Good vs. Evil in Fantasy /Snape

[marinafrants]

No: HPFGUIDX 37677

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" <greywolf1 at j...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" <finwitch at y...> wrote:
> > I've been thinking about this about goodies and baddies in
fantasy, 
> > in general. We might have a goodie character who continously
steals 
> > with no remorse, i.e. Kenders in Dragonlance. A character who
kills 
> > and is a goodie, remorse or not (Nyissan Sadi in Mallorean
Series), 
> > some asassins in others...
> > 
> > But - so far I can see one thing that unites these fantasy
"goodie"-
> > criminals. When someone does them this bad thing - they don't hold
a 
> > grudge. A killer-"goodie" thinks an attempt on his *own* life is 
> > just "part of business" or "misunderstanding". A "goodie"-thief
who 
> > has been stolen from either does not get angry or is angry at
himself 
> > for not taking better care of his possessions... In other words,
they 
> > *can* taste their own medicine. Their goodie-friends don't exactly 
> > approve these habits, though, but a reader *does* get to think
that 
> > they *are* on the good side despite of their bad habits.
> 
> Sorry, but I have to disagree. It cannot be further from the truth.
To 
> take your own example, Sadi from the Belgariad/Malloreaon *does*
indeed 
> hold grudges: a competitor poisons him, and he quickly arranges to
have 
> him thrown into the river with weights tied to his feet. From the
same 
> series, Silk steals and assasinates freely, but the moment someone
he 
> holds dear is assasinated (Bethra), he goes on a killing spree,
killing 
> 15 people, of which only two were directly responsible of the 
> assasination (the rest were just extended family of the real 
> "baddies"). Haplo, from the Death Gate cycle, takes personally his 
> enemies' plans to bring down his master (although he's doing exactly 
> the same to them). And so on. Most of the time, the only difference 
> between amoral (or inmoral) characters in the good side and the bad 
> side is that the first help the good characters and the others
don't. 
> It's only a matter of using Machiavelism, and fits both sides. When
a 
> more careful difference is created by the author, it generally lies
in 
> the fact that the "good" amoral character will not backstab his 
> friends, while the "bad" amoral character will have no friends, and
is 
> busy arranging the circunstances so that he comes into more power 
> (normally wading through a pool of competitors's blood).
> 
> > Severus Snape doesn't accept his own faults in others, sees these 
> > faults where he couldn't be more wrong -- he simply breaks the
custom 
> > of a goodie with a very bad habit. We get a hint from AD (who
seems 
> > to be the one who knows and knows he knows) that he *is* a goodie, 
> > but the character contradicts what *every* other goodie with nasty 
> > faults has been so far.
> 
> There really isn't much difference between Haplo and Snape, nor do I 
> see Snape as a particularly new idea of ally for the good side. He's 
> malevolent, his own objectives are hard to imagine, and the major
good 
> guy (AD) believes in him: I've seen it before. It's uncommon, 
> especially in fantasy, but it's not unheard of.
>  
> > This is what puts him under Question. Is he there to show that
even 
> > Dumbledore's judgement of character isn't perfect because even 
> > Headmasters like AD do err? Or is he there to break the pattern 
> > of "spy, thief, killer, dirty and foulmouthed but with a good
heart"
> > 
> > -- Finwitch
> 
> For a guy of this characteristics (except for foulmouthed) which has
no 
> "good heart" to speak off, take a look at Jarlaxle, from the Dark
Elf 
> series of R.A. Salvatore. He's not strictly speaking one of the good 
> guys, since he's a secondary character, but he's much darker than 
> Snape:truly amoral, you cannot turn your back to him. Although the 
> pattern you propose exists (specially in Eddings), it's been broken 
> before.
> 
> Hope that helps,
> 
> Grey Wolf
> 
> PD: this discussion is going VERY quickly into OT ground, so I'll 
> probably cut my own intervention here.