In defense of the Snape apologists :-)

[Mari]

No: HPFGUIDX 135993

I've been reflecting further on the debate going on about Snape 
within the group at the moment.

I have seen a few posts that suggest that the people who don't 
accept the ESE!Snape interpretation of HBP are either:

1) Unacceptably twisting the story or making it too complicated.

2) Not backing up their points with canon instead of thematic 
arguments.

3) Getting confused between the Snape of canon and Alan 
Rickman's portrayal of Snape.

The first point:

It is not necessary to make the story too complicated in order to 
argue that Rowling doesn't intend for the tower scene to be taken 
at face value. 

As I argued in message number 133007 I don't think 
Dumbledore hatched any specific plan for Snape to kill him; all 
that is necessary is that Dumbledore know that Draco has been 
told to kill him at some stage; the fact that he DOES know is 
clearly stated in HBP anyway.

Severely Signune's excellent post (number 135892) also 
demonstrates that it isn't even necessary to believe that Snape 
and Dumbledore confided fully in each other to support a viable 
argument that Snape is not ESE.

The second point:

There have also been posts claiming that the "Snape is not ESE" 
arguments are not backed up by real canon/incidents in the 
book. 

Or perhaps, to put it more precisely, the complaint is that none of 
the incidents referred to establish that Snape is not ESE without 
a doubt.  

Posters writing in defence of Snape have certainly referred to 
specific incidents in the book as far as I can see;  problem is, the 
way HBP is written by definition makes it impossible for 
arguments either way to be supported by iron clad canon.  

Rowling is deliberately treading on a tightrope here; she wants 
to leave the question unanswered. That much is clear from her 
interviews.

Third point:

Whatever one's personal opinion of Alan Rickman's 
performance as Snape may be, this isn't really something that 
can be used by anyone to back up or pick apart arguments one 
way or another in relation to the books.

 I haven't seen any posts in defence of Snape that rely on the 
movie Snape rather than Snape as he is portrayed in the books. 

There is a general acknowledgement that Snape has many 
unpleasant characteristics, may be a weak person, and is not 
hero material. 

Valky (and others) have made a number of excellent posts 
calling for an interpretation of Snape as human rather than totally 
evil or totally good. The posts include extensive interpretation of 
specific canon events.

Some have also suggested that  Snape may have his own 
agenda, and could choose either side in the next book; we 
simply don't know at this stage.  Again, this is something I 
argued in my  first post  (number 132919).

Finally, I find the whole Snape debate to be the most fascinating 
aspect of the book :-) It is an amazing achievement on Rowling's 
part that so many interpretations of the events are possible and 
can be convincingly argued. So far I feel the debate has been 
very well argued on both sides and am throughly enjoying 
reading each of the posts.

Thank you, everyone!


Mari.