21 Reasons Why Snape is a Good Guy

[roseviolet66]

No: HPFGUIDX 133479

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snipsnapsnurr" 
<snipsnapsnurr at y...> wrote:
> Well, I think everyone should keep in mind that Harry physically 
> forced Dumbledore to drink about six goblets of what was pretty 
> obviously poison. Actually held him down and poured it down his 
> throat. But he had a reason for it. The only reason it doesn't 
> seem wrong to us is because we know the reason. I don't think it's 
> a stretch at all to think that Snape had a good reason for what he 
> did. Especially since the reason is given in the book (the 
> Unbreakable Vow). I'm convinced that Dumbledore made Snape promise 
> to kill him if it came to that. Believing in evil!Snape requires 
> that we also believe in stupid!Dumbledore, and I just can't buy 
> that.
> 
> snipsnapsnurr

While the possibility certainly exists, I'm not convinced at this 
point that such a promise actually existed between Dumbledore and 
Snape. I'm not a Snape fan by any stretch of the imagination, 
and I am still in high dudgeon over Dumbledore's death and Snape's 
role in it, but I just can't credit that Snape has been a loyal DE 
all this time and that Dumbledore could be so silly as to fall for 
an act to the detriment of the entire war effort.

It is Snape's actions during his confrontation with Harry in Chapter 
28 that gave me food for the thought that he may still be working 
for the light. Yes, Snape saves Harry from the Cruciatus in that 
chapter, but more significantly, he stops Harry from casting the 
very same curse. As Harry apparently attempts to cast the Cruciatus 
curse on Snape, Snape blocks Harry before he can even get out the 
full incantation and shouts "No Unforgivable Curses from you, 
Potter!"  Why does Snape stop Harry from even incanting this
curse?

We know from OotP that to successfully cast an Unforgivable, "you 
have to mean it...want to cause pain...enjoy it."  We also know
that Harry was unable to successfully cast the Cruciatus on 
Bellatrix, despite the fact that he felt "hatred as he'd never felt 
before" and wanted retribution for Sirius's death at Bellatrix's 
hands. In fact, both times that Harry has been overwhlemed by grief 
and confronted by those who have killed his loved ones--Bellatrix in 
OotP and Snape in HBP--he has tried to cast the Cruciatus. And it's 
a "habit" he needs to break. If love is truly Harry's secret weapon 
against Voldemort and the "power he knows not," then wouldn't that 
power be corrupted by successfully casting a dark spell which 
requires such negative and hateful emotions as fuel? How can Harry 
successfully defeat Voldemort with love if he can be so easily 
tempted to give in to his grief and use dark magic? It's one thing 
to feel such dark emotions (quite understandably in this case) and 
another entirely to act on them. A distinction Snape seems to 
recognize in censuring Harry from further attempts to cast an 
Unforgivables. If Snape has truly turned traitor to the light, then 
why the emphasis on preventing Harry from even incanting a dark 
spell and giving in to the lure of dark magic?

At this point, I lean toward thinking that Snape remains for the 
light. Snape has always been a rather complex character in the 
series, seemingly straddling that fine line between good and evil, 
and the most obvious candidate for the "guy that everyone loves to 
hate." For Snape to be revealed as completely evil at this stage 
would be a bit cliche. Not to mention rather disappointing.

~Roseviolet