to James,
that this is why he's trying to save Harry, and that this is why he
hates both Harry and James. All this is actually almost canonical. The
only additional clause that we perhaps need here is that repaying the
Life Debt is Snape's main motivation and explains most of the mystery
of his behavior in the series. This clause is needed in order to
differentiate LID!Snape from DDM!Snape-with-a-side-dish-of-Life-Debt,
which I think is what Pippin's new theory (and your own theory
upthread) amount to.

Now, like all the big Snape theories, LID!Snape can have many
variations, mainly depending on the exact mechanism of the Life Debt
magic. One of these variations is the UV-like model, originally
suggested by Del
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/139110
which posits that the debtee will die if he kills or plays a part in
killing the person he owes to. This variation fits very well with
another variation, my Double Life Debt
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/140493
according to which Dumbledore saved Snape's life during GH by
transferring Snape's Life Debt from James to Harry, and therefore
Snape ended up having a Life Debt to Dumbledore too. 

Another speculation I recently suggested is that Snape's very strange
screaming of pain during "The Flight of the Prince" is also an effect
of the Life Debt, which makes a lot of sense in the context of Harry
just saying to him "kill me like you killed him". I Also recently
pointed out that some or all of the above speculations can be made
very thematic (and also fit very well with JKR's words about
Occlumency) if we assume that the Life Debt magic works by preventing
the Debtee from blocking his own empathy with the person he owes the
Debt to.

All the above are just different speculations within the LID!Snape
theory, and I'm not particularly attached to any of them, because as
I've wrote many times, we can't really know now what the mechanism of
the Debt is. JKR was very careful not to give us enough information
(which is very suggestive in itself). And in fact it is not certain at
all that a mechanism even *exists*, in the sense that the Life Debt
magic may be similar to Lily's Ancient Magic, which is also not very
consistent. This is why I asked you if you can explain how Peter could
touch Harry in the graveyard without suffering the pain Quirrell
suffered. There is the distinct possibility that deep Potterverse
magic just isn't supposed to be very consistent. It's a thematic
rather than mechanistic thing. This is why I'm not especially worried
about what looks like some inconsistency between Snape's and Peter's
reaction to the Life Debt. JKR can explain this inconsistency in many
ways, or she might simply leave it inconsistent.

The important point is that *regardless of the exact mechanism* LID
still works very well. We have the canon evidence of Dumbledore words
in SS/PS, and the whole Snape plot throughout the books suddenly makes
a lot of literary sense – a well-laid buildup all leading to the
climax in Book 7, when Snape would finally repay the Debt. And
generally LID!Snape works with less explanations and assumptions than
any other Snape theory. 

So, if it looks like I'm altering or changing my versions, it's just
because I'm playing with different speculations regarding the Life
Debt mechanism, but the main LID!Snape theory remains the same and
retains all it's nice properties regardless of these details. And if
you complain that it's difficult to argue with several variations at
once, I'm afraid you'll get no sympathy from me. When I'm arguing
against DDM!Snape I have to argue against at least five different
versions of what happened on the tower, eight different versions of
what happened in Spinner's End, and all their possible combinations,
frequently mutating in real time and complicated to an arbitrary
degree, with no unifying theme that I can discern except getting Snape
off the hook by all costs. 


> 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!  
> 

Neri:
You can type it as many times as you like, but there's no evidence
that Peter ever knew what the prophecy said. Actually there isn't any
evidence that Peter even knew there *was* a prophecy at all.
Therefore, unlike Snape, Peter didn't know that this is all between
Voldy and Harry, and he couldn't know that Voldy's first and foremost
priority when coming back from Albania would be killing Harry Potter.
I'd bet he *did* slap his forehead. In fact, if you read his words in
GoF Ch. 1 again you can almost see the bruise <g>.  


> 
> 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.  <snip>
 
Neri:
You know, I don't think I'll ever understand how the mind of you
LOLLIPOPS people works. Here we see Snape living in the same house
with the man responsible to the death of his beloved Lily, and you
think it's a good *sitcom*???

*I* thought it was a good sitcom, but then I had never bought LOLLIPOPS.


> Sydney: 
> 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. 

Neri:
No, this is perhaps what you're doing. What I'm doing is showing that
LID works better than DDM. I have never claimed that LID!Snape is
perfect, has no inconsistencies whatsoever, and is absolutely
straightforward. What I did claim, and still do, is that it's more
consistent and straightforward than any *other* Snape theory.


> Sydney:
> 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!
> 

Neri:
Dumbledore knows that until Snape repays the Debt, he can be trusted
completely to save Harry's life. Moreover, Dumbledore hopes (and I
believe rightly so) that when Snape finally *pays* the Debt, he will
have no choice but to do it right in front of Voldemort, because it
will be in a situation of an actual duel between Voldemort and Harry,
and Harry would be dead if not for Snape. If and when this happens,
Voldemort would go seriously ape at Snape <g>, and Snape (if he stays
alive) will be forced to leave Voldemort's side for good.

It's precisely the thematic value of the Debt. Since the Debt
represents true remorse, Snape will not succeed in repaying it and
still remain on the side of Evil, no matter how hard he tries to do
just that. This is why he had failed time and again in repaying it
throughout the series. Dumbledore knew this must happen, and therefore
in the end he will prove right in trusting Snape completely. 


> Sydney:
> 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",<snip theory>

Neri:
Your theory requires some big assumptions there in order to get around
DDM!Snape taking the third clause of the UV. With the same number of
assumptions I could easily get rid of any inconsistency between
Snape's and Peter's Debts. LID can incorporate much simpler
explanations for the UV. For example, the single sentence explanation:
"Snape was in love with Narcissa since they were at Hogwarts
together". The reason LID can incorporate such simple solutions is
that it doesn't have any problem with Snape taking a Vow to kill
Dumbledore, while DDM must invent some complex story to explain it.
This is one reason why LID is so much more straightforward and simple.
 

> > 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. 
> Sydney:
> *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:
Oops, sorry. I guess I'm too used by now to thinking like
double-agent-for-real!Snape, so what looks obvious to me perhaps isn't
obvious to a DDM!Snaper. I'll explain this in more detail. Snape most
probably thought Draco doesn't stand a chance killing Dumbledore. But
he also knew that it would be easy to convince Dumbledore not to
arrest Draco on the spot. So for many months Draco would be
*attempting* to fulfill the Dark Lord's orders with no success, and
yet without failing, and so Snape wouldn't be required to act on the
third clause of the UV. Note that no clause of the UV requires Snape
to actually *help* Draco in his mission – only to look after him and
to step in should it seem Draco would fail. During all these many
months Snape would have a chance to repay the Debt. Once the Debt is
out of the way, Snape would finally be free to go back to Voldemort's
side, and wouldn't care about killing Dumbledore anymore. 

But Draco surprised both Snape and Dumbledore by managing to let the
DEs into the castle and actually catching Dumbledore helpless. *Then*
he failed to kill him. By this he forced Snape to act on the third
clause or die. Snape had no choice but aborting the double-agent game
for good and committing to Voldemort's side before he managed to repay
the Debt. What he is most afraid of will probably happen in Book 7 –
there will be a duel between Voldemort and Harry, and Snape will have
to oppose Voldemort openly in order to save Harry's life.

 
> Sydney:
> 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.
> 

Neri:
You mean, like using the prophecy to make Harry want to kill Voldemort? 


> Sydney:
> 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.
> 

Neri:
But this is precisely my point against DDM!Snape. Snape doesn't give a
damn what Harry feels, he'd rather Harry feels like crap generally, so
how can he be trying to save Harry's life out of true, conclusive
remorse? DDM!Snape is absurd. You're saying that yourself, but you can
only see it when you think it's my theory. When it's your theory it
suddenly makes sense to you.

If Snape feels any remorse, it's obvious that it is limited in an
extremely artificial and arbitrary way. It's only working for trying
to save Harry's life, but not for any care for Harry's feeling. So
what is the more likely explanation for that? That these restrictions
on his remorse are a result of an arbitrarily schizoid character, or
that they are a result of a magic with arbitrary clauses?  


> Sydney:
> 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.
> 

Neri:
So he's like totally remorseful about being a bad person and hurting
others, and that's why he's so enjoying himself acting like a bad
person and hurting Harry all the time. Yes, that's logical <g>.


> > 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.

> Sydney:
> 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:
I don't see your problem here. The Life Debt magic might be strong
enough to prevent Snape from shutting down very strong remorse, like
about letting the person he owes his life to die, or like killing him
himself, and yet it wouldn't be strong enough to prevent Snape from
shutting down remorse about much smaller things, like just hurting
Harry's feelings. And of course there wouldn't be remorse at all when
Harry gets hurt for reasons that have no connection with Snape. We are
repeatedly reminded that Snape is a superb occlumen, and very good at
closing his mind. He may be able to shut down just that amount of
remorse.  

It makes perfect sense as a magic with certain clauses. Like
Occlumency frequently requiring eye contact. With eye contact it
works, without eye contact it doesn't. Like the UV requiring Snape to
*look after* Draco, but not to *help* him. Like the Fidelius allowing
the SK to reveal the secret, but not anybody else who lives in that
same house. Potterverse magic is full to the brim with these
arbitrary, convoluted clauses. That's why it takes seven years at
school to learn. That's what makes this series so wonderfully
intricate and complex. And these clauses can be thematic and reflect
RL feelings, like loyalty, like commitment, like remorse.

What the Potterverse *doesn't* have are artificial, arbitrary,
schizoid *characters*. Except for DDM!Snape, that is. No other
character of JKR gets even close to be so convoluted, so conflicted.
It's almost like DDM!Snape wasn't created by JKR. Maybe he was simply
created by somebody else. Say, by 100,000 Snape fans?

 
> Sydney:
> 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!
> 

Neri:
This is *one* theory. It's a theory that doesn't have any support in
canon except for your interpretation of this sentence. A sentence
explained just as well by LID!Snape, which does have strong support in
canon. Moreover, your theory doesn't have any future, because Sirius
is dead and Snape's issues with him are of little importance to Book
7. In contrast, the LID explanation of this sentence leads directly to
a big BANGy climax in Book 7.


> Sydney:
> 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:
This is a typical LOLLIPOPS tactics – when there's no canon, argue
that the absence of canon strengthens the theory. I shudder to think
what you would have said had I dared using such an argument for LID!Snape.


> Sydney:
> 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?  <snip>

Neri:
No, I haven't dropped it. I have recently posted in detail the
explanations of LID!Snape for both the Occlumency lessons:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149094
and the Missing Five Hours:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/149239

Unsurprisingly, LID resolves Snape's strange behavior in both these
occasions in a more straightforward and simple way than any other
Snape theory.


Neri