Heroes or not

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 145156

> >>JenD:
> > In the narrowest sense of the word, there can only be one hero, 
> > no doubt. But redemption is not the same as being the hero.

> >>Alla:
> No, redemption is NOT necessarily the same as being the Hero, true,
> but to me after HBP Snape fallen so deeply that the only way he can
> gain redemption is to play a pivotal role in defeating Voldemort   
> and that IMO IS Harry's job.

Betsy Hp:
So even if there is a DDM friendly explanation given in book 7 about 
the events on the tower, that wouldn't be good enough for you?  I'm 
asking that seriously, because I think that most folks going with a 
DDM!Snape who *will* have a large role (though not the starring 
role) and a redemption story line, *do not* think Snape maliciously 
killed Dumbledore.

I understand that you believe Snape is a bad guy, and he killed 
Dumbledore for an evil or selfish purpose.  And I agree that, if 
that were the case, it would be impossible for Snape to make up for 
that action in the last book.  (Which is why I don't see redemption 
in store for Peter.)  But that's not what the "Snape is a good guy" 
people have to deal with.  We tend to think that Snape *doesn't* 
have to make up for his behavior on the tower but for his role as a 
Death Eater.

Lupinlore, at least, believes quite strongly that Snape is a child 
abuser.  So he feels Snape has that to make up for.  But again, most 
DDM!Snape folks do not think Snape is a child abuser.

So the redemptive story line for Snape, as seen by the DDM!Snape 
folks, doesn't have such a large burden on its shoulders as the ESE!
Snape story line would have.  Snape doesn't have to pay for events 
on the tower.  He probably doesn't even have to pay for his actions 
as a teacher.  (My personal take is that he's *already* paying for 
his negative interactions with Harry.)  So all book 7 has to cover 
is his actions as a Death Eater, his role in Lily's and James' death.

And that's something that I think most DDM!Snape people feel Snape 
is *already* making up for.  He started paying back when he showed 
up on Dumbledore's doorstep, and has continued to do so with all of 
his spy work.  I personally think he went a long way towards his 
goal of redemption *with* his actions on the tower.  

So book 7 won't *introduce* the redemption of Snape.  It will 
*reveal* a redemption well under way.  *Harry* will have to 
recognize Snape for who he really is, see Snape as Dumbledore saw 
him.  Which brings the story right back to Harry, and which leaves 
Harry comfortably in the central role of hero, with Snape's 
redemption as one of the supporting stones in Harry's foundation.

[This is a bit of an aside, but I'm not sure Snape is consciously 
seeking redemption, despite how I phrased some of the above.  IOW, 
I'm not sure he's on a religious sort of quest to avoid Hell's fires 
or something of the sort, with a set of scales weighing his good 
actions against his bad.  I think he did what he did as a Death 
Eater, was horrified by it, and has since been trying to get to a 
place where he is happy with himself again.  Which, seeing how hard 
he is on others, may well be an impossibility.]

> >>JenD:
> > How can it threaten someone's very precious notion of who Harry 
> > is to see a lesser and very troubled character find a measure of 
> > redemption?

> >>Alla:
> Not the way you phrase it, of course not. If Snape commits a MINOR
> act of helping Harry which will lead to defeat of Voldemort at the
> end, I can totally buy it. If without Snape defeat of Voldemort    
> will be impossible, if his help will be SO crucial that without    
> him Harry fails, that IMO makes Snape the Hero and not Harry.

Betsy Hp:
And yet, without Hermione, Harry (and Ron) would never have survived 
PS/SS.  They'd have both died in the devil's snare plant.  Without 
the Order, Harry would have died in OotP.  Without Fawks, Harry 
would have been killed by the basilisk in CoS.  Without Dumbledore, 
Harry, Sirius, and Buckbeak would have died in PoA.  

Harry has had crucial help, without which he would have failed, in 
every single book in the series.  Of course, in every single book 
there is a moment when Harry stands alone, to succeed or fail on his 
own.  A crucial assist from Snape in book 7 would be along the same 
lines, I think.  Snape may well be the key to getting Harry onto the 
field of battle, but the battle will be Harry's alone.

Plus, if Harry has to gain an understanding of Snape to *gain* that 
key, it makes the victory even *more* Harry's to my mind.  I think 
Snape is very much a "there but for the grace of God" figure for 
Harry.  If Harry becomes consumed by his hatred he could become the 
very thing he hates.  But if he takes that extra, heroic step, of 
getting beyond his hatred, well, than he becomes a man in a way that 
Snape has never achieved.  And again, that gives the lion's share of 
the victory to Harry.

Betsy Hp