sistermagpie | The man who didn't come to dinner

Current Mood: silly

Entry tags:

The man who didn't come to dinner

I had a stray thought today while reading the various theories of Sirius being poisoned, mostly about why I like

Personally, in case anyone's interested, I don't think Sirius was poisoned, nor do I think he was acting reckless when he died. I tend to think that line about the potion is there so that *Harry* can start suspecting Snape of doing some reckless poisoning later, if it's there for any reason at all. Or perhaps the potion will come up later. Heh. It's like fanfic. Everybody knows when Snape introduces a potion in class *somebody* will be accidentally ingesting it by the end of the fic, and it will probably lead to sex somehow.

Anyway, one thing that's been brought up with regards to Snape poisoning someone is his not eating any food at Grimmauld Place--something one might avoid if one knew the food was poisoned. I think again, that would be a little too obvious, like in We Have Always Lived In The Castle when a character is widely considered a murderer because her family was poisoned through the sugar bowl and everyone knows Constance never takes sugar. Regardless, what's interesting is how the topic of Snape's not eating has become an issue.

Technically, I don't think we know he doesn't eat anything at Grimmauld Place, though I suspect he doesn't. I think we're just told he "never stays for dinner." People have said, reasonably, that he doesn't stay for dinner because he doesn't want to socialize with these people any more than he has to. For all we know he's also got a truckload of other responsibilities somewhere. Maybe he's moonlighting at a fast food place in Hogsmeade. We don't know.

But I realized another reason I like the idea of Snape not eating at the place. I'm pretty sure there's a passage in The Count of Monte Cristo, that deals with the hero not eating. Now, I read CoMC (hmm. same initials as Care of Magical Creatures...) in French so for all I know I made up the entire scene through my bad translation and Edmund really refused to remove his galoshes indoors, but I seem to remember that what happened was the Count went to a party at the home of his former fiancé and her husband, one of the conspirators who got him sent to prison for 19 years. Mercedes, his former love, recognizes him as Edmund. She keeps the secret but gets very upset when he refuses an hors d'oeuvre. I mean, seriously upset. She's just frantic that he try her canapé--wtf?

Later it's revealed this is because refusing to eat is a point of honor--you do not accept food in your enemy's house. It appears to be something one could start a duel with if one wanted. Now, it's kind of funny to draw a parallel between Snape and Edmund, since in this story the character most like Edmund would be the guy who spent 13 years in prison for a crime he didn't commit and then broke out. Snape isn't responsible for putting Sirius in prison, though, and Sirius doesn't seem much for archaic traditions. Snape, otoh, I can definitely see holding a Monte Cristo-type grudge and privately vowing never to eat food served in the house of his enemy. Not that anyone would notice--well, other Slytherins might, but they’re not going to be invited to dinner by Molly either.

Snape is, after all, the character in canon who feels bound by a life debt because James Potter was moved to stop a prank by his best friend that never should have happened to begin with--I suspect if there were a fair court of law about such things Snape would be cleared of any life debtedness. Harry, by contrast, appears to feel under no such obligation to Snape for his protection. So if somebody were going to do something like this it would be Snape, imo. I doubt this was the author's intention, but it just seems very Snape to me.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

I don't want to step on anybodies toes or anything but thats one of my pet peeves.
*at least he never tried to kill anyone for no better reason than that they were annoying!*
Ok we see the "He was trying to murder me" angle from Snape but other than that there is no indication ANYWHERE in the canon text that says Sirius wanted Severus dead. There is not much to prove he didn't ether but I think Remus even as spineless as he was back then would not have remained friends with Sirius if he had actually planed murder.

You misunderstand me - I'm not saying that's how it was, I'm saying that's how Snape probably sees it! Myself, I don't think Sirius was planning murder at all, and I don't think Sirius's youthful wrongdoings are at all comparable to whatever Snape may have done as a Death Eater.

I wonder if the mystery conventions come into play as well. For instance, I was thinking about the Polyjuice scene in CoS. In most books about kids a body switch would be used to foster understanding. In The Ogre Downstairs two stepbrothers spend a day in each other's bodies and I remember one really being struck by the experience and coming to understand his brother much more. Stuck inside his stepbrothers mannerisms and voice he saw maybe he was reading him wrong, and also he suddenly understood what it was like to go to school as a person not-widely liked. His stepbrother, iirc, was a lot more likable in his brothers body too.

What's interesting about the polyjuice scene is there's literally nothing like that. Not only do Harry and Ron gain no new understanding or compassion for the Slytherins, or learn about themselves, they also don't get thwapped for what they did. For instance, Harry hears Malfoy's "cruel but accurate" imitation of Colin Creevey--if Colin were there he would have been humiliated. But neither Harry nor Ron hear anything as Crabbe or Goyle that would make them feel stupid. There's no reason for them to think maybe it's not such a good idea to disguise yourself to hear what people say when you're not around.

Now, I assume there's plenty of reasons for not playing the scene that way, especially since it's a mystery. They've only got an hour, etc. So the polyjuice scene is treated as a straightforward fact-finding/eavesdropping spy mission. The boys gather information (Malfoy's not the heir, an he's got Dark Arts in in his living room floor) and then leave. Since it's a mystery, maybe the Slytherins need to be one-note for some reason. But still, there's an interesting clash there between kid's book convention and mystery, where two kids literally step into other boys' shoes and still can't relate to them in any way. And Malfoy in private almost acts like a charicature of how Harry would expect him to act.

Ah ok I see now. Sorry I just get so sick of people saying "Sirius = TEH EVOL because he picked on my favorite character !!11!!"(did I do that right? Net speak is like trying to write in hyroglyphs for me.) and making Snape out to some helpless victim who can do no wrong (which makes me even more mad because to me victimising Snape is an insult to his character.)

Sorry- that phrase came out wrong. What I meant was that the laws of magic seem to have some sort of moral force behind them. Not always a positive one- the Unforgivable Curses are apparently addictive, or at least encourage a mindset in which it becomes easier and easier to cast them effectively. On the other hand, Lily's sacrifice reinforces the idea of maternal sacrifice by the ensuing magical protection that Harry gains. Even seen in purely evolutionary terms, these are very powerful reinforcements of behaviour. However, the fact that they don't benefit the "good" characters so much as the grey areas suggests that they're ways of nudging people in the right direction. JK is a Christian; that sort of worldview certainly supports this idea, of fallen people being pushed in the right direction, whilst the truly virtuous people just get to be virtuous, and that's their own reward.

Also, I'll admit that I think Sirius attempting to kill Snape wasn't premeditated murder. It was a bloody stupid thing to do, but this is a bloke who is portrayed as rash throughout the books, and has been happily running about with the werewolf without any problems. Now, that suggests to me something along the lines of Sirius getting drunk, Snape sneaking around and getting caught, and Sirius thinking, "Well, if he wants to know that much, then why doesn't he go look?" It's the same situation as Dudley and the ten-tonne toffee- the Weasleys are from a culture where it can be rectified in seconds, and they know Dudley's immensely greedy.

Now technically, Dudley owes Mr Weasley a life debt...

Of course, at 15 it seems that Snape would be too young to know what he was getting himself in to. Certainly he's bloody stupid in trying to sneak past a violent tree on a full moon on the suggestion of his worst enemy... In fact, more stupid than I'd expect of a fifteen-year old. And bear in mind this is a culture where you can put a kid on a broomstick at 12 years old, and in a violent competition with a very real chance of death, not to mention allowing a boy of 11 to disappear down two seperate secret passageways to duel the Dark Lord. (You'll never convince me that Dumbledore wasn't aware all along, just to make sure that Harry was up for it). So the idea that Snape could've deserved, if not death, then a bloody big shock and lycanthropy doesn't surprise me much. It's a callous world, and if life debts help people to realise that they all need to depend on each other more, I'm not going to condemn them.

It somehow seems like almost dying during a hazing stunt and then having to pay dues to the fraternity the rest of your life because after all, it was one of the frat brothers who called 911.

What a fantastic description!! It makes me wonder if Dumbledore is exaggerating that whole life debt thing as a means of control/manipulation. Might Snape have gotten past his bitter feelings and moved on with his life were it not for the regular dues notice?

It would also serve Dumbledore's purposes for Harry to think there was more to the life debt thing than there actually was if you think, as I do, that we often create our own reality based on our attitudes and expectations. And Harry is a powerful wizard.

Another thing that gives me pause is that we may not (probably don't) know everything there is to know about what happened with regard to the prank. When (if) all is revealed, it may appear more different and complex than James simply finding out what Sirius was up to and stepping in to spare Snape.

As for Harry and mercy, is "sparing" Peter really mercy when it takes the form of "no, let's not kill him ourselves, let the Dementors do the job instead"?

I always got the impression that scene was more about Harry overcoming his rage and desire for vengeance and getting back in touch with what he believed to be right than anything about Peter. In fact, he says his reasoning is he reckons his father wouldn't want his best friends to be murderers. I don't think sparing Peter, or showing him mercy, was a factor at all.

I must admit though, I'm a tad...suspicious of Dumbledore and his prattle about life debts (as I said in another post below). It seems like an awfully good opportunity for Dumbledore to control and manipulate. I'm not saying that life debts don't exist--I'm just not convinced they work the way Dumbledore says they do.

I can't help thinking that Severus, verbally unpleasant though he may be, hasn't really got the heart to do anything physical towards even his deadliest foes for no justifiable reason any more.

Hmmm. I agree with you, but I wonder if it's not so much that he doesn't have the heart, as he knows how badly any sort of phsyical display would be interpreted/received by Dumbledore and/or anyone else aware of his past history. I've always thought it rather significant that, for all his verbal/emotional abuse of Neville and Harry, and his hatred of Remus and Sirius, the only time he ever does anything physical to any of them in present-day canon* is the incident with Harry and the pensieve, when he was in an extreme rage.

I mean, I can *so* see Snape gleefully using Umbridge's pen with both Harry and Neville if he thought he could get away with it, you know? Or Filch's 'Old Punishments.'

*Excepting the Shrieking Shack scene, of course, but Snape thought Sirius was an escaped murderer and Remus his accomplice at the time...

That's the way I always think of the scene too, that Harry is pulling himself away from his own abyss. Of course he wouldn't be particularly saddened to think of something happening to Peter, but he won't be part of it.

It's only from the perspective of "life debts and how they work" that it suddenly starts to seem like here's Dumbledore suddenly come in to attach this kind of meaning to it.

In general, I agree with the various comments in this discussion about life debts, and how they seem to be handed out randomly or horribly. However, I think you may be seriously shortchanging James here. If we believe Remus that James had no part in the planning, then it automatically separates him from the frat boy example. Because we don't know the details, he may have had to come pretty close to were!Remus himself, and since Snape apparently still does know about the animagus forms, he did so in human form (though he could have changed back at the last minute). This is, in my book, reasonably heroic, somewhat lessened by the fact that I firmly believe James was acting to save Sirius and Remus's skins, plus a vague sense that it was just what you *did.* IOW, he wasn't saving Snape at all, he was saving his friends and the Slimeball in Distress.

OTOH, James may have been snickering about it with Sirius all afternoon, suddenly realized that Remus could kill him and thus be put down and get Sirius expelled, and so jumped into the tree, trotted as a stag till he saw Snape at a distance, changed to human, and hollered, "Oy, Snape! Come back! You shouldn't go down there!" Of course, if this is the case, then Snape was presumably far enough from were!Remus that he could have figured it out himself, and James didn't save his life at all.

I'm now rather curious about what a life-debt is at all. I think Dumbledore refers to it as a bond, doesn't he? But Snape--James and Peter--Harry sure don't *seem* like they have any sort of bond, so perhaps it only manifests itself in certain circumstances. If that's the case, then perhaps what we see as the book's appalling morality regarding sparing/saving lives is purely *Dumbledore's* appaling morality. Perhaps all the noted people who've saved each others lives or actively failed to kill each other do, in fact, owe each other life debts, but don't really notice unless they're in those circumstances or Dumbledore points it out to them.

I do keep waiting for more information on that Prank. There just seems like so many unknowns and factors that could have come into play. Today, for instance, I was thinking about how according to Remus Dumbledore didn't know Sirius was an animagus, so presumably their putting people in danger running around ws never found out. This is what Snape was spying on. Now, obviously it's not like Snape was trying to do the right thing or protect others by spying on the Marauders--he was just trying to get them in trouble. But had he told on them, that wouldn't really have been a bad thing. He'd be tattling, sure, but also exposing a very dangerous thing going on that would have hurt people.

So apparently the Marauders got away with all of it and continued to lie to Dumbledore even in the face of this possible tragedy. Dumbledore appears to know all about the Prank, but didn't know about them being animaguses (or pretended not to) so what did he think was going on? Did the Marauders lie and pretend Snape they never went to the Sneaking Shack themselves and Snape only wanted to know what was in there? Because *they* could hardly have gone into the shack and not be killed if they weren't animaguses. Did Dumbledore just not ask any questions so he wouldn't have to punish the Marauders?

I guess it doesn't matter from the pov of the prank whether they were animaguses or not--Sirius could just as easily have tempted Snape into the shack whether or not he himself ever went there. But did Dumbledore not consider anything Snape might have said enough to make him question MWPP? Did James do possibly the worst thing in the Gryffindor code--accept praise for heroics he didn't really deserve by not telling anyone that he actually went to the Shrieking Shack a lot and hung out with Wolf!Remus there because he wasn't in danger from him as an animagus?

Those are all definite possibilities and good points--I was really trying to figure that out in the above post as well. It would be *very* interesting to know just what heroic measures James went to, considering Snape just needed to be prevented from doing something he himself did all the time.

Although you're right that James may not have even known about the Prank until he moved to stop it (was it a surprise present for him? I mean, eventually he was in on it, obviously, so did he make a split decision to go after him? It seems like if he had to go after him he must have gone along with the prank for at least a bit--unless James came running up late because he was out with Lily or something, heard what Sirius was doing and then ran right in after Snape) I think from Snape might find it very hard to separate James from Sirius. James can't be responsible for a Prank he didn't know about until he decided to stop it. But at the same from the pov of Snape owing a life debt to this guy for it, it still seems rather unfair because while James wasn't involved in this Prank he was a leader in the general attacking of Snape.

Perhaps a better hypothetical example would be a nearer one: Harry is tricked into going down a tunnel, at the end of which is a werewolf that will kill him or turn him into a werewolf. At the last minute Malfoy appears and calls'drags Harry out of the tunnel. He's just now found out that Crabbe has put together this prank--presumably with the idea that it will please Draco because he hates Harry. But Draco stops the Prank because he has reasons to think this will cause them trouble--they'll get expelled, Snape will get fired, he thinks it will make things worse for his father, he just gets scared. Whatever selfish or unselfish reason, it's Malfoy who calls Harry out and saves him. Malfoy wouldn't be responsible for the prank, but Harry's owing a debt to him would be particularly galling because, among other things, Malfoy is as responsible as one can get without actually doing the Prank. I mean, he started the pattern of teasing Harry and encouraged his friends to do stuff to Harry. That, perhaps, is a better example and I can't imagine Harry taking kindly to *that* being his life debt.

It would be interesting to think of Dumbledore as simply trying to manipulate people by calling certain things life debts while letting others slide. It would certainly be IC for him!

It's like Dumbledore says in PS, I think, that Snape has always disliked Harry, but he never wanted him dead. Clearly Snape is capable of great violence because he was a DE, but there are plenty of situations where he can be angry without wanting to kill anyone.

Of course, the thing with Sirius was when they were kids, which could also be a factor. He may still remember it as he was back then, when it was more about Sirius being able to do anything and still have everybody think it was sort of cute. So it's not necessarily about murder but humiliation, and the way Snape wasn't important enough to make that much of a fuss over.

We're in complete agreement there - I love Snape and Sirius both, but absolutely loathe victim!Snape and evil!Sirius.

You're right, it's all sorts of genre conventions clashing because JKR is drawing on so many different things. I find it very interesting what you say about body switches in children's lit - I don't have any recollection of that sort of thing myself. I like the idea that it has next to no meaning in HP due to mystery conventions - it's so frustrating that JKR's characters never seem to be able to relate to *anyone* who isn't them - and that this isn't seen as desirable either, so it would be nice if there were a solid genre-based reason for it.

Ah, now I see what you mean. I like the idea that the laws of magic are nudging people in the right direction, and I hope that in the end this will be how it turns out in the books.

Incidentally, I agree with you on Sirius, and "bloody stupid" is exactly the way to describe that "prank". Everyone involved was just incredibly lucky that it didn't turn out worse.

It's a callous world, and if life debts help people to realise that they all need to depend on each other more, I'm not going to condemn them.

Agreed on the callousness, but I'm not sure the life debt really helps people that way - certainly in the case of Snape it only led to more resentment?

Yes, that's what I meant - it's not really about Peter (or Snape) at all. They don't really seem to matter, which is why I was so surprised to find the concept of mercy brought up.

And with Dumbledore, I still think that JKR wants us to take him at face value, no matter how manipulative he might seem to me.

Even the 'saintly' Lupin gets irritated in PoA.

one of the thing that bothers me about OoTP is that with all the magic we've already seen NO ONE seemed to know a way to make Sirius useful, or just aleviate his stress. They just let him rot away in that house and in some cases even contributed to the problem.

In various discussions recently, we've talked about how the wizarding world takes an astonishingly low view on emotional trauma. That is, they basically deny that it exists or else blame the victim. I think it's really interesting because so much magic is directly related to emotions and/or the psyche -- dementors and patronuses, boggart defense, Occlumency, spells to control people or alter memories -- yet we get the impression that psychology is a completely foreign concept to them. Certainly people have made observations here and there, but apparently no in-depth studies of the question, or if they did they were ignored.

And if Snape and Lupin agree about something it must be pretty bad, right?

Yes, it is funny how he's been "watching Harry closer than he can imagine" (and did no one else get a sort of looking-at-you-through-the-bathroom-window vibe when Albus said that?)

Well, NOW I do! Thanks a lot! ;)

(in any case I really should stop reading these post because they are inspiring a plot bunny where Snape is drugging Sirius for sex, and Sirius' behavior is an after affect of the drug....)

Yes, you should stop reading and start writing this bunny!

--A Snape/Black OTPer

Now, obviously it's not like Snape was trying to do the right thing or protect others by spying on the Marauders--he was just trying to get them in trouble. But had he told on them, that wouldn't really have been a bad thing. He'd be tattling, sure, but also exposing a very dangerous thing going on that would have hurt people.

I suppose in the HP universe it would be a bad thing - the worst offense possible seems to be to talk to an authority figure. See Hermione and the Firebolt - anyone with half a brain should be able to see that it was a sensible thing to have the broom checked out, but to Harry and Ron it's something that needs to be *forgiven*, as if it hadn't been in Harry's best interest in the first place... *stops run-on sentence*

And as for the Shack - most of us seem to agree that Sirius wasn't trying to kill Snape, but what about Snape himself? I just had the thought that he'd probably prefer to think he was set up to be killed, because the alternative would be that he was set up to be humiliated - and that would be *worse*, not just because it worked...

I love recasting canon situations with reversed roles - it makes us see them so much clearer. And I do believe that for Snape, the worst thing about the "prank" was exactly that he ended up owing a Life Debt to James, of all people!

James may have been snickering about it with Sirius all afternoon, suddenly realized that Remus could kill him and thus be put down and get Sirius expelled.

Yes, that seems far nearer the mark than 'James realises the sanctity of human life and that Snape's life, while being less worthy, since it's that of a creepy Slytherin; is still of a value. Perhaps the redemptive powers of Lily's love transformed him.'

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 2 of 6

The man who didn't come to dinner

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

I continue to obsess over the prank...

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Re: I continue to obsess over the prank...

no subject

no subject