Medieval attitudes was Saving Harry

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 137738

"d." <doliesl at y...> wrote:
> Yeah what the grand Snape debate (at least on HPFGU) really comes 
down is each reader
> (whatever 'sides' you lean toward) project his/her own demand for 
JKR for favoring their
> vision+expectation, with the same excuse of "well that makes the 
story boring, contrived,
> unsatisfying okay!?!?".  That is the weakest argument you can 
have, because those who
> disagree with you say the same thing about your dear mighty 
vision. 
<SNIP>
 

I'm not really sure anybody is "demanding" anything.  People are 
just stating their own visions of what would, for them, constitute 
good writing -- that is, a story that is meaningful, satisfying, and 
that hangs together in terms of plot and character.  It stands to 
reason that the differences on that are extreme.  

To expand on what I said above, I really don't see anyway that JKR 
could come down squarely on EITHER side without it being a contrived 
and somewhat mechanistic ending.  That is, I find both ESE!Snape and 
DumbledoresMan!Snape to be unsatisfying and uninspired -- although I 
will admit that DumbledoresMan!Snape strikes me as more contrived 
and uninteresting than the other.  

In any case, I am hoping that JKR takes advantage of the rich 
potential that exists BETWEEN those two visions of Snape to craft a 
truly believable and interesting character.  It is true that all of 
Snape's actions can be explained within the framework of 
DumbledoresMan!Snape AND/OR within the framework of ESE!Snape.  In 
both cases the explanations get forced and tentative at times due to 
the fact we have a paucity of information.  But maybe with Snape 
what you see is what you get?  Maybe the good actions he has taken 
are evidence of genuine Good in the character and the evil actions 
concurrently evidence of genuine Evil (capital letters very much 
intended in each case).  A character who never changes and remains 
absolutely loyal and steady to one goal, whose every action can be 
explained by reference to one decision made sixteen years ago 
(whether that decision was to be loyal to Dumbledore or to 
Voldemort) is not a real person.  That kind of character is only a 
walking plot device, perhaps contrived for some moral message or 
another (either nice is not the same as good or tolerance can be 
dangerous if taken to extremes, both of which are literally true but 
both of which are also equally simplistic).

A character torn BETWEEN conflicting good and evil urges, whose 
actions swerve from one side to the other, is a much more believable 
and interesting individual.  Frankly I'm not the slightest bit 
interested in an evil DE who has been fooling Dumbledore for sixteen 
years, nor am I attracted to a super spy who has remained rock-solid 
loyal for sixteen years despite evidence and appearances to the 
contrary.  A spy who was, for instance, basically loyal to 
Dumbledore but who, in the press of the moment, just couldn't bring 
himself to die for the old man, who perhaps rationalized that he was 
only doing what he must for the Cause even though deep in his heart 
he new he was being a coward, who must now find a way back to the 
light through his own mistakes and the hatred of others -- now THAT 
would be character worth reading about!


Lupinlore