What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS)

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 158987

> zgirnius:
> The language used by Dumbledore in PS/SS in no way suggests there was 
> magic involved in Snape's sense of indebtedness to James, and its 
> motivating him to save Harry. We are using the term 'life-debt' and 
> thinking of it in magical terms because of Dumbledore's comments 
> regarding Harry and Peter in PoA. We could get lots and lots of 
> clarification on Peter and how that debt worked (as promised in the 
> interview snipped), without getting anything more on Snape's sense of 
> indebtedness. Then we could conclude that, in fact, that is all it was.
> 

Neri:
Even assuming that there was nothing magical about Snape's sense of
indebtedness to James, Dumbledore does say that it motivated Snape to
save Harry in SS/PS. This was about 15 years or more after James had
saved Snape's life. So it would be very strange for JKR to claim that
it wasn't a motivation in Snape's trying to save James just about five
years after James saved him.

And Dumbledore does use a general statement in PoA. He says "when one
wizard saves the life of another, a certain bond is created between
them". He could have easily said "when you saved Pettigrew's life, a
certain bond was created between you", but he didn't. And both
statements, the one in SS/PS about Snape's debt and the one in PoA
about Peter's debt, were made in Dumbledore's end-of-the-year
lectures. This isn't just usual canon, it's high-grade canon. The best
there is.  

Let me ask it this way: why has JKR needed at all that part in her
plot where James saves Snape's life? If we have LOLLIPOPS then James
saving Snape's life seems completely redundant plotting. Even if JKR
still wanted to have "the prank" as another reason for Snape to hate
the Marauders, she could have easily made Snape save himself, by
running away and escaping werewolf!Lupin in a nick of time. Why did
she make James go down there and save him? Just so that 15 years or so
after that Snape would suddenly remember it and think: "yes, I did
turn because my love of Lily, but just this year I'm going to save
Harry in order to be quit with James, and next year it's business as
usual, back to saving Harry because I loved Lily"?


> Julie:
> <snip>
> 
> It's canon that Snape *did* have a life-debt to James, as we
> were told in both PS/SS and POA, and it probably did play some 
> role in Snape informing Dumbledore about Voldemort's plans.

Neri:
This is exactly my point. Even if we are told in Book 7 that Snape
loved Lily, we won't know what part each of the two motivations – the
debt and his love – played in his decision to tell Dumbledore about
Voldemort's plans (assuming he did). We wouldn't even know after the
end of the series, since we don't get to look into Snape's head. We
already have the debt motivation, so if you add the Lily motivation
Snape will always stay ambiguous. The only way to solve the ambiguity
would be if JKR would tell us outside the books: "it was mainly his
love of Lily and the debt was only secondary" or something like that,
and this doesn't strikes me like very good writing. 

> Julie: 
> But if we get another deeper reason for Snape turning (he loved
> Lily, he couldn't stomach the killing of innocents, he wanted
> revenge on Voldemort for the death of his parents, etc, etc),
> I won't be bothered if this particular life-debt is never
> brought up again, and plays no role beyond what it has already
> played. After all, an emotionally-charged reason for a life-
> altering switch in loyalties is far more interesting and
> character-defining than a forced switch in loyalties due to
> the compulsion of magic!  
> 

Neri:
Erm
 the debt plot *is* emotionally-charged. JKR has been charging it
devotedly throughout the series. She *hasn't* been emotionally
charging LOLLIPOPS, except for that single "mudblood". And a
life-altering switch that happened off page 17 years ago would be
backstory. Would it be more interesting than a life-altering switch
that happens in real time, on page in Book 7?

Neri