Petunia's Eyes/Snape, Snape, Snape

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 169922

> Ken:
> 
> At the time she gave birth to Tom Riddle, Merope was a Muggle. 
Neither
> I nor the author would be cheating very much to claim that a 
Petunia
> who was so frightened by her first accidental "magical emission" 
that
> she blocked her magical talent forever after "never has and never 
will
> do magic". It is only a slight stretch of the truth and there is 
canon
> precedent for a self induced loss of magical power. It certainly 
would
> be in character for Petunia to do this!

Magpie:
She's never called anything else but a witch. The fact that she was 
not able to do any magic due to her depression does not get her 
called a Muggle by anyone that I remember. I think it would 
absolutely be cheating for JKR to claim that Petunia was a Muggle, 
and that she never has and never would do magic, when what she 
really meant was the she was a witch, frightened by her first 
accidental emission and blocking herself from then on. She obviously 
did do magic if that's what scared her. You can't be a witch until 
you demonstrate doing magic. 

Ken:
> I don't think it is any sense lying to say that a Petunia who shut
> down her magical gift as a child is a Muggle now. She is a Muggle 
now
> and in this scenario she never would have done and can no longer do
> any intentional magic. One could argue semantically whether the
> definition of Muggle legitimately covers such a person, I suppose. 
But
> that is a finer point than I am interested in. 

Magpie:
I think it is lying in a way that JKR claims that she does not do. 
She tries to be careful about the information she gives out, but she 
doesn't lie. We have had the word Muggle defined for us in canon, 
and it does not fit a witch who isn't doing magic, or a witch who is 
depressed and so unable to do magic or afraid to do so that I can 
see. I believe CoS says a muggle is someone with not a drop of 
magical blood in their veins, and that this is what the Dursleys 
(which includes Petunia) are according to the narrator, who in that 
instance does not seem to be in Harry's pov. It's not even the 
word "Muggle" that she seems to be dancing around when I read it. It 
seems more like "Squib" is the thing she thinks reminds her of what 
Petunia really is. 

I guess the CoS thing could be a narrator's joke, as if this is 
Petunia's view of what she is, or what she insists she is, but I see 
little point in this revelation that makes it worth that kind of 
flat-out misinformation for so long (as opposed to Harry's pov that 
his parents died in a car crash, overturned when he learns the 
truth). Why would Harry even care if Petunia was not a Muggle but, 
in fact, she was a some new word for this thing she is--a 
CouldHaveBeenNeverWas? What would that change or matter? (Not that I 
believe it--from everything Petunia says I think she'd have been 
quite happy to be a witch and so impress her parents the way Lily 
did. She seems to resent being passed over for Lily's gift, not fear 
it in herself.)

Ken:
> The thing is that Rowling seems to be dancing around something in 
that
> quote and for now all we can do is guess about what it might be.

Magpie:
I agree. But that's why if I'm trying to figure out or guess what 
she's dancing around it seems logical to start with the facts she's 
giving me instead of doing my own dancing around exactly those 
things. If she says Petunia is a Muggle, that she has never done and 
never will do magic, how would I get anywhere near the answer if I 
don't start with that premise? Why not start with the idea that she 
is not someone who can do magic (and so not a Witch) but that 
perhaps shares other things with Squibs, who have certain 
sensitivities despite not being able to do so? She is a Muggle, 
but... doesn't to me imply "She is a Muggle but really she's a 
witch" or "She's a Muggle but that's only what she calls herself 
because she didn't want to be a witch" or "She's a Muggle but in her 
case only through choice..." Why not something that acknowledges the 
first fact but goes on to explain why she's not like other 
Muggles: "She's a Muggle but has experienced magic" or "She's a 
Muggle but has been given certain magical objects to use..." or 
whatever?

Tandra:
My only question is does that still make her a mudblood(man I hate
that word) 

Magpie:
Err...so why not use the real term, Muggle-born?

Tandra:
I know everyone says she doesn't have magical abilities based on a
quote from JKR, but my question is how old is said quote and what's 
to say things didn't change as she was writing the new book. SHe did
declare that she had killed people that weren't originally slated to
be killed.

Magpie:
So she's lying, if unintentionally so, because Petunia is no longer 
a Muggle like she said before. Though I can't imagine why she would, 
late in the series, decide to throw in this kind of backstory about 
Petunia. Is it going somewhere having to do with Harry?

Alla:

Um, you forget that OFH or LID or Grey Snape exist as theories?
Okay, I hope I refreshed your recollection then <g>

Magpie:
Honestly? I kinda do when I'm looking at canon. *ducks and hides* At 
least for LiD and OFH Snape. (Speaking of shockingly indiscreet, I 
think both of those are just filed in my head under "Plot Device!
Snape" if these are the theories as I understand them--I think that 
for intance, Snape's feeling in Debt to the Potters is an important 
part of his character in canon.) Snape's already Grey in canon 
whichever way he goes.

Alla:

This is what in mind I call Severely Siguine's Snape. I know I said
many times that I consider that theory to be a stroke of genius on
her behalf, but I am going to say it again - Sanguine, if you are
listening, you are a genius.

So, is it a DD!M Snape? Um, for the most part, sure in my opinion,
except for the part where DD does not **order** Snape to kill him,
like at all.

I will be very happy if this theory comes true, really, because it
plays significantly on Snape character flaws that IMO lead to his
downfall. Truly, I will be just as happy as with LID Snape here or
Evil one, because this theory does not **absolve** Snape of
responsibility for murder at all. And that is what I am primarily
concerned with.

Magpie:
I don't want to absolve Snape of the murder either. I don't think he 
can be absolved given the way killing is set out in the books. Even 
if it was the last thing he wanted to do I think he's still taking 
that sin onto himself. 

Alla:
This Snape is indeed trapped into taking a vow, and he does not tell
DD about third provision. Not because he wants to kill DD or
anything, but because Snape never admits his mistakes in canon, he is
too proud and arrogant and hopes to deal with it himself and outsmart
vow. And here we go, Oooops.

Magpie:
As much as I'm fine with the idea that Snape concealed the third 
part of the vow, it's a shame we had no way for sure of realizing 
that Dumbledore didn't know that--and neither did Dumbledore. 
His "Severus, please," whatever it meant (and what did it mean?) was 
totally clueless--he had no way to know what was coming. And it's 
unfortunately splitting hairs as well to have to be told in the next 
book that yes, of course Dumbledore had heard about the UV (he heard 
about it from Harry at the very least) but he didn't know about the 
last part or he thought the Vow was fake. It just seems too 
complicated an explanation of HBP. Not that this means I couldn't be 
wrong--what do I know?

Alla:
The key difference is **of course** that DD does not feel that he
needs to die and his please in Siguine interpretation is that
Severus, please, please do not tell me that my trust in you was
incorrect afterwards.

Magpie:
If "please do not tell me that my trust in you was incorrect 
afterwards" is a factor I'm afraid I can't go along with it. 
Dumbledore has no reason for thinking his trust in Snape was 
incorrect. He trusts in Snape completely last time we checked, and 
now here is Snape just as he wanted. If he doesn't know about this 
third provision he's got even less reason (less than none, which he 
has now imo) for suddenly asking him if his trust was mistaken, and 
his pleading begins as soon as Snape appears. 


Magpie:
Besides which, I think the murder had to in some way be
> an answer to "Severus, please," which indicates something going on
> betten DD and Snape that they both know about.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Answer meaning on DD orders? Then I hope not. Severus, please
certainly has to be explained IMO but I do not think that murder
necessarily has to be an answer to it.

Magpie:
I don't think it has to be the answer either. It just has to be 
*something* where they both know what he's talking about. It doesn't 
necessarily have to be Dumbledore referring to an order to kill him, 
I agree.

-m