![[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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
The life debt thing has bugged me as well - what's up with that? The way Snape is "saved" by James, or Pettigrew by Harry, are supposed to be deeply significant and lead to some kind of magical indebtedness, but Snape saving Harry doesn't? It just makes no sense to me, unless the rule is "it only matters if you're saved by a Gryffindor"...
Incidentally, I don't think Sirius was poisoned either, but did you notice all of the truly reckless/idiotic things he does (like accompanying Harry to the station, or suggesting Harry meet him in Hogsmeade) seem to happen before Christmas? After that (though he doesn't appear much) he seems much closer to his GoF personality to me. (And of all the things one might hold against him, rushing in to help Harry at the Ministry really isn't one!)
From:
no subject
On the poisoning its self though I don't know. Putting that potion in the book and then finding out latter it was used on some one seems to me like a very JK thing to do. I do agree with you on the death thing though, Sirius wasn't being reckless he just made a mistake anyone could have made. (in any case I really should stop reading these post because they are inspiring a plot bunny where Snape is drugging Sirius for sex, and Sirius' behavior is an after affect of the drug....)
From:
no subject
I definitely agree mentioning the potion and later finding out it was used is very JKR--when I read the book I completely thought that's where it was going and that Kreacher was going to turn out to have poisoned Sirius, but I prefer the idea that whatever Sirius was going through was just what he was going through. I agree with someone somewhere else who pointed out that far from being befuddled Sirius was all-too-aware of exactly where he was and what his prospects were.
With regards to Snape--exactly. Can you imagine him having to sit at dinner with kids who treat him with disrespect as well as adults? If I were him I can imagine just taking the position of, "You're only asking me to dinner for politeness sake, so I will politely refuse."
From:
no subject
Yeah, it's not like he's been holding a grudge for 20 years or anything...
I suspect if there were a fair court of law about such things Snape would be cleared of any life debtedness.
I think any sane court would say that *Lupin* owed a life debt, but not Snape. Dumbledore's reasoning on that score seems shaky at best.
From:
no subject
Yeah, it's not like he's been holding a grudge for 20 years or anything...
The man can do grudges, you have to admit!
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Sirius did seem like was just in a rut throughout the book. one of the thing that bothers me about OoTP is that with all the magic we've already seen NO ONE seemed to know a way to make Sirius useful, or just aleviate his stress. They just let him rot away in that house and in some cases even contributed to the problem.
The first time I read OoTP when we found out Snape didn't eat there I remeber thinkg "Yeah if I was him I wouldn't want to eat with you guy ether." so fining out people thought he was poisining Sirius because of thet was kind of a shock.
From:
no subject
It's also two people who stop themselves from being an accessory to murder, and not allowing murder to go on in front of your very eyes if you can stop it seems like the basic obligation of any human being to me. So James stops Remus from killing Snape, Harry prevents Peter being killed in the Shack, and Snape prevents Harry from falling to his death when Quirrelmort hexes his broom. All three seem to me simply what any decent person would do, and if a debt is owed for one surely it should also be owed for the other.
From:
no subject
Yes, in both cases the supposed "saviour" is more like an accessory to murder who gets cold feet at the last moment. You're completely right that it's not really about saving someone from danger, but *sparing* them - which is even worse in its condescension towards both Peter and Snape. Again with the double standards that seem so pervasive in these books at every level.
Also about saving lives and owing debts - the *worst* allegation in that context comes from Dumbledore in PS/SS when he basically tells Harry that Snape only saved his life because of the debt owed to James - meaning that otherwise Snape would cheerfully have let Harry die. (I wonder if that's what the narrative voice is truly trying to convey, and that's why Harry doesn't owe Snape anything?!) This undermines everything Snape stands for in my view - doing what needs doing even when you don't like it, not letting someone die simply because you *can* stop it, helping all those people he loathes...
And you're right about Sirius seeming more reckless pre-Christmas. I feel like characterwise one might say that this is because after Xmas he falls into despair.
We see relatively little of him after Christmas, so it's difficult to judge, but in a more charitable (or less depressing) interpretation, perhaps the attack on Arthur could have been a sort of wake-up call for Sirius? He seems so much more reasonable talking to the twins after that than he did the entire time before. (Perhaps I simply don't want Hermione-the-Queen-of-Exposition to be right all the time...)
From:
no subject
unless the rule is "it only matters if you're saved by a Gryffindor"...
Seems that way, dunnit? But I think there's also other things the two life debt cases have in common. Who was Peter being "saved" from but Harry himself, in a way, since Harry had reason to *want* Peter dead and also had the power to stop it? Who was Snape being "saved" from but James' best friend and partner in pranks Sirius-same idea. Peter and Snape weren't saved, they were *spared.* It seems to me like a different code of honor that very much assumes that Harry and James were being particularly gracious because Peter and Snape deserved to be killed, Peter for betraying Harry's parents and Snape for poking his nose where it didn't belong and trying to get MWPP in trouble.
That's a pretty old-school moral system there, I think. Snape, by contrast, is actively working to protect Harry from threat. However, if Snape had towered angrily over Harry after the Pensieve scene and then shown mercy as Harry and James did, I can't imagine that being seen in the same light and Harry given a life debt because of it. It really feel like there does have to be some feeling that the victim has earned their death in order to be spared, and perhaps it's the narrative voice that makes that choice. I might not say that in another series, but it could be true here. It's a little barbaric, imo, and not completely out of place. It seems like there's a hint that James and Harry would have been justified in not acting.
And you're right about Sirius seeming more reckless pre-Christmas. I feel like characterwise one might say that this is because after Xmas he falls into despair. In the beginning he's still lively so wanting to try to join in with things maybe, so he takes a risk at the station, envies Harry his fight with Dementors, begs Harry to go to Hogsmeade. Hermione-the-Queen-of-Exposition suggests that Sirius was hoping Harry would be expelled so he'd get to stay with him. I wonder if Sirius came to the conclusion on his own that Harry would never be any way close to him like James was, that he really had no one, and so after Christmas just accepted his fate.
From:
no subject
Yes, thank you. I will not
rantget into all the ways the 'Snape poisonning Black' theory annoys me. I was actually more leaning towards the 'Snape doesn't eat there because the idea of sharing at table with his two oldest ennemies, Harry Potter, and a bunch of loud Weasleys is his idea of hell' explanation, but yours makes a frightening amount of sense.It's just so consistent with what we know about Snape, and the way he behaves around his enemies.
About the 'life debt'...you know, I've just about given up trying to figure it out. I don't see how much it's a life debt for James to simply put a stop to the Prank that he participated in.
Also, by that logic, Ginny owes a life debt to Harry, and it's a much-more clear cut 'rescue' scenario. The Trio are bound by mutual and confusing life debts. Umbridge owes a life debt to Dumbledore for saving her from the
gang rapingmurderous Centaurs. Buckbeak owes a life debt to Harry and Hermione. And so on...From:
no subject
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.
From:
no subject
I'm uncomfortably leaning towards the idea that
At the same time, I think it is something Snape himself might understand the same way he'd understand not eating at the house...
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by that. Could you explain it a bit more?
I agree with you on Snape, but with James we know so little of him that I find it difficult to say whether the Shrieking Shack incident really had any effect on him, or if he just grew up a little. As for Harry and mercy, is "sparing" Peter really mercy when it takes the form of "no, let's not kill him ourselves, let the Dementors do the job instead"? Not that that isn't an important moral choice, too - lawful punishment instead of lynching -, but mercy? Not so much.
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
Plus, you know he'd be next to Mundungus Fletcher and Tonks, the former of whom probably dribbles and talks with his mouth full, and the latter of whom does that really weird nose thing during dinner, which wouldn't half put me off my potatoes. And she'd do his nose as well. Pointedly. And Ginny would giggle, and then there'd be Incident. Not to mention Words. Loud ones.
I can't help thinking that Severus, verbally unpleasant though he may be, hasn't really got the heart to do anything physical towards even his deadliest foes for no justifiable reason any more. Plus, you know Albus Dumbledore would have a really bewildering way of finding out about that sort of shit faster than you can say "and where were you with your mighty powers of observation when...?"
From:
no subject
Plus, you know Albus Dumbledore would have a really bewildering way of finding out about that sort of shit faster than you can say "and where were you with your mighty powers of observation when...?"
Funny how that power of observation comes and goes, isn't it?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
When OotP first came out, it was the fashion to exclaim that the reason why Severus did not eat at no.12 was because he is a vampire and only eats the blood of innocents, presumably. Meanwhile, the reference to that potion was applied to Harry's behaviour. What short memories people have :/
From:
no subject
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
I think this is one of the reasons why Snape honestly believes he's a better person than Sirius - at least he never tried to kill anyone for no better reason than that they were annoying!
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.)