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]

So sorry I had to repost the damn thing again because I had left in a paragraph twice and it bothered me so much after all that re-posting I did it again. *smacks forhead* So it's below this comment. Hate it when I do that.

The Snape issue is very interesting because to me it seems like what Snape suffers under the life debt is that he needs to be more active about protecting Harry and so have more to do with him. But I think when it comes to protecting him from death that's just something he would do anyway.

I wonder if the attack on Arthur was a wake-up call in any number of ways. It could very well be.

[trobadora]

I think half the reason why Snape is so awful to Harry at times is that he's forced to protect the boy, and not only does Harry not appreciate it - he actively seems to do as much as he can to make it more difficult! Snape is trying to guard the boy, and what does that idiot do? Sneak about at all times in that wretched Invisibility Cloak and get himself into *more* danger... Anyone trying to protect Harry would end up rather frustrated pretty soon, I'd say.

[slinkhard.livejournal.com]

Even the 'saintly' Lupin gets irritated in PoA.

[trobadora]

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

[neotoma.livejournal.com]

The other half the reason that Snape is so awful is that he's *right* about Harry sneaking out and misbehaving, yet can't *prove* it or punish Harry effectively. After all, Dumbledore, McGonagall, or some other fool wanders up and gives Harry a reward for whatever idiocy he's done that day...

[trobadora]

You're so right about Harry being rewarded for his idiocy... Even when Snape *can* prove his misbehaviour, Dumbledore & Co. sweep it all under the rug. (See CoS and the flying car, to mention only the most publicly visible instance.) And for Snape, this is probably exactly the same thing that happened with the Marauders - no matter how outrageous their behaviour, they always get away with it.

[the-gentleman.livejournal.com]

But then, it's a wartime situation. It grates entirely, but as with the current war on terrorism, the people on the front line of intelligence are the ones who can't tout their own successes. With the current generation, I think he realises that most of the time, he has to put up with it or quit, but with the Marauders, there was really no reason to, whatsoever. Of course, I don't think Snape was above the same tricks the Marauders got up to, but the "He started it" excuse never worked with my teachers, and I doubt it did with theirs. So whilst Snape complained about the Marauders always getting away with things, this is a kid who apparently was a dab hand with dark magic when he entered the school, and wasn't afraid to use them. And with an anti-Dark magic headmaster in power, I think it's going to be Snape who gets the worst of it, not the semi-reformed Black.

[trobadora]

Good point about the difference between the two generations - there's really a much better reason for making exceptions for Harry than there ever was for any of the Marauders. Or there would be, if I weren't completely convinced that most of this special treatment is counter-productive in the long term.

And as for the "Dark Arts" - I wish that were more than just a nifty expression to label someone as "evil"! Whatever they may be, there must be more to it than "he uses them because he's evil, and he's evil because he uses them", which is about all we have at this point.

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

I agree. Additionally, we know he knew a lot of curses when he entered and was "very interested in the Dark Arts." We see him shooting down flies, though we don't know exactly what that means. But when he's ambushed, he's *completely* outmatched. All he manages to do is a quick slash across the face. I don't disagree that he practiced them, or that he did some nasty stuff to his classmates, but I really can't take his big, bad, Dark Arts-practitioner reputation quite at face value.

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

this is a kid who apparently was a dab hand with dark magic when he entered the school, and wasn't afraid to use them.

But is that what we? JKR will reveal more, I think, but given that we see Snape being bullied by these people as children- a gang of four-sudeenly Sirius assertion of Snape being "Mr. Dark Arts" takes on the ring of Snape being a Star Trek Fanatic. In other words, a dork.

[the-gentleman.livejournal.com]

I really don't see it as that sort of situation. Snape is an ill-adapted kid, yes, but just because he's outnumbered that time, doesn't mean he always was. Sirius refers to Snape running around with the Lestranges, Avery, Wilkes and so on and so forth, in terms of a gang. And Snape was described as up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts. Now, maybe you can make a case for Snape being on par with the alternative, gothy crowd in school, but he's not anywhere near the stereotype of a Trekkie or a sci-fi fan- I was one at his age, and all of us would rather have avoided a fight than follow the school bullies around and pull a knife on them if they had first. Because Snape does go for his wand, and he does cast a spell that slashes up James's face, spilling blood. Snape isn't nice, he was never nice, and the Dark Arts aren't the equivalent of watching geeky tv shows.

[dphearson.livejournal.com]

and all of us would rather have avoided a fight than follow the school bullies around and pull a knife on them if they had first. Because Snape does go for his wand, and he does cast a spell that slashes up James's face, spilling blood.

Actually, it's the opposite. The bullies start a fight by hanging the boy upside down. Slashing up a face seems to be a nice balance, but not a portent of Dark arts ability.

And what Sirius says and what we are shown are two different things. I would describe James et al as a gang; Sirius tellingly does not. Remus himself says, when pressed by Harry, that James and Sirius were fond of hexing people- well, just because they could hex people.

Peopel who bully use any old excuse- and in the case of Sirius, they will use any old exaggeration.