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

[Sydney]

No: HPFGUIDX 149972

Neri:
> 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. 

Sydney:
Sorry, I missed that question the first time around-- wansn't the pain
Quirrel suffered due to the fact that he was possessed by Voldemort at
the time?  It's only Voldemort who can't touch Harry, that's why he
used Harry's blood for the potion, wasn't it?  I don't think it's ever
been suggested that Lily's protection works against anyone else-- the
magic happened between Lily, Harry, and Voldemort.  Crouch Jr. could
touch Harry in GoF, couldn't he-- I mean, he's certainly touching him
when he's pulling him away from the crowd at the end of the book.  

Neri:
> 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, 

Sydney:
Would that be the bit where he talks about how funny it is how
people's minds work?  Which would be canon evidence that however the
life debt works, it's not a compulsion or a deadly-curse-like-thing? 
Just checking.

Neri:
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. 


*raises eyebrows*  By the sheer volume of typing, all hedged about
with the explanation that it's not necessary that it be consistent
anyways, I would dispute this.  

Anyways, it would work in a literary way if there wasn't a mainspring
emotional tension of Harry hating Snape that's been intesifying
throught the series, and peaking as it should at the turn of the 3rd
act; if there wasn't a thematic undercurrent about the necessity of
unity in the Houses; if there weren't so many additional Snape
mysteries such as why he wants the DADA job and why he took the UV; if
JKR wasn't writing a series in the tradition of recognition dramas
(such as Jane Austen wrote); if the theme of the books wasn't the
power of Love; and if, basically, the whole series was your
cut-and-dried, the good-are-good-and-the-bad-are-bad piece of
Hollywood crap such as I regretfully slog through daily;  essentially,
yeah, it would make literary sense in the sense that it wouldn't make
literary sense at all.  It simply doesn't fit the genre.  This is a
drama of emotions reconciliation;  and the battle against Voldemort is
a spiritual battle, not a physical one.  

Neri:
>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. 

Sydney:
<g>  That's because there's so many different people that hold the
DDM!Snape theory, and we're all wonderfully individual.  All
anti!Snapers are the same though, the blackguards-- all desperate to
avoid Snape having proper motivations or being anything other than a
black-hearted villain!   
 
> > 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>.  

Sydney:
So, it wouldn't have occured to Peter, who was an order member and
secret keeper, who knew that Harry was famous for having defeated
Voldemort as a baby-- it wouldn't have occurred to him that Voldemort
might, at some point, want to kill Harry.  So, he could blithely go
off and cheerfully resurrect Voldemort with a qualm.  Because, you
know, Voldemort's a forgive-and-forget, live-and-let-live sort of
guy-- why would have a priority to kill the guy who killed him the
first time?  That's crazy talk! 

Doesn't everyone know, even in PS, that Voldemort wants to kill Harry?
 Nobody needs the Prophecy to know this.  The Prophecy just says that
Harry has the power to kill Voldemort with the Power he knows not.

Anyways,  now idiot!Peter, rather than abandon the helpless fetus
Voldemort when it became clear that his plans would inevitably result
in Peter's death in the immediate future, Peter stuck by him, fed him
regularly, extracted a promise of a shiny silver hand post-potion
making (despite the pointlessness of such a promise, as Peter would
have his magic hand for mere minutes before he died of the Killer Life
Debt), and did everything he could to help Voldemort in this suicidal
plan, except for the amazingly out of character actions of whining and
cringing a bit.  Yeeeeeesss... 



> > 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*??

*tries to understand the mindset of someone who would take a book so
seriously that they are deprived of a sense of humour.*  
*Fails*

> 
> > 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. 

Sydney:
So, Dumbledore trusts Snape completely, but only in the circumstance
of a direct duel between Harry and Voldemort.  This is obviously what
he meant when he kept telling the Order that he trusted Snape
completely and wouldn't hear a word against him-- that he didn't trust
him at all, least of all completely.  Of course, Peter can't be
trusted completely even in the case of a direct duel between Harry and
Voldemort, but it's not like this magic or people's characters have to
be consistent or anything.

Neri:
> 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. 

Sydney:
I can't wait for the bit in Book 7 where it turns out that Ginny
slipped Harry a love potion, because it would be such a great thematic
representation of true love, don't you think?    


> > 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.

Sydney:
Right, because "Snape was in love with Narcissa, and ready to die for
this love, and JKR just put that in without any relationship to the
plot whatsoever" IS simple!  So much simpler than "Snape didn't expect
the third part of the Vow".  Wow, that's just... when you put it that
way, I can see how that would be way to complicated.  And it's not
hinted at in the text even, the unexpectedness- like a jerking hand,
or Narcissa not mentioning that she was going to put it in.  And the
idea that Snape was prepared to die when he voluntarily took a Vow
that had a good chance of killing him... no, you're right.  Way too
complicated.  I guess I'll go with, "out of nowhere, in Book 6, we
find out that Snape has a powerful emotional tie to an entirely
peripheral character, actually, we don't really find out, we have to
assume it, but anyways, this emotional tie of love, for which he is
prepared to die, rather than pulling him to the good side as would
make thematic sense, actually just consolidates his ties to the dark
side, which he doesn't need anyways, seeing as he's Evil."


> > > 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.
<snip> 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. 

Sydney
Um, so Snape, suddenly assuming for no reason that this was the year
out of the last sixteen when a handy opportunity for saving Harry
would finally turn up, simply abandons your previous policy of being
completley on Dumbledore's side and shoring up the Order so Harry
wouldn't die.  And in the meantime, takes a Vow that he'll die if
either he can't protect Draco and kill Dumbleodore.   For no
particular reason.  No, wait, because he's in love with Narcissa. 
Couldn't he have simply saved himself all this trouble to begin with,
by staying on Voldemort's side from the start, and standing by for the
much, much more likely opportunity of merely saving James during a
DE/Order firefight?  The more you explain this theory, the less sense
it makes.  Now Snape would ALWAYS be operating under the assumption
that he's going to save Harry any minute now, so it's not going to
affect any of his other actions regarding the war-- and actually, he
can do this while being on either side.  So, he's NOT on Dumbledore's
side at all, even 'effectively'.  So, as all evil!Snape theories
ultimately requre, Dumbledore's an idiot.


>  
> > 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:
Correct me if I'm wrong, doesn't Dumbledore say that, in fact, that
the Prophecy DOESN'T force Harry to kill Voldemort at all?  He says
that Voldemort's following the Prophecy has resulted in a set of
circumstances where Harry will want to kill Voldemort.  Gee, sort of
like that DADA situational magic, come to think of it.  So, maybe the
life debt resulted in Snape wanting to save James, because
circumstances resulted in Lily inextricably being endagnered with him?
 So much more thematic, don't you think?  Because much as Snape hates
James,the Life Debt is a connection between them, representative of
the connection between all human beings-- a connection ultimately of
love?   I'm not really theorizing here, but the Prophecy example is
exactly what I'm talking about-- JKR simply doesn't use magic to force
people to do things.  She prefers self-fullfilling prophecies, like
the one in MacBeth, as she said.

Anyways, do you really think the book is going that way?  That, as
Harry says, he's now bound to be a murderer?  You don't think there's
going to be, like, a twist or something? 


> 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:
See, and this is where we hit the unsolvable disagreement.  You are
asking me to explain how a double-agent ridden with guilt and shame
could possibly be an unpleasant person who lashes out at the source of
his feelings.  I feel like you're asking me to justify this ridiculous
assertion that blue and yellow, when mixed, make green.  Yeah, it's a
bit unexpected.  But, I dunno, years of living in this world have led
me to the conclusion that blue and yellow indeed make green, and that
guilt and shame tend to make people behave worse, not better.  

  
Yikes!  Off to work,

-- Sydney, happy to know that Neri at least is now aware that it
really does take that long for Snape to figure out what happened and
send help, at the end of OoP.