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

[bluesqueak]

> > Pip!Squeak:
> > But I don't think you are taking his actions as primary, Nora. I 
> > think you are taking his *words* as primary. That is, you are 
> > being influenced by his (mainly) verbal treatment of Harry and 
> > possibly also by his actions being filtered through Harry's pov.
>
Nora: 
> There are any number of cases where, however, words *are* 
> actions.  Words are the treatment in the classroom, after all--and 
> I think those words are indicative of character.  In the Shrieking 
> Shack, it is an undoubted action that Snape takes Black and the 
> children back to the castle.  But it's also the case that before 
> then, he was verbally taunting and turning the screws--and that's 
> an action as well.  As is his behavior with Fudge ("only hope DD  
> isn't going to interfere").

Pip!Squeak:
Hmmm... you see, here is where I'd argue you are actually walking 
away from the FAITH viewpoint. Because you're picking and choosing 
which bits of canon you prefer according to whether it fits your 
theories about Snape. Welcome to theorising {g}.

Having been told in canon that Snape is a spy, ('who tells naught 
but lies'), and an actor, you then choose to treat his words as more 
reliable actions than his physical actions. That's not FAITH. 
Because you've been told in canon several times, Snape's words are 
not reliable indicators. He's a spy (you've been told). He's an 
actor (you've been told). But you prefer the view of Snape you get 
from his words, so you select his words-as-actions as reliable 
evidence over his physical-actions. Despite canon having warned you 
against this.

You have to cross check both. And cross check against other 
characters viewpoints, as well. The point I was trying to make in my 
last post was that Snape's physical actions point to a rather 
different man than the verbal actions do. Add that to the canon 
information that he's a spy, actor, and bloody good liar, and you 
might consider his physical actions the more reliable information.

Or you might not. But if not, please could you point to the 
supporting evidence that Snape's words display his character?

> Nora:
> The Harry's POV argument is useful, but dangerous as well.  It 
> gets used as a way to mitigate anything and everything, but it's a 
> little bit like Snape being an actor: it gets used when 
> convenient, and not when it's not.

Pip!Squeak:
Um. Did you notice that the description of Snape in Chapter 2 HBP 
(narrator pov) is subtly different from the description of Snape in 
Harry's pov? He has long black hair, parted in curtains around a 
sallow face and black eyes. No greasy hair, no 'cold' black eyes. He 
doesn't 'smirk', though he does have a slighly mocking 
smile. 'Sardonic' gets used as well, which I don't remember Harry 
using.

So there's a stylistic difference between narrator pov description 
and Harry pov description.

Incidentally, the argument that my using 'Harry's pov' and 'Snape as 
actor' is using non-disprovable arguments is in itself non-
disprovable - in the way that you are currently using it. It's a 
little annoying to be constantly told I'm using a 'convenient' 
argument when I'm trying to give supporting evidence all the time.



> Pip!Squeak:
> > And also, while Dumbledore is undoubtedly more than slightly 
> > dead, Snape's actions to date seem a little more damaging to the 
> > DE's than to the OOP. He tried to stop Quirrel getting the stone 
> > (actions). He showed his Dark Mark (without any orders from 
> > Dumbledore) to Fudge (action). He, according to Dumbledore, was 
> > the one who deduced Harry and Co. had gone to the MoM, and sent 
> > the Order after them - which resulted in Voldemort losing 
> > several minions to Azkaban, including Malfoy (probably an 
> > action - it's reported second hand).
> > 
> > His hit rate for Voldemort, otoh, appears to be: he killed 
> > Dumbledore. Admittedly, that's one heck of a hit - but 
> > everything else he's done for Voldemort is a verbal assertion.
 
> Nora:
> I'd say that despite your list, we have remarkably little 
> information of what has been done concretely for the Order, post-
> return to Voldemort.  I have one potential theory in mind that 
> it's the return to an active position that has changed 
> everything.  Pre-resurrection, Snape fights the good fight because 
> it keeps him where he wants to be.  Post-resurrection, with the  
> boss back and badder than ever...hedging his bets, perhaps?

Pip!Squeak:
And again, you are picking and choosing your evidence. I take a 
through line with the character through the entire series, and you 
reply 'oh, that doesn't count, because *I* only want to consider the 
last two books'.

Incidentally, my concrete evidence did include the last two books. 
What was done concretely for the Order in OOP? According to 
Dumbledore, 'he [Snape] informed the Order as soon as possible about 
what you had said. It was he who deduced where you had gone when you 
did not return from the Forest...' OOP Ch.37 p734 British hardback.

That deduction resulted directly in the Order's Heavy Mob being sent 
to the Ministry. And in HBP Ch. 2, Snape cheerfully (well, 
delicately) describes the DE side of the battle of the Ministry as 
a 'fiasco'.

Of course, he might be lying when he says that {g}. And actually, 
you can show that he is: his own contribution to ensuring it *was* a 
fiasco is something he *definitely* doesn't mention to Bella.


<snip>
Pip!Squeak:
> > One final point. His last action is not the killing of 
> > Dumbledore. His last seen actions (before he gets attacked by 
> > Buckbeak) are to *not* fight back against Harry, to stop another 
> > DE crucio'ing him and even to say some things that sound like 
> > lessons - 'blocked again, and again, and again, until you learn 
> > to keep your mouth shut and your mind closed' - this when he's 
> > fleeing Hogwarts. He also tries successfully to get Draco out of 
> Hogwarts.

Nora:
> Bellatrix offers Harry instruction in how to better perform the 
> Cruciatus Curse, and I don't see anyone making that argument that 
> she's teaching out of the goodness of her heart. :)
> 

Pip!Squeak:
True. However, I note that Bellatrix is busily trying to Crucio 
Harry back at the time (along with aiming some other spells that 
blow bits off statues). Actions versus words. Snape's physical 
actions support that he's trying *not* to hurt Harry. Bellatrix's 
physical actions support that she *is*. Hence my argument that one 
is teaching, the other is not - there's supporting evidence. 

Pip!Squeak

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