Harry on his own and 1-D Snape? (was Re: "Power the Dark Lord Knows Not")

[tippie02]

No: HPFGUIDX 137775

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at e...>
wrote:

<huge snip>
> Jen:
> That person will be in great danger, and Sirius was the type of 
> person who accepted that danger with no questions asked. Sure, it
> took him 15 years or so, but JKR has promised we will understand
> why he died.


I'm thinking JKR *has* already indicated why Sirius *had* to die, and
it's the same reason DD *had* to and why I'm finally forced to
conclude (NO!  Say it ain't so!!) that Snape is ESE!:  As JKR said in
the July 2005 LC/MN interview, "...in the genre of writing that I'm
working in, almost always the hero must go on alone.  That's the way
it is, we all know that..."  So as has been pointed out in numerous
posts already, Harry has to do his job without help (either direct or
indirect) from a mentor/protector. 

IMHO, of all the adult characters JKR has so far introduced, Sirius,
DD and Snape were the only ones really qualified to be a significant
resource to Harry -- Sirius because he represented family/parental
support, DD because he was...well, DD, and Snape because of his DA
knowledge and access to LV -- therefore, the three of them must become
inaccessible to Harry.   Through death and defection, the stage is now
set for him to go on alone as we know he must, drawing on only his own
resources in whatever form they take.

Now, regarding Snape, I realize there's still room to argue that he
doesn't really have to be bad in order to be inaccessible to Harry as
long as Harry believes the worst of him and therefore won't trust or
(knowingly) accept help from him.  I would be willing to argue that
myself, incurable romantic and bad-boy lover that I am, except that
the number of comments (more "anvil-sized" hints?) from JKR in
interviews cautioning against thinking too well of or being too
sympathetic toward Snape have piled up to the point where it's really
looking (to me, anyway) like she's not being devious or evasive, but
actually very straightforward about Snape, and that it's obvious to
anyone who can accept the reality of ESE!Snape.

Of course, that's what's so curious, why it's so hard for many of us
to accept that Snape has been bad all along.  But of all the various
reasons I've read in the postings regarding this issue, I was most
intrigued by the posters who have indicated how disappointed they
would be if it turned out Snape had been bad all along, going from the
most complicated, interesting character to a one-dimensional villain,
taking a lot of the intrigue and tension out of the storyline.   I
thought that was a very good point storywise and that it would be 
almost anti-climactic if JKR, master storyteller that I think she is,
actually went that route.  And why would she present DD as the
archetypical character representing all-powerful Goodness, only to
give him this fatal flaw, this stunning vulnerability related to
trust, of all things?  And while thinking about this, I found that my
internal spotlight of interest shifted from Snape and his intentions
to DD instead, wondering just who was DD, the man, that he could make
such a colossal blunder.

Up to now, DD has been pretty one-dimensional, as any good Goodness
Personified character should be, although we got more glimpses of DD's
personality in HBP than in the past, and he is very definitely human.
JKR indicated in the LC/MN interview that we would be learning a lot
more about DD in Book 7, and my sense was that that knowledge would be
pivotal to the final resolution of the series.  

So perhaps the path the storyline will take will be that contrary to
expectations, Snape will turn out to be rather one-dimensional after
all, and that it's actually the usually one-dimensional Super Good
Guy, DD, who's the most complicated and interesting character.  That would
certainly be a switch!  Would it be enough to satisfy those of us 
yearning for Reformed!Snape?  I don't know, but if anyone could
do it, it would be JKR!

Blue-eyed Lily