What turned Snape (Was: JKR site update SPOILERS)

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 159011

 


> 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:
For me it would only require that JKR reveal Snape's *main* motive
for turning from Voldemort/spying for DD/protecting Harry, whether  
via Dumbledore's portrait, Pensieve, or Snape himself. Once this is 
revealed and it becomes the "AHA!" moment everyone has been 
waiting for in regards to Snape, and sufficient angst (Snape)  and/or 
comprehension/pity/empathy (Harry) follows, then the whole life
debt motivation will *automatically* become secondary. No need
for JKR to spell that out if the primary motivation is  sufficiently bangy.
 
And I think it will be, otherwise why has JKR allowed the entire 
fanbase to become so obsessed with Snape's enigmatic nature--in
fact encouraged it, and not subtly--and why has Snape's role only 
grown from book to book (and grown more enigmatic in the process)?
All because she wants to stick it to us all--"Never mind about  all
that build up, Snape's motivations are based on nothing more than
that life debt brought up so casually in BOOK ONE, if only you'd 
noticed. Ha ha ha, gotcha!"--with her writing? 

> Julie, previously: 
> 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?

Julie:
I disagree that JKR has been charging it devotedly throughout the
series. Snape's life debt to James came up twice (I think it came up 
in POA), and Snape himself has never mentioned it that I can recall.
Dumbledore all but dismissed it as relatively trivial--and perhaps  played
out--in PS/SS. It is *Peter's* life debt that has received much more 
attention, from JKR off the page (noting how Harry saving Ginny is
different, and that Peter's life debt to Harry will play a role in Book  7).
 
Could JKR being playing her cards very close to her vest? I suppose
so, but my argument here is that she hasn't been emotionally charging
Snape's life debt to James. That life debt has already been assigned 
its relative importance and emotional impact (as something that  weighed 
heavily on Snape's mind, being indebted to the person he  most hated). 
Admittedly we will find out more about the Prank in Book 7, but most 
fans have assumed (and has JKR indicated?) it will focus on how  the
relationship between the Marauders and Snape deteriorated to that
point and why Dumbledore didn't punish Sirius much more severely for 
nearly getting Snape killed. There's no real clue that these  revelations
will shed any further light on the life debt, not from JKR or the  text.
 
In short, I don't believe JKR made her major revelation about Snape
in the *first book,* then proceeded to trick us by implying Snape's
patronus was too revealing to reveal (no pun intended), having 
Dumbledore refuse to fully answer Harry's questions about his 
complete trust in Snape (when if it was about the life-debt, he could
have just said "It's that life-debt, remember?"), etc, if those  matters   
were to be essentially rendered meaningless in the end by it  being all
about the life-debt after all. That doesn't strike me as good  writing.
 
But we can agree to disagree :-)
 
Julie 
 
 


 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]