In Defense of Snape (Against Snape in JKR's words)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 122449


Betsy wrote:
> But if Snape is not redeemed, then he is still a Death Eater. He is 
> ESE!Snape, and his constant saving of Harry's life is part of some 
> evil complex plot of... evil complexity?
>  
> No, Snape is definitely redeemed.  He's just not sweet and fuzzy.  I 
> don't think he'll ever be sweet and fuzzy (thank goodness).  I do 
> hope there is development of his and Harry's relationship.  There is 
> so much similarity between those two that it'd be a shame if they 
> didn't finally see each others good sides. 
> 
> 
> 
Alla countered:
> 
> NO, Betsy. That is the fundamental difference between how you and me 
> see the character of Snape. To me not a DE anymore does not 
> equal "being redeemed".
> 
<snip> 
> Snape as sadist, who enjoys the sufferings of Harry and Neville 
> needs redemption, IMO. <snip>
>
Carol responds:
Possibly you two are using the word "redeem" in different but equally
valid senses. Betsy seems to be using it to mean reform, and I would
agree that Snape, for all his numerous faults, is "redeemed" in that
sense, a reformed Death Eater who has no intention of going back to
Voldemort and is actively fighting against him. But I think Alla is
using it in the sense of atone or expiate, IOW not just repenting and
opposing Voldemort but somehow extinguishing his guilt, paying for his
sins in some painful way, in which case I can see why she doesn't
think he is yet redeemed. Am I right, or close to right? If not, can
you both clarify your concept of redemption?

I'm not quite sure how Snape could redeem himself in that second sense
except by dying to save Harry or some similar self-sacrifice, a la
Boromir. Anyone have any Snape redemption theories that don't involve
his death? Would saving Harry from deadly peril without dying in the
process count? (*I* think it would, but I also confess that that's
what I hope will happen.)

Carol