That Bloody Man Again WAS Re: The curious incident of the Felix Felicis

[bluesqueak]

Nora wrote:
> I don't think Oscar!Winner Snape is completely and utterly 
> canonical either, mind you.  It's partially because I distrust any 
> theory which can explain everything (such as psychoanalysis)--it 
> becomes meaningless.  Snape is acting when you need him to be and 
> then telling the truth also when you need him to be, so it 
> explains every facet of behavior in all circumstances.

Pip!Squeaks:
No, Freudian psychology does not have a scientific basis. It isn't 
disprovable. On the other hand, when and where Snape is acting 
*should* be disprovable - though I admit it's going to be a heck of 
a lot handier when we get Book 7 in our hot little hands.

For example, if Snape had said that he didn't know about Harry's 
blood being used in advance, and then Dumbledore had also said that, 
I would take it as read that the MD potion idea was a bust. 
Corroborating evidence, you see. It's when there's no corroborating 
evidence that I suggest things could be taken either way.

But, for example, the corroborating evidence from several other 
people is that Snape probably does dislike Harry, but doesn't 
actually want him dead  - and the evidence of Snape's *actions* 
supports that.

Of course, Snape does give a perfectly plausible reason for that. 
And Snape claims to be supporting Voldemort, and with the death of 
Dumbledore he's certainly more than talking a good talk... except - 
why didn't he take advantage of the confused situation and strike 
the Order with a few more killer blows? He doesn't seem to aim any 
jinx or curse at *anyone* on the side he's supposedly not on. 
Instead he pulls the DE's out, immediately. 

And then he calls off the DE Crucio'ing Harry Potter...


> Nora:
> Now, if you go and re-read some things and take the *genuinely* 
> subversive approach of reading them straightforwardly, some things 
> fall into line and concept of Character that don't require so much 
> artifice to be strapped onto the text, at least at the present.  
> Maybe we've all been really overreading Snape all of these years, 
> assuming as matter of course that there *must* be so much more to 
> it than a petty little grudge against a schooldays nemesis.  Maybe 
> that's the base of it all, and the story is not "good but not 
> nice" but rather "consumed by the past."

Pip!Squeak:
On the other hand, that reading ignores the straightforward reading 
that - Snape is a bloody liar. This is not a subversive reading, but 
one supported by the text. Yes, certainly, Snape could be a man 
obsessed by a childhood bully. Certainly he could be so petty as to 
transfer this grudge to the bully's son. Certainly he could be a DE 
to the core, but none of this changes the fact that, since GoF, 
possibly even from PoA, JKR has carefully established that: Snape. 
Is. A. Darn. Liar.

He's a liar. That's the straightforward character reading. The only 
question is - *when* is he lying?

If you decide WYSIWYG with Snape, you are actually going against the 
text. That is not the straightforward, simple reading. The 
straightforward, simple reading is that - after six books - we have 
no idea what's going on in this man's head. We have no idea why he 
does what he does. We don't know what side he's on. We don't know 
whether he's good, evil, or (going by the imagery in HBP Chapter 2, 
and the Hanged Man symbolism) the person balanced between good and 
evil, a mixture of both light and dark.

What we do know is - he's a bloody liar. Oh, and his dad was a 
muggle called Tobias Snape, and his mum was called Eileen Prince, 
and he lives in a mill town. There, wasn't that worth waiting six 
books for? {vbg}


> Nora:
> Snape gets a book title to himself; so did Sirius.  It was 
> probably bound to happen eventually...
> 

True. Sirius got a book title to himself. Oh, and a major role in 
the next two books... But, unlike Sirius, Snape hovers in the 
background of every single book. 

Also, it depends which type of plot JKR is doing. If it's the 
circular type (suggested by Harry's decision to go back to Godric's 
Hollow, where it all started), then Book 7 should take Harry back to 
Book 1. Godric's Hollow. The real meaning of the Philosopher's 
Stone. And Snape, as the apparent villain.

Or is he the real one, this time round?

Pip!Squeak

"Where do you think I would have been all these years, if I had not 
known how to act?" - Severus Snape