Harry's story , NOT Snape's (was Re: "An old man's mistakes")

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 139008

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
 
> But then again, maybe I'm an odd one and actually found Snape *far* 
> more sympathetic before OotP.  Why?  Because then, under the open 
> situation we had, not knowing which way the war would go, I had
hopes  for Snape acting like a mature and helpful adult.  I actually
lost some sympathy for Snape after the Pensieve scene when he throws
Harry  out--it's all about Snape and his humiliation there, and he
can't or  won't calm down enough (later, either) to wonder what Harry 
*actually* thought about the situation.  
> 
> I suspect a little more of the other shoe is going to drop, as HBP 
> did some of that with Snape's invention of the curses.

Pippin:
But this is Harry's story, not Snape's.
It's Harry who has to become a mature and capable adult, which
means learning to accept that there are adults who may not be as 
mature and capable as he is, but are not deserving of the word
'evil', which as Hermione says is awfully strong. Is that really
the word we want to use for nasty school teachers?

Nora:
> Those themes are there if you want to read them as consistently 
there.  However, HBP did us all the favor of problematizing 
everything we know about Snape, without resolving solidly any of
the  major issues (schooldays, so-called Prank, role in the DEs, 
defection), which means those things may not be actual.

Pippin:
It would weaken the impact of the last book to resolve any major 
issues in this one.  Instead, what we  we learn  is what's at stake 
for the characters in getting the major issues resolved. 

We're given a very broad hint that we
can't possibly understand what's going on with Snape without
knowing his past history, just as Harry/the reader couldn't 
understand, without Voldemort's history, why the power of 
love should be key to  defeating him. 

Yet Snape's past history is kept from us, which certainly *doesn't*
tell us that it's not important. You might as well argue that it
wasn't important whether Vader was really Luke's father, since
Lucas didn't resolve that in The Empire Strikes Back.

Nora:
 It's all in motivations, methinks.  The guy who knew everything 
could  be not an idiot, but cruelly deceived by someone he thought 
was  genuine.  It could be exceedingly BANG-y whereby Harry has 
been wrong  about Snape in the past, but for once is actually right. 

Pippin:
How can he be right when he's making judgments the same way
he always has, with anger and prejudice? Is it the idea that once
you grow up, you can trust your prejudices? Bleh!

 It will be a lot more BANG-y if not only Dumbledore but Harry 
himself has been cruelly deceived by someone he thought was 
genuine. 

I have to point out, incidentally, that Harry was not. right. about.
Draco.  Dumbledore was holding off acting in order not to 
precipitate a crisis, and didn't realize the crisis was nigh. But
the reason he didn't realize it was that Harry didn't tell him
that Trelawney had been attacked. That meant the jig
was up --Draco knew his hiding place had been discovered and
he would have to act or give up. But Harry, having spent
the whole year telling Dumbledore things he already knew,
forgot to tell Dumbledore the one thing that might have
made a difference. Read it and weep.


Nora:
 If you  increasingly think (as I do) that JKR has a concept of
Character,  the  red flags have been going off for books.

Pippin:
They sure have! What  about the guy whom Harry thinks is genuine, 
and has admitted to being twice unworthy of Dumbledore's trust?
Hint: it's not Snape.

Nora:
> I also think the complexity of the books well can be overrated. 
Note  all the wacky theories for plot that people have come up with,
almost  none of which have turned out; it's not too much of a stretch
tonote  that very complex theme-readings, and not only the
plot-readings, might turn out to be pushed aside.

Pippin:
You mean conspiracy theories like, Dumbledore is running a secret 
organization of spies, Snape has managed to worm his way back into 
what passes for Voldemort's confidence, Snape was the eavesdropper, 
Lupin is spying on the werewolves? Those theories?
I can't take credit for 'em. But I definitely read 'em all here. And
they're canon now. 

Nora:
> Even for my formulation of Out For Himself Snape, he's explainable 
> with a surprisingly small amount of information.  As I see it, the 
> key to the character is that his complexity has been pinned on a 
> combination of observed actions and omitted implications--and I
don't  know what the ultimate balance is.

Pippin:
The trouble with Out for Himself Snape is that it relies on an
inconsistent evaluation of Harry's ability to read Snape.

I mean, Harry thinks Snape hates him and needles him because Snape
believes that Harry is a weak and unworthy wizard. That's what makes
it hurt so much -- because Harry is afraid in his heart that this is
true. But OFH!Snape can't believe this; after all he's only keeping
Harry alive because Harry is the Chosen One, right?  So Harry has to 
be wrong. And we're back to OscarWinner!Snape, too. 

Despite this, we are supposed to believe that Harry cannot be
wrong  about the meaning of Snape's look of hatred and revulsion
on the tower. And that doesn't make any sense at all -- well, not
to me anyway.

Pippin