![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
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.
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.
From:
no subject
Pretty sickening, isn't it? Not so much with Peter, but with 15-year-old Snape... no matter what he might have done to annoy the Marauders, to say he "deserved" death (which does seem to be implied) is completely out of proportion. The more I think about these books' moral code, the more nauseating I find it - and the more I hope that I'm misreading things and it's not really as dire as it looks...
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
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.
Oh yes. Especially since JKR comes very close to what you described: they met Percy and Penelope, the former someone who they're familiar, with who greets them as hostile strangers (and of course, there's the whole body issue - people would likely be more intimidated by Crabbe and Goyle, who appear much more hostile and unfriendly, never mind their house and friend which can't make them popular); the latter who's offended at the assumption she's in Slytherin.
And of course, they hear insults aimed at them, but even for Draco, they're fairly benign - lacking 'proper wizarding feeling' isn't a negative for them, and 'Saint Potter' is almost a compliment!
Nothing that would humiliate them - indeed, the resolution is presumably trouble for the Malfoys', and eventually a benefit the Trio, in their exams.
It's the equivalent, as you and trobadora have put it, of the Hufflepuffs being suspicious of Harry, knocking out Hermione and Ron, finding out something personally damaging to Harry and then getting stellar exams results because of their initiative.
From:
no subject
And yes, the insults are carefully all kept centered on the plot and far away from anything actually insulting. It just reinforces how screwed up Malfoy is, really. The few times Malfoy does hit a mark Harry can just feel sorry for the other person. I do especially like the Colin bit for that reason--if anybody else had done that impression Harry would have been rolling in the aisles. And I wouldn't hold it against him, either, given the stress of having Colin follow him around. Once again Malfoy just "inspires" him to be a better person.:-)
From:
no subject
"What? Why?"
And then Dumbledore would have to somehow explain how all this worked. Unfortunately, unlike Harry, I can't imagine Snape not asking the relevent questions and figuring out it's all fixed against him.
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.
From:
no subject
"Because you only have to die protecting Harry, then you'll have paid it back in full!"
(And ... owing a life debt because someone called 911 ... that's exactly what it looks like to me.)
From:
no subject
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.
From:
I continue to obsess over the prank...
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?
From:
Re: I continue to obsess over the prank...
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...
From:
Re: I continue to obsess over the prank...
Unfortunately, the books have a bad tendency to emphasize courage and loyalty over brains and not being a sheep.
Heck, Dumbledore tells Harry in CoS that Fawkes came to Harry because he was loyal to *Dumbledore*. Not because Harry was doing the right thing.
Being Dumbledore's side is rather like being a member of the Bush administration. Loyalty gets rewarded, speaking up and telling the boss that you can't balance the budget while giving everyone tax breaks gets you thrown off the team -- we don't need no reality-based people here!
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
I'm not sure. Snape hates being humiliated with a fiery vengeance, but after so much of it, I think he's quite able to tell the difference between something that would have been mortifying and something that would have been mortal.
From:
Re: I continue to obsess over the prank...
I think he's quite able to tell the difference between something that would have been mortifying and something that would have been mortal.
Ordinarily yes, but he isn't particularly rational where MWPP are concerned, and he seems to have built up that one incident into a major event - which for him it was, but apparently (given their casual attitude towards it) not for Sirius and Remus (!). Which must be the most humiliating thing of all: they almost killed him in a way that could have harmed *them* as well - and they still can't bring themselves to even care.
From:
Re: I continue to obsess over the prank...
I also think that James could've stayed in human form and rescued Snape right up to the door of the shack (there is a door between the tunnel and the shack, right?). Close enough for Snape to realize there was an enraged werewolf on the other side of the door, thereby realizing what Remus was and what Sirius had intended to have happen, but far enough away that James could get Snape out without resorting to changing form.
That's the only thing that makes sense, if you accept that nobody even suspected that James, Sirius and Peter were unregistered animagi up until POA.
As far as James's heroics, I guess a lot would depend on how far they were all willing to go to keep the animagus secret. After all, it's possible that Remus could've broken down the door before Snape and James got out of the tunnel (presuming that's where the rescue took place), and if James stayed in human form in order to keep his animagus form secret from Snape, then he was in just as much danger from Remus as Snape was.
From:
Re: I continue to obsess over the prank...
Still, it's hard to believe that Dumbledore being the all-knowing person he is often hinted at being wouldn't have been able to easily find out what they were up to if he'd made the least bit of effort. I do think he'd have suspected it because a) he's Dumbledore and always suspects the right things b) he knows these boys and c) it's hard to believe they were all that discreet. If you're going to nickname yourselves, "Moony, Wormtail, Padfoot and Prongs," and have conversations like, "One, he's wearing my clothes..." how secret was it?
Obviously for the plot it needed not to be known so I can accept that, but thinking realistically I do find myself assuming that Dumbledore did a lot of looking the other way and Snape picked up on it.
From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
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!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I do agree that Snape would see it that way. I guess that brings up the question if the perception of having your life saved/spared is important for the existence of a life debt, or merely the act itself. For instance, could you deny that someone saved your life and you owed them a debt? Would denying it change anything? We don't know what James knew when partly because it's *Remus* who told us -- he obviously *didn't* know about it in advance, and I wouldn't put it past him to fudge the truth in telling Harry.
I like the idea above that Snape would be much less bitter about the incident if he weren't being nagged about the life debt. Possibly this nagging is internal, but it was certainly stressed to him at some point (right afterwards, most likely), which would greatly increase his bitterness. My own personal theory is that he'd be more likely to get over it if people (including Sirius, who now can't) didn't refer to it as a prank or joke, but acknowledged that something serious happened. Calling it a prank indicates an astonishingly cavalier, even dismissive, attitude towards his very life. Calling it a prank that went wrong (as I've no doubt Dumbledore, among others, did) is worse -- after all, the only thing that could have gone any *differently* would be for him to have met up with the werewolf!
As for eating at 12 GP, I like your theory. I still tend to lean towards the "why in the hell would I subject myself to that?" theory, though. Of the Order members we've met more than at a glance, the only ones I can see him even considering voluntarily having dinner with are Minerva and Shacklebolt. And heaven knows he wants to spend less time around those Gryffindor brats.
From:
no subject
I'm not entirely sure that Dumbledore would even be (consciously) using it for manipulation, though it would be IC. I think it's more that that's how he sees the system working because it's what his own moral code tells him is important.
Yes, I think that's the way it works too. Neotoma mentioned the Bush administration above and I think it is a little similar (this will perhaps become the new Godwin's Law;-) in just saying that I don't think Dumbledore is consciously deceitful, he just automatically associates what is good for him as right. I mean, look at the way he brushed off Harry's horrible upbringing by saying he was trying to do his best and really didn't do too bad a job of it. Or suddenly deciding to talk about behavior having consequences with regards to Sirius and Kreacher of all people--and even then not getting it right--while the only mistake he admits to himself is not forseeing how badly other people will behave.
Ahem. So yeah, I don't think Dumbledore was ever thinking, "Ah, I will get Snape in line by making him owe James." I can see it happening much the way it would with Harry: Dumbledore is focused on James and sees things in terms of James' development. He's pleased that James has made the right decision in saving Snape and so it is important that Snape recognize this wonderful thing that Snape as done. And perhaps, Dumbledore may have incorrectly thought, seeing it this way would inspire Snape to see what a great guy James was too. I don't think it was primarily about manipulating Snape into doing anything--at least not yet--because after all, all this would have been before Snape became a Death Eater. I suspect the life debt may have been something Dumbledore pulled out more later when he needed Harry protected. Hmmmmm...
(no subject)
From:From:
no subject
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.'
From:
no subject
Yick. I really hate theories and fanfics that depend on this (and not just for James). I can easily see James having no idea until Sirius mentions it right before it's supposed to happen, and then he rushes off. But as I mentioned, I think the rushing off has nothing to do with the value of Snape's life. More to do with realizing what Sirius has done and saving him, plus Remus, from himself. Plus, again, the vaguely Gryffindor sense that there are heroics to be done, so I must do them!
From:
no subject
I know that if I saw a human being on the brink of death, I'd totally leave them there if they were nasty to me. Guess I'm not as big a person as Harry.
Like, WTF? Who the hell would see someone in trouble and not do anything?
Not to mention, as you put it, Harry is probably 'one of the only characters who would have *hesitated* a few seconds before going for help' or calling 911, in your analogy.
From:
no subject
And I can see from one pov it is more important, because when somebody is a real thorn in your side it is pleasant to think of a world without them. But still I think most people would still, when confronted with the person bleeding on the floor, be freaked out before they were pleased at this turn of events.
Unless, of course, the person has screwed up priorities--like above where I was talking to