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

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Re-posting to make thoughts more coherent:

unless the rule is "it only matters if you're saved by a Gryffindor"...

Seems that way, dunnit? But I think there's also other things the two life debt cases have in common. Who was Peter being "saved" from but Harry himself, in a way, since Harry had reason to *want* Peter dead and also had the power to stop it? Who was Snape being "saved" from but James' best friend and partner in pranks Sirius-same idea. Peter and Snape weren't saved, they were *spared.* It seems to me like a different code of honor that very much assumes that Harry and James were being particularly gracious because Peter and Snape deserved to be killed, Peter for betraying Harry's parents and Snape for poking his nose where it didn't belong and trying to get MWPP in trouble.

That's a pretty old-school moral system there, I think. Snape, by contrast, is actively working to protect Harry from threat. However, if Snape had towered angrily over Harry after the Pensieve scene and then shown mercy as Harry and James did, I can't imagine that being seen in the same light and Harry given a life debt because of it. It really feel like there does have to be some feeling that the victim has earned their death in order to be spared, and perhaps it's the narrative voice that makes that choice. I might not say that in another series, but it could be true here. It's a little barbaric, imo, and not completely out of place. It seems like there's a hint that James and Harry would have been justified in not acting.

And you're right about Sirius seeming more reckless pre-Christmas. I feel like characterwise one might say that this is because after Xmas he falls into despair. In the beginning he's still lively so wanting to try to join in with things maybe, so he takes a risk at the station, envies Harry his fight with Dementors, begs Harry to go to Hogsmeade. Hermione-the-Queen-of-Exposition suggests that Sirius was hoping Harry would be expelled so he'd get to stay with him. I wonder if Sirius came to the conclusion on his own that Harry would never be any way close to him like James was, that he really had no one, and so after Christmas just accepted his fate.

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

Please remember though- that it is Remus saying that to Harry, anbout how Harry's dad saved Severus, and the tone of the voice that is used. It is clear from word choices and tone that Sirius and Remus would not have felt a bit of guilt about Severus dying as much as they would felt about being expelled from school.

On the other hand, looks how the events of how Voldemort was cominbg after the Potters played out. Dumbledore did not trust Sirius to be an effective secret keeper- and with good reason. I don't think that Dumbledore trusted Sirius that much, and i bet that whole incident taught Dumbledore a bit about Sirius recklessness and foolishness.

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

I might not say that in another series, but it could be true here. It's a little barbaric, imo, and not completely out of place. It seems like there's a hint that James and Harry would have been justified in not acting.

I just had to reiterate, again, that it is Remus and Sirius saying this to Harry. Harry is inherently warm and gentle-souled; he would have wanted Peter to see true justice, and not vengence, which is what Remus and Sirius were about to do.

And again, Severus did not earn Remus' respect that year, and he never has it from Sirius. These are people who werre golden boys, and their lives has takebn a terrible turn. There is real disrespect and resentment on the fact that the greasy little boy that they used to make fun of now has a better life, and proven to be useful.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I do agree with both these points--and actually, I just want to throw out that one of the things that's so impressive about Harry in that scene is the way he handles it is incredibly sophisticated. (Perhaps too sophisticated to be realistic, but it works.) I mean, the way he handles the incident with Remus and Sirius is quite amazing, when you think about it, because he's able to frame things in a way that avoids really unpleasant issues and appeals to their better natures.