In defense of the Snape apologists :-)

[tbernhard2000]

No: HPFGUIDX 136000

Mari wrote:
> 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.

dan:
If I understand you right, you are implying that some who believe
Snape is ESE are being unfair to those who don't believe it? That's
harsh, Mari. I think all around, there needs to be some "defense" -
for those who are in the ESE!Snape camp (oooh, sounds kinky) and those
who are not. Canon doesn's answer who knew how much about what, not
for some areas, but it DOES answer some pretty fundamental things
about character.

For example, Albus' understanding of the person Tom Riddle is not just
extra guff, it's essential and central. And how often does the term
"love" come up? The world Rowling has made does not devolve to this or
that adventure element, but to the central characteristics of the
players. In that sense, no matter how good one's canon is (and canon
can be shown to be ever so slightly shaky internally - the maths
issues, for example) if that canon does NOT include this personality
assessment, it cannot answer the questions at all, not even if Snape
is a real bastard or just a bastard. It's not like Snape's fundamental
character is going to change somehow - his allegiances yes, but not
his fundamental character. And that character is set before us. One
last act this or that way is not going to change that, or the meaning
of the work.

So, analysis of the plot, as JKR has shown so clearly in HBP, is not
separate in the slightest from analysis of character.

dan