Snape's punishment a "moral" issue? Was "Two Scenes..."

nrenka nrenka at yahoo.com
Mon Dec 5 18:34:34 UTC 2005


No: HPFGUIDX 144117

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:

> Pippin:
> But what about the families of Hepzibah Smith, Hokey the House Elf,
> Cedric Diggory and all the others who have not been informed as
> to the reasons for Harry's enterprise? Who don't even know that it
> is thanks to Horace Slughorn's information that Voldemort murdered
> the people they loved? Would they all be as willing to pardon 
> Slughorn as Harry is? What right does Harry have to speak for them? 

Harry is the hero of the story and is the one who is going to rid the 
world of this particular menace once and for all?  That works for me; 
Harry has taken this responsibility on and has a unique ability (so 
we're continually told) to pursue it.  Because he's taken on the 
obligation and the responsibility, he has according abilities that 
the non-involved do not.  It's hard not to think of this from a 
metaperspective (i.e., we know the books are called 'Harry Potter and 
the...'), but I'm not sure I want to exclude that in this case.

I think the nature of Slughorn's responsibility is also somewhat 
different than that of Snape's, even given the "provided information" 
scenario.  Has to do with the relationship to Voldemort being quite 
different, and the proximate results being far, far closer.

> I'm really not very comfortable arguing that Harry does have that 
> right, but nevertheless he assumed it, and he would be a hypocrite,
> IMO, and false to Dumbledore, to seek redress against Snape when  
> Snape has already been pardoned,-- assuming that Snape was indeed 
> pardoned, and fulfilled the conditions under which Dumbledore 
> pardoned him.

Pre-HBP, I wouldn't have questioned that assumption.  Now?  Open 
season.  Particularly given the nature of Snape's culpable actions 
and the knowledge that Voldemort was not utterly gone for good but 
could recur.  His obligation seems stative rather than something you 
can address in the simple past as a one-time completed action.

To be a little clearer: I think of it as an obligation to act in a 
certain way and to keep on acting accordingly, not a one-time "You do 
this and then it's all done" sort of thing.  That *does* seem to be 
the nature of Snape and Dumbledore's relationship.

No matter what the actual topic of the argument, Snape says "I don't 
want to do it *anymore*" (continuance of a state) and Dumbledore 
says "You agreed" (holding Snape to the continuance of these actions, 
denying completion).  I think there's some kind of continuing 
obligation until the situation which Snape was a specific contributor 
to is finally resolved.

-Nora thinks there of Katharine Kerr's Nevyn, who has to live until 
he finally fixes what he himself set awry...or maybe Kundry, too...








More information about the HPforGrownups archive