![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Before you click on the cut below, I don't wish to sound all arrogant-like, but I did totally call one of the biggest shockers of Book 6 two days before the novel came out. So even though this is pure speculation on my part, and not based on any inside knowledge or even rumor about the contents of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, you might want to steer clear if you're hoping to be surprised.
I wanted to write this up in a more sophisticated, essay-like form, with references and whatnot to back up my ideas, but I don't have time for that right now. So I am afraid you will have to put up with a condensed version of a very informal chat I had with
cesario instead, for which I do apologize.
You know how we've thought until now that Snape was protecting Harry in PS/SS (and afterward) because of his life-debt to James?
And we've been wondering about that gleam in Dumbledore's eye?
And also why Dumbledore trusts Snape absolutely?
Plus a lot of other things including the prophecy that "neither can live while the other survives"...?
Well, I believe that we were introduced to the concept of the Unbreakable Vow in Book 6 for a very important reason. Because after the young Snape realized that he was inadvertently responsible for Lily and James's deaths (as I think he was, by telling V. the Prophecy), he swore an Unbreakable Vow to Dumbledore to protect the young Harry with his life. After all, they both knew that like it or not, Harry was their only hope to defeat Voldemort -- and it was also the only way for Snape to unquestionably prove his loyalty.
So with that Vow, Snape's life was bound to Harry's, and has been ever since. If Harry dies, Snape dies. And that is why, right from the beginning, Snape was always raging at Harry for taking risks and trying to keep him out of the way of trouble (even if it meant having him expelled from Hogwarts) -- not only because he had a healthy sense of self-preservation, but because if Harry died before he could defeat Voldemort, he'd take Snape with him and all for naught.
BUT in Book 7, Harry has to die so that Voldemort can die. Once they face off in that final battle, "neither can live while the other survives." And the reason Dumbledore was so triumphant when he heard that V. had taken Harry's blood in GoF was that in doing so, Voldemort made that part of the prophecy come into effect and thereby made himself vulnerable in a way he'd never been before. V. doesn't realize it and neither does Harry yet, but their lives are now inextricably linked.
cesario stopped me at this point to object: "I don't read the prophecy that way. More that they can't both be alive at the same time and have any quality of life." But I think that's too abstract, and doesn't really fit JKR's choice of the words "live" and particularly "survive". I think she means literal life, and I believe the North American cover of DH bears this out. Because on it, we see an amphitheatre framed by a tattered curtain, which many fans have already speculated is the Veil -- the mysterious Veil through which Sirius fell when he died, and from which no one has ever returned.
I believe that in Book 7, Voldemort and Harry are going to go through the Veil. And by that measure, they SHOULD both be dead. I think V. and Harry are going to fight it out behind the Veil first, and V. is going to be defeated in some ultimate way, which means that Harry should also die and never be seen again. But Snape will exchange his life for Harry's, thus fulfilling his Vow, completing Voldemort's defeat, and restoring Harry to life.
There is one glimmer of hope for Snape in all of this, however. Because Wormtail ALSO owes Harry -- and Harry specifically -- a life-debt. So there is a possibility that Snape might actually be the character who got the "reprieve" JKR was talking about -- that she found some way to give Snape a heroic and redemptive role at the end, but have Wormtail do the actual life-exchanging part. Still, I am not going to hold my breath on that one.
Anyway whatever I may have got wrong in the above, I think I'm right about Snape swearing that Vow. It explains so much -- especially his CAPSLOCK RAGE in HBP when Harry called him a coward. And his immediate loathing of Harry -- sure, Snape may have sworn the Vow with all good intentions, but how was he to know he'd be protecting a kid who looked exactly like his most hated enemy? Especially since every time he saw Harry, he knew he was staring his own death in the face.
At this point,
cesario mentioned how when Draco was mortally wounded in HBP, Myrtle went for help, but it was like Snape knew that Draco was badly hurt and it brought him at a gallop. So, she said, if Snape did swear an Unbreakable Vow to protect Harry, where was he the first ten years of Harry's life? And why wasn't he totally incapacitated during the Triwizard Tournament?
My response to this was that the first 10 years of Harry's life, he was protected by being with his relatives -- it was only once he got to Hogwarts that things got dicey. The Dursleys may have been abusive, but they weren't life-threatening. Voldemort couldn't touch Harry during that time, was the point. As for the Triwizard Tournament, we don't hear about what Snape was or wasn't up to, until the end. But in any case, I don't think Snape feels when Harry is in danger, or anything mystical of that sort. I don't think there's any kind of mental link. He just has to be watchful, and respond the moment he knows or hears that Harry is in danger.
So in the end, Harry will die, or as close to it as makes no odds. But he'll come back. Which ties in with JKR saying in an early 90's interview that she didn't want to talk too much about her belief in Christianity because if she did, even a child could figure out what's coming in the last book.
Sacrifice.
Death.
And Resurrection.
Now I am going to go and re-read books 1-6 and cry, thanks.
I wanted to write this up in a more sophisticated, essay-like form, with references and whatnot to back up my ideas, but I don't have time for that right now. So I am afraid you will have to put up with a condensed version of a very informal chat I had with
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
You know how we've thought until now that Snape was protecting Harry in PS/SS (and afterward) because of his life-debt to James?
And we've been wondering about that gleam in Dumbledore's eye?
And also why Dumbledore trusts Snape absolutely?
Plus a lot of other things including the prophecy that "neither can live while the other survives"...?
Well, I believe that we were introduced to the concept of the Unbreakable Vow in Book 6 for a very important reason. Because after the young Snape realized that he was inadvertently responsible for Lily and James's deaths (as I think he was, by telling V. the Prophecy), he swore an Unbreakable Vow to Dumbledore to protect the young Harry with his life. After all, they both knew that like it or not, Harry was their only hope to defeat Voldemort -- and it was also the only way for Snape to unquestionably prove his loyalty.
So with that Vow, Snape's life was bound to Harry's, and has been ever since. If Harry dies, Snape dies. And that is why, right from the beginning, Snape was always raging at Harry for taking risks and trying to keep him out of the way of trouble (even if it meant having him expelled from Hogwarts) -- not only because he had a healthy sense of self-preservation, but because if Harry died before he could defeat Voldemort, he'd take Snape with him and all for naught.
BUT in Book 7, Harry has to die so that Voldemort can die. Once they face off in that final battle, "neither can live while the other survives." And the reason Dumbledore was so triumphant when he heard that V. had taken Harry's blood in GoF was that in doing so, Voldemort made that part of the prophecy come into effect and thereby made himself vulnerable in a way he'd never been before. V. doesn't realize it and neither does Harry yet, but their lives are now inextricably linked.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
I believe that in Book 7, Voldemort and Harry are going to go through the Veil. And by that measure, they SHOULD both be dead. I think V. and Harry are going to fight it out behind the Veil first, and V. is going to be defeated in some ultimate way, which means that Harry should also die and never be seen again. But Snape will exchange his life for Harry's, thus fulfilling his Vow, completing Voldemort's defeat, and restoring Harry to life.
There is one glimmer of hope for Snape in all of this, however. Because Wormtail ALSO owes Harry -- and Harry specifically -- a life-debt. So there is a possibility that Snape might actually be the character who got the "reprieve" JKR was talking about -- that she found some way to give Snape a heroic and redemptive role at the end, but have Wormtail do the actual life-exchanging part. Still, I am not going to hold my breath on that one.
Anyway whatever I may have got wrong in the above, I think I'm right about Snape swearing that Vow. It explains so much -- especially his CAPSLOCK RAGE in HBP when Harry called him a coward. And his immediate loathing of Harry -- sure, Snape may have sworn the Vow with all good intentions, but how was he to know he'd be protecting a kid who looked exactly like his most hated enemy? Especially since every time he saw Harry, he knew he was staring his own death in the face.
At this point,
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
My response to this was that the first 10 years of Harry's life, he was protected by being with his relatives -- it was only once he got to Hogwarts that things got dicey. The Dursleys may have been abusive, but they weren't life-threatening. Voldemort couldn't touch Harry during that time, was the point. As for the Triwizard Tournament, we don't hear about what Snape was or wasn't up to, until the end. But in any case, I don't think Snape feels when Harry is in danger, or anything mystical of that sort. I don't think there's any kind of mental link. He just has to be watchful, and respond the moment he knows or hears that Harry is in danger.
So in the end, Harry will die, or as close to it as makes no odds. But he'll come back. Which ties in with JKR saying in an early 90's interview that she didn't want to talk too much about her belief in Christianity because if she did, even a child could figure out what's coming in the last book.
Sacrifice.
Death.
And Resurrection.
Now I am going to go and re-read books 1-6 and cry, thanks.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 08:18 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 08:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 09:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 08:40 pm (UTC)I'm going to the movie tonight, which I greatly look forward to, and I'm also looking forward to reading book 7 and finally finding out what's what. :-)
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 08:45 pm (UTC)On the prophecy, however, I read that it's either one or the other, Harry or Voldemort. If Harry is meant to die, too, then why would DD get a triumphant gleam? He'd be sad. He's said before how much he wants to protect Harry. I don't think Harry will die. (Man, I hope not!) And I don't know, I don't see an Aslan-like event coming. I agree, judging the book entirely by its cover :), that the veil is there again. I keep wondering about the other room, though, too, the one that melted Harry's knife, the one filled with the power Harry has that Voldemort does not.
At any rate, I think we may have another trip to the Department of Mysteries ahead!
And completely unrelated, but I'm looking forward to Godric's Hollow. I've been curious about it for a couple of books now, and I hope we get to see it.
I. Can't. Wait!!
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 09:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 09:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 09:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 11:03 pm (UTC)Mine, too. Isn't it consoling to know that we aren't wrong? Even if the theory I've posted turns out to be different from what JKR has in mind, I have no doubt whatsoever that for all his faults, Snape is Dumbledore's man through and through and will do the right thing in the end.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 09:52 pm (UTC)We shall see.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 11:04 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 06:13 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 11:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-11 11:42 pm (UTC)I think I agree that the final showdown will take place in the DoM and involve the Veil. I would add to your reading of the prophecy my belief in the theory that Harry/Harry's scar is the last horcrux. Also that Harry, no matter how close to death he gets, will come back in the end.
I guess my one quibble is that I always saw the Snape's-loyalties-and-sacrifice event occurring in the build-up to the showdown, not as an integral part of it, precisely because Harry knowing that Snape is a "Good Guy" and on his side is essential to his full character development. And I don't believe Harry will win any battle with the Dark Lord without having the "business" of his character development effectively finished. Ergo, the "Snape Debate" must be resolved before Harry goes into the showdown. But I still need to carefully reread HBP, so I could be wrong.
And I agree that the chances of Snape surviving are slim. I think he's about 90% likely to die. However, I think it's unlikely that he was the character who got the reprieve. Snape is such an integral character that I doubt that Rowling would have changed her mind halfway through writing book 7 about his fate. But who really knows?
no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 12:35 am (UTC)The Christ parallels to Harry in your theory are intriguing, considering those interview questions floating around out there about how the new testament is the key to knowing how the series ends.
I'll have to think on this more. And possibly post those few half-formed essays I have of my own (like the reasons why Ginny Weasley is going to kick it in the next book).
no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 12:48 am (UTC)Hmm. You've definitely made me think, especially about the second part. As long as Harry lives in the end...
Just a little over a week left to find out for sure. Yay!
no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 12:49 am (UTC)You could be TOTALLY MAKING MONEY (http://www.amazon.com/Unlocking-Harry-Potter-Serious-Reader/dp/0972322124/ref=sr_1_31/102-1341544-6453738?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1184201283&sr=8-31) right now! Just speculating on the end of HP!
no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 01:12 am (UTC)Nor do I agree that Snape will sacrifice his life for Harry. I think Harry will sacrifice his life for Snape. After all, it is Harry who is the hero. I've gone into much greater detail about this in one of my earlier essays, and I do think my reasoning is sound, but, then again, these are not the most logical books in the world. Still, a sacrificial death has been hinted at, specifically for Harry, almost from the first chapter of the first book, IMHO. And, if he's to be a Christ figure as you suggest, don't you think a sacrificial death is an essential element of his journey? I do.
I did enjoy this, though. I just cannot agree with you.
Side Topic: Do you run into many Harry-Potter hating Christians?
Date: 2007-07-12 01:36 am (UTC)With this being the LAST installment, I dearly hope we'll have the last ever flare up of Harry Potter Hatefest from the well-meaning, sincere, mind bogglingly silly bunch of Christians.
W
Re: Side Topic: Do you run into many Harry-Potter hating Christians?
Date: 2007-07-12 02:10 am (UTC)But actually, I know more Christians who love the series than hate it. Possibly because I've mostly avoided bringing up the subject except with people I already know love fantasy and are at least willing to give the books some benefit of the doubt, if they haven't read them already.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 02:16 am (UTC)Where do we get that from? There's nothing in the "Spinner's End" chapter to prove or even suggest that the UV is dark magic in and of itself, let alone any kind of "wedding". And I don't get the impression that Snape was trapped in the least; he may have hesitated a moment, wondering how it would fit into his and Dumbledore's plan, but he seems to have accepted it as a worthwhile risk.
The Unbreakable Vow is just that -- a magical vow that cannot be broken. Based on the description we're given in HBP Ch. 2 I see no reason to believe that it could not be equally used by the side of good, as well as the side of evil. Unless there's a passage I'm overlooking.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 02:49 am (UTC)First, the perverted wedding. As you know better than I do (since I'm not married!), in a standard wedding the man and wife marry each other in the presence of a 'bonder', or witness, and there is a repetition of words, (it just occurred to me that baptism takes a very similar form, and that might be an even better analogy). Obviously, the words of the UV are very different, but the feeling, and the rhythms, to me were eerily reminiscent. Here's the quote:
Narcissa spoke.
"Will you, Severus, watch over my son, Draco, as he attempts to fulfill the Dark Lord's wishes?"
"I will," said Snape.
And, after each question, he repeats, "I will". In the Christian Sacraments, the person marrying or being baptized repeats, "I do". But, as I said, the form and rhythms really struck me as similar the very first time I read it. It's actually a little freaky.
Then, what does the Vow do? It makes one party the tool and servant of the other, robbing them of free will. If, at any point, the enslaved person breaks the Vow, even by accident, he or she will drop dead. A magical ceremony that essentially makes another human being one's slave and tool - how is that not evil? Why would Dumbledore, who is supposed to represent all that is good, according to Rowling, ever agree to such a thing?
Dumbledore is actually not quite my idea of all that is good. He has said and done some things I find jarring. But I cannot ever see him deliberately enslaving anyone. Finding that he did this- ugh! I could never see him as a good person again. I feel very strongly about this, and don't really know how I can explain it more clearly.
Just two more things: In my tradition, free will is absolutely paramount. Anything, like the Vow, that negates free will and dehumanizes others will therefore be seen as evil. Also, didn't Jesus, in the Bible, say we should not swear oaths at all? If Rowling really is writing a Christian series, I think she'd show (as Tolkien does so clearly, f.e.) that swearing oaths is at best unwise, and is likely to lead to bad results even if the intent of the oathtakers is good. IMHO, that is exactly what she did show at Spinner's End. Both Severus and Narcissa had good intentions; they acted, at least in part, out of love, but the Vow was still a terrible trap.
To make this very short, in my opinion any "magical vow that cannot be broken" is, by definition, evil. Slavery is slavery, and it is not good.
Just my two cents. (Oh, and I hate the whole life debt concept, too. It sets my teeth on edge. So I guess I'm consistent, at least!)
Oh - just one more thing - you may note that Severus enters his servitude willingly. Yes. It's just like the House elves, isn't it? Ron argues to Hermione that they are willing slaves and don't know any other way to live. Hermione responds (quite correctly, I think) that they are still slaves and slavery is still wrong.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 08:12 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 02:14 pm (UTC)As you say, nuns are meant to marry in full knowledge of what their vows entail. So they are given at least three chances (not one) to back out. They *must* actually experience the life they are committing to before taking their final vows - we are talking about a process that takes years, not minutes. I am convinced that Snape, in contrast, did *not* fully know what he was swearing to. Also, there is *no* suggestion that a nun who breaks her vows and leaves is dammned in any way, and she certainly isn't going to drop dead on the spot. Now consider Snape.
In HBP, if Draco dies, he will die. End of story. It doesn't matter *how* Draco dies; it doesn't matter if it's illness or a stupid accident - he will die. How is this not slavery?
Also, consider what the idea that he is protecting Harry because of an Unbreakable Vow does to Snape's character. I have noted, in a previous essay, great altruism in Snape, especially when it comes to protecting children. If Synaesthete7's theory is proven true, what happens to that selflessness and altruism? It's completely gone. Snape is not heroic in any way. He's just another selfish Slytherin, risking himself only to save his own hide, not out of any real concern for the kids.
That said, I'm rather sorry I responded, because I can see Synaesthete7 - who's a nice and smart person - might well find my pov insulting to her. I do object very strongly to her theory, but at this point it's probably not worth arguing about. It's certainly not worth making anyone feel bad, as I'm afraid I may have done.
So that's all from me.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 02:49 pm (UTC)I sympathize with your visceral distaste for the UV -- I feel similarly about Obliviate, as readers of D&L may have guessed. Yet it isn't just the certifiably "evil" characters or even the selfish, unscrupulous Lockhart who use Obliviate -- it's also the cheerful, thoughtless but essentially well-meaning wizards at the World Cup, and of course there is a whole department of the Ministry who use Obliviate on a regular basis to protect the wizarding world from being discovered by Muggles. JKR gives us enough information to be suspicious of Obliviate and feel uncomfortable with the idea of it being used too freely, but she doesn't brand it as "dark magic", and I would say that the same is true of the UV.
As for Snape, how could he not fully know what he was swearing to? He's not stupid, and he's very well educated in wizardry; I see no reason to believe that he did not know exactly what Narcissa was asking him to do, and what it would mean. Also, if Snape were the unwitting pawn of Narcissa and had been beguiled into swearing away his life as part of a Dark Magic ritual, I really think that we would have seen a bit more evidence, or at least a hint, of uncertainty in Snape's manner and we would certainly have seen more evidence that Dumbledore was troubled and distressed by it. The argument Hagrid overheard in the Forbidden Forest would have been somewhat different under those circumstances, I think.
As for Snape's altruism, it's nice to think that he would protect Harry solely out of the belief that it's the right thing to do, and I would certainly welcome that if that is the case. But I think it quite possible that the swearing of an Unbreakable Vow to protect Harry is not incompatible with Snape genuinely being concerned for the welfare of his students in general (however he may snipe at them verbally) and being willing to risk himself to protect them. Certainly he seemed distressed at the news of Ginny's capture in CoS, for instance -- and I would never suggest that he'd sworn a Vow to protect her. Snape is still capable of doing the right thing for the right reasons, and I think he has done so many times. And if he did swear a UV to protect Harry, I think it was a tremendous act of courage and good faith on his part to do so, as well as humility and sincere repentance. I just don't see that being bound by a UV negates the possibility of heroism, or altruism, or principled action on Snape's part. To say that it would be "completely gone" is, I believe, too extreme.
I agree we aren't likely to see eye to eye on this, however. I think it all really comes down to what you think JKR is saying about the nature of the Unbreakable Vow. I think she used the wedding vows as a rough template because even a child would find those "I will"s familiar; you see it as a deliberate perversion and mockery of marriage itself. I think Snape could swear the UV in good conscience and with full (even if not experiential) knowledge of what it would demand of him; you believe that Snape would only do such a thing if he were trapped into it, and could only be horrified when he realized what he had done. Those differing perspectives are bound to color our respective ideas of how JKR might use or not use the Vow in DH, and what it would mean.
This discussion has certainly not been a waste, however. In fact you've given me a truly delicious genfic plot bunny which I hope I will have time to write before DH comes out. Stay tuned!
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 01:13 am (UTC)A couple of comments on your other points. You say: f Snape were the unwitting pawn of Narcissa and had been beguiled into swearing away his life as part of a Dark Magic ritual, I really think that we would have seen a bit more evidence, or at least a hint, of uncertainty in Snape's manner and we would certainly have seen more evidence that Dumbledore was troubled and distressed by it.
But I think we do see evidence of uncertainty, quite clearly, both when he takes the third part of the Vow and when he tries to pump Draco. As to the conversation in the forest, I don't think it had anything to do with the Vow, and I don't think Dumbledore necessarily believed Harry, or knew the full import of the Vow itself, until the scene on the tower. That, of course, is just my opinion. (I think the two were arguing about Harry, and Severus's reluctance to keep protecting him.) It's not my opinion alone - it was Sigune who put it into my head that Severus may have told Dumbledore about some, but not all, of the Vow. The fact is, we do not know what Dumbledore knew, nor what Severus told him. We certainly cannot assume that he told him anything.
But, as you said, we are never going to agree on this. The UV, to me, is deeply evil, and something Dumbledore would never, ever do. You do not try to rescue a vulnerable young Dark Arts practicioner(sp?) by binding him to obedience through a Dark spell. Nor do you spend five or six books nattering on about free will if it's going to be revealed that you enslaved a boy - even if at his own request - and have used him as your servant for all his adult life. I can't accept that for a moment. Still, I'll be interested to read your genfic, and hope you'll complete it before DH day.
Snape's Secret Love
Date: 2007-07-12 02:16 am (UTC)I've also been wondering if anyone shares my theory that RAB of the locket note is in fact Regulus Black?
Re: Snape's Secret Love
Date: 2007-07-12 02:21 am (UTC)Really? I'd wonder more if there were anybody in HP fandom who doesn't. I've heard it suggested so many times since HBP came out, I thought it was general consensus.
I did wonder a little about Snape/Narcissa, but while I wouldn't be surprised if he's attracted to her, I don't think it ever went beyond that.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 03:32 am (UTC)I think the problem with your theory is indeed the Triwizard Tournament. Snape's actions in the book make no sense to me if he's made an UV. He wanted Harry to participate, didn't he? [may be confusing movie with book here]
no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 03:42 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-12 05:04 am (UTC)You're brilliant. This would be wonderful and I would cry, because Snape is my favorite character... I take Voldemort's previous statement that one of his Death Eaters had left him forever as the parallel affirmation to Dumbledore's constant "I trust Severus Snape" that Snape is one of the good guys.
no subject
Date: 2007-07-13 08:57 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2007-07-20 10:03 pm (UTC)So in the end, Harry will die, or as close to it as makes no odds. But he'll come back.
*nods* Makes sense -- and makes dramatic sense as well.
hi ;)
Date: 2008-07-03 03:33 pm (UTC)