Levels and contradictions in JKR's writing ( was Re: It's over, Snape is evil )

[kiricat4001]

No: HPFGUIDX 138356

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> 
wrote:
> Sienna brings up an excellent point, and one that I think gets to 
the 
> heart of the Snape debate.  Where you stand on the question of 
Snape 
> seems to relate very strongly to where you stand on two other 
> questions: 1)On how many levels do you believe JKR is 
intentionally 
> writing, and 2)Your tolerance for contradictions in the plot and 
> themes of the HP saga.
> 
> I'm not going to argue for one interpretation or the other -- at 
> least not much.  I just want to lay out the issue for discussion.  
It 
> seems to me that for Good!Snape to be the case one must postulate 
> that JKR is writing consciously on multiple levels.  In order to 
> argue for Evil!Snape you don't have to necessarily DENY that JKR 
is 
> operating on multiple levels, but as Sienna points out, Evil!Snape 
> does fit with a straightforward narrative whereas Good!Snape does 
not.

Marianne:
And OFH!Snape does, too, I'm happy to think.

 
> Personally, I am somewhat at sea on this question.  I think Sienna 
is 
> right that the outcome of many subplots, particularly those 
involving 
> shipping, support the idea that JKR is writing a more 
straightforward 
> and "obvious" story than many fans have expected or believed. 
 
Marianne: As does JKR's recent mention of "anvil" types of hints for 
the shipping that we saw in HBP.  I have no particular interest in 
the pairing off of the kids, but I always felt that Ron/Hermione was 
a done deal, ever since Ron got so bent out of shape about Hermione 
and Krum  Which meant that, by default, Harry would end up with 
Ginny. So, the revelations of HBP did not shock me at all, and I 
really don't get the angst of people who think that either pairing 
is wrong.  However, since I have no real interest and have not spent 
a lot of time analyzing either pairing, it's easy for me.

What we really need, with regards to Snape, is for people who don't 
give a damn about him one way or the other (are there any such 
people on the planet???) to give us their views of the character.  
They'll probably be spot on.

Lupionlore:
But in Voldemort we have a character who seems, from all 
> evidence and appearances, to be genetically evil, a corrupt 
product 
> of a degenerate and inbred family.  Furthermore Dumbledore, the 
very 
> character who is associated with statements about the power of 
choice 
> and the importance of trust, seems to relate to him from the very 
> first as a dangerous and deeply flawed child, a child who is in 
some 
> way corrupt in his very essence.  In other words, we have a 
powerful 
> and glaring contradiction woven into the basic fabric of the 
> narrative, in which choice and trust is emphasized but the main 
> villain is a monster from birth, the son of a poisoned bloodline.

Marianne:

I think you're right with this.  I originally was going to argue 
this point, but the more I tried, the more I felt I would be 
undercutting myself.  And that's because of the comparisons we have 
to draw between Tom Riddle and Harry.  Tom's bloodline was horrible, 
but had he been adopted by a loving family, perhaps he wouldn't have 
turned out as the embodiment of evil.  Yet, Harry also grew up 
unloved and resented, but managed to retain an innate decency that 
is totally foreign to Tom.  What's the difference between the two 
boys? Genetics?  Bloodlines?  Plot device?