![[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:
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.