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]

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!

[trobadora]

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!

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

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.

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.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah--like I think I said to someone else, it's far more difficult for me to imagine Snape putting himself through that than it is for me to come up with reasons for him to leave. He's not wanted for dinner, so why would he stay?

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...

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

I like this. The more I read, the more I think that Dumbledore really has no clue how to handle anybody's emotions but his own, but he thinks he's really good with them. Half of his explanations to Harry involve why people act the way they do, and they almost never make sense. Especially when the person being discussed is Snape. Yet he's usually portrayed in fic as this über-mentor who understands what makes everyone tick and can give personalized advice perfectly designed to motivate or console or whatnot this person alone, and I think that's rather how he sees himself.