« Previous Post | Index | Next Post »
A sort of meta-message this one, trying to clarify more precisely the actual parameters of one of the many Snape backstory theories/movements/philosophies floating around on this list. Because this is an attempt to clarify, there is much summary here, and not all that much that is new. Those who were heartily sick of this subject even before it arose, and who only became more heartily sick of it when it went through a spate of discussion a week or so ago, might wish to take this opportunity to flee now.
---------------------
Marina wrote:
Woo-hoo! George slicks back his hair, wiggles into his tightest jeans, and practices batting his eyelashes in front of the mirror in preparation for meeting his very own post.
Oh, knock it off, George. Honestly! Sometimes I think that I liked you far better when you were a small furry creature soon to be killed through over-coddling.
::crosses to door, locks it firmly, then points to chair::
Now sit down and stop giving me those big eyes. They don't work on me, so you may as well not bother. You wanted a post, you're getting one, but until we're done here, you're going to sit right there and not interrupt me. And I'm not unlocking that door until I've finished with you, so don't even think about squealing to Marina for help. She can't come in until we're done here. You got that?
::smiles thinly at George, who sinks into the chair, nodding slowly, his eyes very wide::
Good. Now...
----------
A Credo For George
George, for those who don't yet know him, is Marina's name for her own set of beliefs about Snape's backstory. He was formally introduced to the list in post 34762.
Or that's what he was. Shortly thereafter, however, he became something more like a...a movement? A position? A land-locked ship? A theory, at any rate, that othes might wish to espouse and to identify themselves with. This became problematic, however, because George—to put it bluntly—is a slut. Marina did try to warn us about this, but romantic fools that we are, we just didn't listen. And so when George was spotted in the Catalytic Boutique, trying on Road-To-Damascus-style ballgowns, or batting his eyelashes at James Potter, or even once caught locked in a very slow dance with Captain Tabouli on the deck of the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, we all tried to ignore it for as long as we could. "He's young," we said. "He'll grow out of it." But in the end, he simply broke our hearts.
Now, it seems to me that the problem with George (other than the fact that he shares a name with a canon character, which is confusing) is that we don't know what's really a part of his Credo, so to speak, and what remains open to the conscience of the individual. If we are to assume for the moment that George does have it in him to break free from Marina's embrace and become a position that others might choose to espouse, then we must ask: what are the primary characteristics of George? If one were to declare oneself a Georgian, what would that necessitate?
The Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, for example, is so popular in part, I think, because it is so very inclusive. If I'm understanding its manifesto correctly (and please do correct me, Tabouli, if I am wrong), so long as one believes that Snape Loved Lily, and that this hopeless passion accounts for at least some of his canonical behavior, then you are welcome to clamber aboard. Beyond that, however, the specific details (Love of Lily accounts for Snape's behavior towards Harry, Love of Lily led Snape to join the DEs, Love of Lily led Snape to leave the DEs, Love of Lily led Snape to abandon a belief in the Pureblood ethos, Love of Lily left Snape with a phobia of hair-washing, or what have you) are up to the conscience of the individual. While there is a "hard-line" position—and even a semi-official timeline—belief in these would seem to be optional. The only real Credo is the 'core belief' that Love of Lily accounts for some of Snape's behavior.
So what it seems to me that George really needs, if he is ever to become a position, rather than merely a personification of Marina's beliefs (however these may change over time) is a Credo. We need to know what the core rock-bottom Georgian position is, what it really means to declare oneself a Georgian. We also need to know what unusual or slightly *cough* subversive beliefs George is willing to accomodate, and which he denounces as heresy.
(He also desperately needs an acronym. But that's slightly beside the point.)
So what issues specifically does George address?
Well, from his introduction, it would seem that George is primarily concerned with two backstory questions: Why Did Snape Join the DEs In the First Place?, and Why Did He Then Turn? Later attempts to clarify George's position by asking him questions about Lily, ambushes, timelines, and suchnot just muddied the waters, IMO, because these were all questions that really fell outside of George's purview.
So I'd like, if I may, to catechize George on these two questions for a little while, to see if we can manage to clarify and distill his views and perhaps even emerge at the end of this process with A Credo For George.
------------------
Why Did Snape Join the Death Eaters In the First Place?
Marina's original introductory post seems to place a strong emphasis on the Prank as a catalytic agent for Snape's mistrust of the Light side and his subsequent belief that the Dark Was His Friend.
Marina (in George's introductory post):
Now I believe that Snape originally joined the DEs not because he had any conviction in their *ahem* ideals, but because they were the enemies of his enemies, and he thought they might treat him decently and not try to feed him to any werewolves....
Eloise, who would seem to share many of George's tendencies, expanded somewhat on this idea:
It's not so much what the Marauders did that's the problem, as what Dumbledore didn't do. I fancy he felt ever so let down by the 'light' side, didn't find justice in the all-wise all-just Dumbledore. . . . What's the point of allying yourself with goodness if evil goes unpunished? Is there any difference between the two sides? Perhaps not.
Later, however, George seemed to turn away from Prank-as-catalyst, to take a more holistic view:
Marina:
As I've mentioned before, Snape was very young at the time, probably just out of Hogwarts. He had a general idea of what the DEs were up to, and thought he'd be okay with it. When you're an nasty, unpopular teenager with a suspicious knowledge of Dark Magic and a conviction that the people currently in charge are out to get you, it's pretty easy to go around thinking you're evil and even to get off on the concept (finding it glamorous and empowering, maybe) -- until someone actually says, "Here, torture this baby," and you suddenly find that maybe you're not as evil as you thought.
and (in a later post) Marina again:
George says:
Well, Snape is a Slytherin after all, and therefore ambitious. Voldemort and Dumbledore were duking it out for control of the wizarding world. Snape wanted to be in on the score, not to sit on the sidelines. Sure, joining either team brought certain risks if his side lost -- but it also brought the chance of enjoying the spoils of victory if his side won. No risk, no reward -- and I've already made my argument for Snape's bravery.
On the question of whether or not young Severus ever truly believed in the pureblood ethos espoused by the Death Eaters, George has wavered. He initially answered in the negative, but when further catechized on this subject by Cindy, George gave the impression that he was willing to accept a great deal of differing opinion on this particular point:
Marina:
It's possible that Snape believed it then, but if so then he must've dropped the belief somewhere along the way, since he shows no sign of it now...."Purity of blood" may have been another one of those things that sounded really good at the Death Eaters Sunday Brunch, but proved a lot less attractive in bloody practice.
It would seem, then, that George takes no strong stance on the question of whether or not Snape ever adhered to the pureblood ethos.
So, if we were to try to distill George's position on Why Snape Joined the Death Eaters, we are left with...well, George is a bit vague, really. He offers a number of suggestions: hostility towards the Marauders (and thus by extention towards House Gryffindor and all of their allies); disappointment in Dumbledore and disillusionment with the entire notion of justice; a desire for protection from his perceived enemies; raw ambition; the desire to be on the winning side of a dangerous political conflict; an adolescent conviction that Evil is cool and glamorous; possibly a short-lived belief in a one or two of the Death Eater ideals...
But it is really very difficult to tell precisely where George stands on any of these issues, which leads me to wonder if the question of Why Snape Joined the DEs In the First Place ought really be viewed as within George's purview at all. It strikes me that while there might perhaps be beliefs on this subject that George would indeed consider "heretical," a wide range of opinion is nonetheless permitted when it comes to the answer to this question.
George?
<George remains silent>
That's okay, sweetheart. We'll let Marina in the room in a bit, and maybe she can help us out on this one.
In the meantime, I suggest that there are at least a couple of parameters of belief that strike me as consistent with Georgianism overall. George will have to let me know later, if I've got this wrong.
(1) Snape joined up willingly, with his eyes at least half-way open, and with no thought of betraying the DEs at the time.
I could swear that George actually said this at some point, but now I can't seem to find the citation. But I'm fairly certain that none of the "he had no idea what they were really all about when he joined up with them, honest!" schools of thought on this matter, nor the "he always planned on spying for Dumbledore" theories would be permissable under Georgianism.
(2) There may have been one or more catalytic events which prompted this action, but none of them were "Road To Damascus"-type catalysts (ie, sudden epiphanous realizations that cause a complete ideological about-face). Whatever catalytic agency events like the Prank might have possessed, they nonetheless were serving to push Snape further down a road that he was already part-way on, rather than causing him to change direction suddenly mid-stride.
George has never stated this explicitly, but it seems strongly implied to me by his, uh, general demeanor and attitude. It seems congruent with George's known beliefs. But again, I'm not certain on this point, so Marina will have to let me know if I've read George correctly here.
Those two points are just about all that I can deduce about George's Credo when it comes to Snape's original decision to throw in his lot with the DEs, actually, and they do seem to me to allow for an enormous deal of variation in belief. So now I find myself wondering: are there in fact stricter parameters than the ones I've outlined above? And if not, then are there variations that do fall within those parameters that are nonetheless categorically rejected by George? What are George's "heresies" here?
----------------------
So Why Did Snape Turn?
Now this, IMO, is George's Real Issue. This is Where George starts to shine and to strut his stuff.
In fact, I think that George might even work best if viewed as a philosophy that seeks to address only this question, while leaving even the question of Why Snape Joined In the First Place up to the conscience of the individual. But that, of course, is not up to me to decide.
George's position here seems relatively clear. George rejects "catalytic theories" of Snape's conversion, holding firm to the notion that his disillusionment with the DEs was not a sudden epiphanous revelation, but rather, a gradual realization that Voldemort and his followers were evil: their motives selfish, their means unjustified, their ends corrupt, and their assumptions just plain wrong.
Marina, in George's introductory post:
I think that the more time spent with the DEs, the more he became disenchanted with them. They were crappy excuses for human being (or whatever other kinds of beings they were); their agenda was evil and destructive; whatever respect they may have given him (assuming they gave him any -- maybe they didn't) wasn't worth it. I don't think there was any one grand epiphany that made Snape realize, "Hey, these guys are evil and must be opposed," I think it was a gradual process that eventually reached a point where he had to turn around and do something, and it's at that point that he went to Dumbledore.
Furthermore, George would seem to favor a view of this realization that roots it firmly in the realms of the intellectual and the philosophical, rather than the emotional or the visceral. George emphasizes the notion that Snape's defection was not one of emotion, but one of principle.
Marina:
No, I think that somewhere down the line Snape came to genuinely hate Voldy and everything the DEs stood for; and to hate them on principle, not just emotionally. And Snape has generally been shown as willing, and even determined, to put principle and duty ahead of his emotions.
The question of emotion, of course, becomes particularly relevant when it comes to examining George's relationship with LOLLIPOPS. On the issue of whether Snape Loved Lily, Marina wrote:
See, I have no idea whether or not Snape loved Lily... but I definitely don't buy the idea that love of Lily turned him away from the DE's. . . .If one is going to turn from the side of evil to the side of good, then one must do it out of genuine moral conviction, a sincere belief that evil is, well, evil and must be fought. . . .
and later, in response to a LOLLIPOPS defense of LOL as a motivating factor:
That's certainly true, but if Lily-love is just one motivating factor among many, then my instinct is to drop the romantic angle and let all these other factors pull the weight.
So it would seem that one can indeed be a Georgian from the deck of the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS, so long as one does not ascribe to the notion that Love of Lily was an important motivating factor in Snape's decision to leave the DEs. As this belief is in fact not required by LOLLIPOPS, dual adherence would seem to me to be, if not likely to be all that common, nonetheless still possible within the parameters of the two groups' respective tenets of belief.
So if we were to propose a Credo For George on this issue, then what might it look like?
I suggest that it might look something like this:
"I believe that Snape left the Death Eaters out of a philosophical conviction that their movement was evil. His defection was a matter of moral principle."
"I reject the notion that there was any one sudden catalytic event which led to this change of heart. Rather, I believe that it came about gradually, as a matter of observation, consideration, and a careful weighing of moral values."
Now, if this is really Core George, then I would be happy to declare myself a Georgian. Sometimes, though, George seems to waver even on these most basic fundaments, even when this involves throwing overboard his own once-favored timeline of events. Take this message, for example, in which George contemplates the possibility that Snape's life-debt to James Potter might have served as the final straw pushing him from disillusionment into outright defection:
Marina:
George is helpless to resist. He is smitten. He know maintains that Snape's gradual disillusionment with the DEs finally culminated in active resistance when Voldemort threatened James.
<Elkins casts the bed on which George is sitting a very severe look>
Oh, honestly, George! And after all that time you spent arguing for a much earlier date for Snape's defection, too! What got into you there?
At other times, George seems to venture far outside of his domain, offering his opinions on all manner of things that don't really seem to be any of his business (the "Even EWWWWWWWer" Theory, for example, which I personally absolutely adore, but which I don't really think has the slightest bit of bearing on the issues which George normally stands to address).
Most disturbing, however, is when George seems to falter on what I consider to be one of the most rock-bottom tenets of his own Credo: namely, Snape's disenchantment with the Death Eaters as a matter of moral principle.
Marina:
Oh, I don't think Snape was clueless. I think Snape knew, intellectually, exactly what the DEs were up to, and he thought it was okay by him. But when faced with the visceral reality of torture and murder, rather than just reading about it in Daily Prophet headlines, he found that it wasn't as okay as he thought it was.
Now, my problem with this is that to my mind, a visceral reaction isn't really a matter of moral principle at all. It is merely a matter of squeamishness. And aside from the fact that I am unable to believe for even a moment that Snape might be squeamish, I also find this idea disturbingly incompatible with everything that George ordinarily seems to stand for.
These inconsistencies are troubling to someone as anal-retentive as I am. They keep me up nights. They lead me to do things like...well, things like writing a long post to try to pin down George on his Credo, for instance.
Lapses in consistency are problematic. A certain fuzziness to the Credo also haunts my sleep. Again, I find myself wondering: what beliefs does George find unacceptable? What is Credo, and what suggestion? What constitutes Heresy?
Is, for example, my highly idiosyncratic conviction that Snape really is a genuine sadist by visceral inclination (if not in current practice) actually an acceptable belief within the Georgian belief system? Or is it Heresy? How about my preference for Greyer-Than-Black DEs about whom Snape has deeply ambivalent personal feelings? Can George accomodate such views in spite of the fact that Marina herself disagrees with them, or must I take my leave of George, and begin consorting instead with his nearly-identical twin theory, er, Fred?
I also want to know where George stands on seemingly "optional" theories that he has nonetheless expressed opinions on in the past: timelines, ambushes, Love of Lily, EEWWWWWW, EEEWWWWWer, and so forth. Are these in fact optional? Or are some of them indeed a part of George's Credo?
Elkins wants a Georgian Manifesto!
Elkins wants a Credo For George!
<Elkins suddenly realizes that she really needs to get out more. She glances over to the bed, where George is still staring at her, his eyes wide and his lower lip trembling. She manages a sickly sort of smile.>
It's all right, sonny. Come on, we can have a cup of tea.
<For some strange reason, this does not seem to reassure George one bit. He continues to stare. Elkins lets out an exasperated sigh, stalks to the door, unlocks it, and sticks her head through the doorframe.>
Marina! Come and collect your boy!
—Elkins
Posted to HPfGU by Elkins on February 20, 2002 6:45 PM
« Previous Post | Index | Next Post »