Snape's anger and redemption (was: agent in SS)

[koinonia02 <Koinonia2@hotmail.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 52305

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Melody <Malady579 at h...>" 
<Malady579 at h...> wrote:

> 
> And two, if Snape's anger is about the secret keeper, then I think 
it
> is *very* sad that Snape, who stood in that doorway and listened to
> the crew talk in the SS, still was so angry.  He did not even want 
to
> hear Black's side of the story.  He assumed that Black was guilty.  
In
> a way, he might be, and I mean that way as in how Black himself sees
> himself as guilty.


I'm not very upset about Snape not believing Sirius and Lupin. Plus 
it's not as if he heard the whole story anyway. Seems he was knocked 
out during the most important part of the conversation. It's a bit 
much to ask Snape to start believing Sirius in that room when there 
has been so much bad blood between the two of them for so long.

It was actually after reading POA when I totally fell for Snape. I 
had always liked him but then after I started thinking about the 
Shrieking Shack incident I decided he was definitely the best 
character.
 

Melody said:
> I agree though.  There has to be more to this than just the prank.
> Something even Black and Lupin are missing, since they assumed 
>Snape's
> anger was about the prank.  They did not say, "hey, you loved Lily,


Oh, don't start that *Snape loved Lily* thing with me :--) It's the 
one theory that can get my feathers ruffled.

and then Melody continued:

> and you are angry with us because she is dead."  Maybe they did not
> know though.  Hmmm.


Marianne said:

>Or, maybe whatever it is was something that neither Remus nor Sirius 
>wanted to open up for discussion in front of the children, so they, 
>or in particualr Lupin, focused on the prank.


I think Melody and Marianne are both right. Sirius and Lupin only 
talked about the prank. I don't think they want to discuss some other 
issues in front of the kids and there also might be issues concerning 
Snape they are not aware of. 



> > I wrote:
> > Though canon states that Snape was a DE I don't see where it says
> > that ALL DE's had to and did perform murders. I still can't see
> > Dumbledore hiring a teacher who performed numerous cold-blooded
> > murders. I also can't believe that Dumbledore would hire someone 
who
> > didn't kill James ONLY because of a life threat. Who would want a
> > murdering lunatic teaching children? Dumbledore would surely be
> > constantly wondering if Snape was going to turn to his old way of
> > murder and I just don't see it. I don't think Snape is a murderer.
> > But then only time will tell.

Melody wrote:

> See, my heart tells me otherwise.  Dumbledore *believes* Snape has
> truly turned from his old ways.  He is not worried in the slightest 
it
> seems that Snape has reverted to old habits.  His words to Harry are
> too firm on this.  Seldom does Dumbledore say anything so bluntly 
and
> with a hint of finality than he does over Snape's soul.  And as much
> as people want to sugar coat Snape and keep him away from all the
> "bad" things the DE's do, frankly you are cheapening his redemption.
> For what is redemption anyway, if you have never done anything 
wrong?


Pippin wrote:

>This has come up a couple of times lately, this idea that only evil 
>characters need redemption, or that redemption only "bangs" if the 
>characters are evil.

Marianne wrote:

>As to your second point, I don't think it at all odd that Snape 
>didn't kill Sirius outright when Black was unconscious after the 
>swarming of the Dementors. Many people read this as Snape being 
>nice, conjuring the stretchers, etc.

>I think you can also read this as Snape thinking that he can now 
>deliver the mass-murder back into the hands of the Ministry. Snape 
>can allow the government to destroy his enemy. He doesn't have to 
>get his hands dirty doing it himself. And, if his past as a Death 
>Eater included killing or torturing, or brewing potions to use for 
>nefarious purposes, this incident can be held up as further proof to 
>Dumbledore that he really is a reformed man - he had the opportunity 
>to kill Black and didn't do it.

Well, I am going to go with Pippin on this. I don't think for one to 
be redeemed means there has to be a big "bang".  Saying that I don't 
believe he has ever murdered anyone doesn't mean I'm trying to sugar 
coat anything, though maybe I do sometimes ;-) Truthfully, I'm still 
hoping for the Snape was always a good guy but I must admit I go back 
and forth on that theory. 

As for Snape allowing the government to destroy his enemy, what's 
wrong with that? He didn't kill Sirius when he had the chance. As far 
as Snape knows, Sirius is still responsible for murder. Snape is just 
bringing in a wanted criminal and leaving it up to others to take it 
from there. Snape isn't necessarily the one destroying his enemy. He 
followed the law by turning Sirius in. The rest is out of his hands. 
I'm not saying that Snape isn't happy with the idea that Sirius will 
go back to Azkaban or that Sirius has a little meeting with the 
dementors. I'm just saying it wasn't wrong for Snape to turn Sirius 
in. What was he suppose to do? Let him run free? Nah, again Snape is 
made to look bad when he didn't do anything wrong. I just don't 
understand why people can't understand Snape and his good motives :--)



Marianne wrote:

>Plus, if I was to look at Snape in the darkest light possible, what 
>pleasure would he have derived out of killing an unconcious enemy? 
>Surely it would be so much more satisfying to kill Sirius when he 
>was fully aware of what was happening, that his last sights and 
>thoughts would be filled with the realization that he was dying at 
>Severus' hands, losing the ultimate battle between them.

But that is just it. I don't think Snape is a murderer. One who would 
love to kill just for some silly prank. I just don't see him that 
way. I still don't think that is the type of person Dumbledore would 
hire. At least I hope not.

Never enough talk about Snape!

Koinonia