Unfinished Business (was: did Lupin kill Sirius)

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 83176

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Nora Renka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:

 lots of snipping 
Nora: 
> Hermeneutics is not theorizing; it's interpretation.  I don't like 
> try to construct large-scale theories that I can't link conclusively 
> to anything; being raised on the virtues of close-reading, that's 
> more of what I try to do.


Kneasy:
Monday morning is not my best time for nit-picking (much better
on a Friday when I'm bloody-minded), so I'll  waive the potential
bun-fight of convoluted arguments regarding theorising and
interpretation. 

Nora: 
> Well, yes, with the new revelation of information; but I didn't have 
> to scrap any elaborate theories of backstory because I don't try to 
> make them.  I may have blank spots, but it's pretty clearly defined 
> where the information is missing.  Of course, one is always subject 
> to overt reversal...
> 

Kneasy:
I posted a few weeks back lauding the masochistic joys of having a 
theory gel in your  mind, slaving long hours over it, posting and 
watching a swarm of analytical piranha tear it to shreds. And  then
doing it all  over  again. (79637) 

Some may see  this as a failure to learn from experience, but I don't. 
It's fun. Being wrong is not important to me; neither is being right. 
On site, anyway. Oh, I'll argue, debate, nit-pick and proffer the most
disreputable of analyses in my defence of an interpretation, but if I can 
provoke a discussion (or even howls of outrage) then I don't consider 
that my time has been mis-spent.

We are obviously of very different mind-sets, but it  takes all sorts...


Kneasy previously:
> > Snape - master of his subject, diciplinarian, expects perfection. 
> > Treats students as he would adults.


Nora: 
> I am glad that the qualifier "as *he* would adults" is put in there, 
> although even now I'm not so sure of it.  I am under the impression 
> that he treats the children as he does at least partially because he 
> *can*, hence the oft-quoted "Snape is a sadistic teacher who abuses 
> his power."  You don't treat adults like that. 


Kneasy:
Oh, I  don't know. In my professional life I've met a fair number of
spectacularly rude and snotty people. Usually brought on by
delusions of adequacy.

However, I think Snape is more than competent and his attitudes
and behaviour are consistent in the circumstances prevailing.
What is causing all the comment is *why* is he like this?
Is he just a nasty piece  of work or are there events (childhood,
schooldays or adult trauma) that have had a profound effect on
his outlook on the WW?


 Nora: 
> Oh, I've never said that I don't think he's a wonderfully-done 
> character, or that he's not important to the plot, or all that.  I 
> just think that as a character, he's severely morally lacking, and 
> I'm rather curious to find out what makes him tick.  You know us 
> Kantians, we care an awful lot about motivation.  I've also noted in 
> the past some extreme Snape-defense forces hovering around, ready to 
> expurgate any nasty features and cast them in as best of possible 
> light.  Long live complexity!
>

Kneasy:
Morality. Another can of worms not to be opened on a Monday.
I'm encouraged that you're willing to admit to curiosity, maybe you
too will wander into the morass that is site speculation.

Snape-defence can cover an awfully wide spectrum of opinion. I won't
defend any stance that presents him as admirable. He's not. But I do
have a sneaking regard for a person so unrepentantly unpleasant. It
must have taken a lot of practice in front of the mirror.

Does he have a soft spot? Maybe he wears fluffy  slippers.

Nora: 
> As a pendant to some other discussions that have been going on; I 
> think the omission of an overt presentation of ethics is partly that 
> it's hard to present ethics directly in a novel without being 
> preachy, but more seriously, that a subtle argument is being made 
> that the ethics of the WW are seriously flawed.  I've long waved the 
> flag for a kind of 'cultural sickness' in this society, and I think 
> the erratic ethical patterns are a sign of it.  I forget who (please 
> forgive!) just recently also argued that it's related to a lack of 
> conception of individual rights, and that rings well for me.  I think 
> (to dip Ever So Slightly into speculation) that we're being set up 
> for some serious societal upheaval.  But I could well be wrong. :)


Kneasy:
I think the WW is a reflection of our world. 
Hypocrisy rampant, ethics and morals flourished but largely ignored
when they become inconvenient or possibly unprofitable.

As to the future of their society, well, JKR is a moral person so perhaps
she'll come up with a satisfying resolution. But it's rare, even in fiction
for the fate of one person, in this case Harry, to determine the future 
path of an entire society.

Even an incorrigible theorist like myself is stymied  on this one.

Perhaps you'd like to step  into the breach.