TBAY: BlackWidower!Snape retuned (long)

[dungrollin]

No: HPFGUIDX 160753

> > > SSSusan:
> > > Hmmmm.  Is it in Snape's character to side with Regulus over 
> > > Voldy? 
>  
> Dungrollin:
> > He's terrified of Voldy. Anyone in their right mind is terrified 
of Voldy, particularly those who work for him. Do I need to refer 
you to the kid-glove bowing-and-scraping I'm-not-worthy treatment 
they put on for him in the graveyard in GoF? That's fear. 
> 
> SSSusan:
> Indeed, I recall the bowing & scraping in the graveyard.  I 
actually was thinking specifically *of* that terror when I asked the 
question, though. <g>  I wondered if being terrified of him might 
cause a DE to *fear* making alliances with others behind Voldy's 
back, out of fear of discovery.
> 
> But perhaps, what you're saying here...
> 
> > Snape was naive in the same way that Regulus and Draco were. If 
> > Draco was unable to kill DD, and Draco didn't even *like* DD, 
and fully knew that Voldy would kill him for his failure, it's not 
> > impossible that Snape found he couldn't betray Regulus, if he 
were a good friend. 
> 
> ...is the other real possibility.  That being both naive and 
> increasingly aware of Voldemort's "psycho-ness," making friends 
with other DEs seemed necessary.

Dung:
Yeah, exactly. Voldy's the great leader, but he's nobody's friend, 
and once you've signed up to being a DE you *really* need friends, 
because it's not certain that Voldy will look out for you. It's even 
possible that a small mistake at which he takes offence could get 
you killed.


> > > SSSusan:
> > > What will have had this effect on Snape? The prophecy? his 
wife's pregnancy?
>  
> Dung:
> > His wife and child's death, and the death of Regulus. That's my 
> > premise. 
> 
> SSSusan:
> Sorry -- I wasn't understanding the timing here.  I thought his 
> siding with Regulus occurred *before* the deaths of his wife & 
child. 

Dung:
Oh, I see what you mean. Actually, I could have left it a lot 
vaguer, but thought I'd bash some details together for fun. It's 
only really necessary that Voldy wants to punish Snape and kills his 
wife and child because of the prophecy. But that means Snape should 
have defied Voldy three times, so i put the helping Regulus in 
before the wife and child dying. 

Hang on, I've just found what you wrote:
SSSusan:
"Is it in Snape's character to side with Regulus over Voldy?
Has he already begun to think "It's not worth it" with regard to
being a Voldy supporter? What will have had this effect on Snape?
The prophecy? his wife's pregnancy?"

Dung again:
Right, I think I'm with you now: when Regulus comes to Snape for 
help, or to say goodbye, Snape is already (at least, under this 
theory) defying Voldy by not telling him about his wife and expected 
child. You'd expect him to choose his own child over Voldy, wouldn't 
you? I can understand you being less sure about Regulus.

Look at it this way, Snape's at home, someone bangs on the door, 
it's Reg. He says "Oh my god I don't have time to explain, I need 
some floo powder right now!"
Snape says "What what what? What's up, let me help."
Reg says "No, it's too dangerous, if they even know I came here 
you'll be dead, or worse." (<-hyperbole again)
Snape says "Come off it Reggie, you're hysterical! Tell me, what's 
up?"
Reg says "I'm leaving the Death Eaters. The Dark Lord wants me dead."
Snape says "£*$@!! How far behind you are they?"
Reg says "Close. Just give me some floo powder and say you haven't 
seen me since Monday."

I'm not suggesting that Snape carefully plans something cunning to 
go behind Voldy's back, just that in the heat of the moment, Regulus 
is his friend, and he can't coldy turn him in. Does that make sense? 
In fact, since we know Regulus didn't last more than a few days 
after Voldy declared him persona non grata, it *couldn't* have been 
a complicated and cunning scheme which took months of planning. it 
would have been something small and stupid which a naive young DE 
did in a panic, and which the Dark Lord saw through almost 
immediately.

> > > SSSusan:
> > > Hmmm again.  Is it in Lucius' character to go out on such a 
limb for Snape, even if he did provide the tip-off about July?  I 
> > > can't *quite* imagine it.  
>  
> Dung:
> > You seem to be forgetting that bad people (in this case DEs) 
have friends too. Being a bad person doesn't automatically make you 
a bad or disloyal friend. 
> 
> SSSusan:
> Well, in my defense, I don't think I was making the assumption 
> that "bad guy = bad friend."  I was considering what we know of 
> Lucius himself and thinking of *him* as a bad friend.  In all 
> his "slipperiness," he seems to be one who is pretty determinedly 
out for himself.  
> 

Dung:
Remember Lucius was younger, too. But unless I'm forgetting 
something, I don't think we have any canon for Lucius selling out 
his mates, do we? We have him claiming to have been Imperius'd after 
Voldy fell, but loads of them did that (very sensible too, IMO); and 
we have him using the diary when he thought that Voldy was finished, 
but that's denying Voldemort, not his DE *friends*. Jog my memory, 
would you? Peter screwed over his *friends*.

> 
> Dung:
> > And frankly, with someone like Voldy at the tiller, you need all 
> > the chums you can get amongst the other DEs. You don't want one 
of the ones who doesn't like you to stab you in the back and push 
you in the poo, and have no-one around to help you out. 
> 
> SSSusan:
> Yes, now this I can reconcile with my image of Lucius.  It would 
be about alliances for the sake of self-preservation.  I can see 
that he might see that as quite beneficial.  But still, I would ask 
whether he would actually RISK anything for the sake of one of 
> those "friends" (better read as allies, in my view)?  Perhaps he 
> would, and I'm not being fair to Lucius.

Dung:
Yeah, ok, you can say 'allies' rather than 'friends', but since 
Narcissa uses the word 'friend', forgive me if I'm sticking to that 
<g>. 


> Dung:
<snip>
Lucius is a nasty piece of work, sure enough, one of Voldy's 
followers who was in it for the "more refined forms of torture" IMO, 
but he's not a rat like Peter. He doesn't spit on his chums. He 
didn't leg it from the MoM to safety like Bella did, he stayed with 
the DEs who were under his command, and was captured with them 
(though it's obviously 
> > debateable whether it was just incompetence that got him caught).
> 
> SSSusan:
> Wow.  Am I movie contaminated?  I don't see Lucius as being non-
> ratlike.  Again, I see him as calculating.  HOW can he get out of 
> this mess [the time of Voldy's downfall] while still retaining as 
> much positive as possible? Without ticking off the DEs so much 
that he'd be a target of the most loyal, like Bella?  Without giving 
away to Voldy that he had no interest in going off looking for him?  
> Without going to Azkaban?  I see him as the supreme role-player 
> and "I take care of myself first but without losing position with 
> anyone by virtue of my slipperiness."

Dung:
Perhaps I was being a little hyperbolic in the original post <g>.
It doesn't have to be much of a risk for Lucius to speak out on 
behalf of Snape, all he's really risking is that Voldy tells him to 
shut up, and kills Snape anyway, it just would have taken some guts 
to do. 

I'm not sure that Voldy kills dissenters as a matter of course - he 
puts up with Wormtail when he tried to convince Voldy not to use 
Harry for the rebirthing potion. Snape would be a good investment 
for Lucius (with the benefit of hindsight, I think we can agree that 
Snape turned out to be a capable wizard, and I don't think Lucius is 
too stupid to forsee that), if he doesn't act, or he fails to 
convince Voldy to spare Snape, he's lost a friend or ally; if he 
does manage to convince Voldy to spare Snape, Snape owes him one, or 
he's paid back the one he owes Snape, and cemented their looking out 
for each other thing (why don't you want to call that 'friendship'?)

> > > SSSusan:
> > > I can definitely agree with this possibility of a loyalty test 
of Snape.  And wouldn't it be fascinating if, in the end for Snape, 
that loyalty test of Voldy's turned into a loyalty test of DD's 
as well!  That is, if you & I are right about Snape being DDM and 
about DD "commanding" Snape to do the deed, then killing DD was 
DD's "loyalty test."  How convenient (but how very painful for 
Snape) that killing DD will satisfy *both* loyalty tests in one 
deed.
> 
> Dung:
> > You reckon DD didn't trust Snape?!?
> 
> SSSusan:
> No, I think he *did* trust Snape but that the loyalty test was 
> whether Snape could follow DD's ultimate order -- to kill him.  I 
> think DD wasn't positive that Snape could/would bring himself to 
do that.  So loyalty test in the sense of following this horrible 
order, but not a lack of trust in him.

Dung:
Oh, I see what you mean. Yeah, it ratchets up the angst, doesn't it?

> Dung: 
> > It would give Harry a good example of how it's not only his life 
> > that was ruined by the prophecy, and that there were others in 
the same situation as he and Neville who didn't make it.
> 
> SSSusan:
> Yep.  And it would give Harry a LOT to think about re: Snape... 
> presumably while he looks down upon his DEAD body, with yet one 
more thing to feel guilty about. ;-)
> 

Dung:
Aaaaargh, noooooooooooo! I *really* don't want Snape to die. I could 
live with him getting time in Azkaban for the DD incident (even if 
there were extenuating circumstances, it's still presumably illegal 
in the WW to kill your boss, though helping to bring Voldy down 
might mitigate the sentence a bit), but I *really* don't want him to 
die. It's funny, it's the only real *hope* that I have for book 7. 
All the theories can turn out wrong, Harry can live or die (am I the 
*only* person on the list who really doesn't mind either way?) and I 
won't be too bothered (unless of course the quality of book 7 is 
poor). I just want Snape to survive, that's all. 

Anyway, I'm sure she said somewhere that we shouldn't worry, and 
that Snape can look after himself, so fingers crossed.

Dungrollin