The man who didn't come to dinner

[sistermagpie]

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.

Comments

[the-gentleman.livejournal.com]

Hmm. I'm not entirely sure that Snape saving Harry's life is cause for a life debt. I think that in the two examples we have, James saving Snape and Harry saving Peter, we have two people who are under no obligation whatsoever to save the other person's life. Snape saving Harry, however, is part of Snape's job as a Hogwarts teacher- they're obliged to act as guardians for the students in their care. Sure, Snape is rather blase when it comes to dangerous potions, but I don't think that he sees saving Harry's life as anything more than another annoying part of his distasteful job.

[trobadora]

two people who are under no obligation whatsoever to save the other person's life

It's also two people who stop themselves from being an accessory to murder, and not allowing murder to go on in front of your very eyes if you can stop it seems like the basic obligation of any human being to me. So James stops Remus from killing Snape, Harry prevents Peter being killed in the Shack, and Snape prevents Harry from falling to his death when Quirrelmort hexes his broom. All three seem to me simply what any decent person would do, and if a debt is owed for one surely it should also be owed for the other.

[the-gentleman.livejournal.com]

Well yes, but that's the thing about HP- it doesn't operate in a perfect world, where people do things out of the goodness of their hearts. It's a world where the laws of magic apparently reinforce moral benefits- and I think that's similar in the two cases we have. Before the Shrieking Shack incident, James is a complete tosser. Afterwards.... sure, he's not perfect, but he seems to reform enough to let Lily marry him. Harry was all for killing Sirius when he thought that he was the Secret Keeper, but afterwards he seemed a little more able to have mercy- only to lose it again when he tries to cast the Cruciatus Curse on Bellatrix but, hey, he's still learning. Snape, though, is somebody who has already learnt to do the right thing even when it costs a lot, and I think he knows, however grudgingly, that good deeds are their own rewards. He doesn't need Harry in his debt to save him, and that makes his deeds virtuous in their own right.

[trobadora]

It's a world where the laws of magic apparently reinforce moral benefits

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. Could you explain it a bit more?

I agree with you on Snape, but with James we know so little of him that I find it difficult to say whether the Shrieking Shack incident really had any effect on him, or if he just grew up a little. 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"? Not that that isn't an important moral choice, too - lawful punishment instead of lynching -, but mercy? Not so much.

[the-gentleman.livejournal.com]

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.

[trobadora]

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?

[the-gentleman.livejournal.com]

Well, the life debt wasn't there to help out Snape, because fate had another way of redeeming Snape up its sleeve, in the form of joining the Death Eaters and realising what a stupid lark that was. So yeah, it may have racked up more resentment, but fate seems to have a bloody quirky sense of humour when it comes to making people do their tasks.

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

o the idea that Snape could've deserved, if not death, then a bloody big shock and lycanthropy doesn't surprise me much.

By that same reasoning, Harry *deserved* to have a great big shock (Sirius' death) happen to him for *his* nosiness and refusal to go to adults for help.

[the-gentleman.livejournal.com]

Well, considering that Sirius has failed entirely to learn from his mistakes, and cheated death for three years, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if fate caught up with him. In either case, it's a classic case of the world being entirely unfair because hey, no man's an island. And yes. Harry was bloody stupid and deserved what he got, and Sirius did sod all to prevent it.

No, I'm not feeling particularly gracious today.

[millefiori.livejournal.com]

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.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

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.

[trobadora]

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.

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

Snape saving Harry, however, is part of Snape's job as a Hogwarts teacher- they're obliged to act as guardians for the students in their care.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for this. It really does seem to be something that many a fan has forgotten- as mean and cruel as Snape can be, his responsibility is for the over all safety of the students.