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]

It's definitely a feature of boarding school fiction, it seems to me. For instance, I was recently reading Waugh's "Decline and Fall" and the accidental maiming and eventual death of one of the students at field day is a running joke. It's one of the conventions that school is incredibly harsh--I also remember a Michael Palin sketch where they talk about how there was an annual thing where underclassmen were literally nailed to the walls as part of the tradition.

What I think causes discussion in these books-as always-is a sort of mixing of genres, so sometimes it's cartoonish and other times not.

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

I do agree. Unfortunately, I think looking at them that way is impossible for any reasonable analysis. As such, I tend to take the cartoonish more seriously than it's intended. But really, if we're going to take Hermione being turned into a statue seriously (as we clearly do), then we have to take seriously Draco being turned into a ferret or Dudley being given a 10-foot tongue. (Of course, the easy answer is not to analyze, but we all obviously gave *that* up long ago.)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

we have to take seriously Draco being turned into a ferret

God, and that scene isn't even described cartoonishly, imo. He's a small animal squealing in pain being thrown violently against stone. I can't think about it without imagining a ferret with a broken back.

Yes, that's exactly the thing. I think you have to take the cartoonish violence somewhat seriously--in re-reading OotP I'm thinking how interesting it would be to look at violence throughout the books and see when people act like someone seems to really be hurt and when they're not and why. Hermione (and the other Muggleborns)being frozen is very serious, McGonnogal hit by four stunning spells is serious. Dudley's tongue is not serious (though Mr. Weasley calls it Muggle-baiting afterwards, so it is even taken seriously afterwards in canon), Slytherins hit by multiple hexes is funny.

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

I agree. I believe it says he was being thrown ten feet in the air -- aren't ferrets generally less than 6" high by 18" long? That's the equivalent of a 5'5" human (lying on the their stomach) being rapidly flung up and down more than 36 feet. Three stories. Repeatedly. Landing full force on solid stone every time.

No, the way it's described isn't at all cartoonish, unlike the attacks on Dudley in SS and GoF. And Malfoy and co's reactions aren't at all cartoonish, unlike the Dursleys'. Yet Ron calls it "the best moment of my life." Harry apparently agrees it's hilarious. Hermione is a bit worried, but gets over it quickly and repeatedly brings it up to taunt Malfoy. And there's little doubt in my mind that we, the readers, are supposed to think it's incredibly funny. Thinking about it more, this disconnect between showing it seriously, but planning it as humor, may be the most disturbing thing about it.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Hermione is a bit worried, but gets over it quickly and repeatedly brings it up to taunt Malfoy.

And she never frames it in terms of Malfoy being hurt. I would need to check the scene, but I always remember feeling she was more shocked that a teacher would do this, not that it was cruel. I think she says something like, "It's good, though, that McGonnogal stopped it." It's like her sense of order in schools and teacher's behavior has been shaken--she knows there's something "off" in the scene.

But she doesn't go into protective!Hermione mode. She doesn't herself yell, "Oh my god, stop it!" as many girls would (perhaps Lavender had she walked up at the right moment). The students are probably mostly in shock or don't know how to react, but Hermione's tepid response never sounds very confident and she easily lets it slide, presumably since it's Malfoy. I immediately thought of that when she realizes the right thing to do with Montague is to tell someone what happened to him, but there again she easily lets the idea, which I doubt she would if it were a "good" person. After all, this is the person who smartly decided to hand Harry's broom over for testing because she knew even if it would make him angry, his safety was at stake.

[arclevel.livejournal.com]

Her wording, both here and re Montague, seems to show some concern; what you quoted is preceded by "Malfoy could really have been hurt." Nonetheless, the speed with with she drops the subject is so fast, it's almost like she was just mentioning a stray thought, not that she actually gives a damn. I think even more in line with what you said is her reaction to knocking out Snape in the Shrieking Shack: "Oh, no, we've attacked a teacher, we're going to be in so much trouble." Never mind that a person appears injured. They attacked a teacher. That isn't done! And they could get in trouble! (Except, of course, that it's them, so obviously they won't.)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It's kind of sad that I didn't remember Hermione mentioning Malfoy could have been hurt. I think I completely forgot it because my whole memory of that scene was that that wasn't an issue. It is like the Snape scene--and also Montague's. There too Hermione is voicing concern as she's asking whether they should help out because Montague is clearly still suffering. It's just maybe that there's no emotion behind that idea the way there often is with Hermione--like if Harry had been hurt she'd probably have been crying and furious.