Why Snape turned

[puduhepa98 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 159567

> > Neri:
> > Are you saying you don't think Snape owed a  life debt to James at all?
> > Or that he did, but that this wasn't the  reason he "turned"?
> > 
> 
> Hickengruendler:
>  
> The later.

>Neri:
In this case Snape would have *two*  motivations to "turn" – Lily and
his life debt to James. So even assuming we  will find in Book 7 that
he was in love with Lily, how can we ever know for  sure what was the
relative importance of each of these two motivations in his  decision? 

>LOLLIPOPS+Life Debt seems to be a good option for JKR if  she wants to
leave us with an ambiguous Snape even *after* the end of the  series.
It's possible, of course, that this is what she means to do. But  if,
as she once promised, after Book 7 we will know everything we need  to
know and won't have any need for prequels, then shouldn't she  give
Snape a single motivation to "turn"?


Nikkalmati
 
I am sooo behind in reading the posts, I am afraid I can never catch up  with 
all of them, but I very much want to address this topic, because I think it  
is central to understanding the plot.  I have been  playing around  with 
OFHSnape, even though I am basically in the DDMSnape camp, so this  theory is just 
put out there to see if the pieces fit.
 
I was struck with the quote from JKR that no one would want Snape to be in  
love with them, just read Book 7.  Note she didn't say no one would want to  be 
in love with Snape.  Who was it that Snape loved who came to grief? 
 
Snape may have been in love with Lily.  We have seen that she was  beautiful 
and the kind of person everyone would like.  Even if she was  just nice to 
him, Snape could have loved her and if the students in the old days  had double 
potions, Gryfs and Slitherins,  they would have  interacted.  I do not see the 
life debt as compelling Snape to protect  James or Harry, mostly because JKR 
has shown us that Peter is not restricted  from harming Harry in the Graveyard, 
so a life debt IMO is not a  compulsion.  However, Snape, after the Prank, 
may have felt indebted enough  to James that he had to stand by and see him 
court Lily and win  her.   What if that was the price he felt he had to pay for 
his  life? 
 
 After they were married, SS could have joined Voldemort, because his  only 
friends were there, he was in despair over losing Lily etc.  The  marriage was 
in June after graduation let's say.  That fall he overheard  the prophesy and 
reported it to LV. When then did he feel remorse over LV's  plan?  Well, LV 
could have announced his intent the next July, when Harry  and Neville were 
born. July 1980?  That means SS would have spied for  DD from the time Harry was 
born until the Halloween after Harry was a year old,  - for over a year.  On 
the other hand, LV could have waited until  shortly before he acted to let SS 
and the DE know his plan.  In that case  SS, would have gone to DD shortly 
before he was hired as a teacher, say  July 1981.  His remorse in either case would 
have been over the danger  he had put Lily in.  He went to DD hoping she 
could be saved and he could  have asked LV, as a reward for telling him the 
prophesy, to let Lily live.   (We know that didn't work out)  After Lily died, he 
could have hated Harry  as the reason Lily died.  We know even fathers have 
hated their own  children if the mother died in childbirth.  Not common, but it  
happens.  He also hates Neville, because if he had been the Chosen One,  Lily 
would have lived. Nevertheless, he hates LV more.  He protects  and aids Harry 
so that, in case the prophesy is fulfilled, LV will be destroyed  for sure.  
He is probably going to help Harry in Book 7 or even die in the  attempt so 
that LV will be killed and Lily revenged. 
 
Speculation, but does it fly (or float)?   I have some  trouble in this 
OFHSnape scenario fitting in the UV and explaining why SS killed  DD on the tower, 
when he could have at least taken the time to urge Draco to do  it himself 
with better results.
 
Nikkalmati  


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