HBP Review in Globe and Mail

[slgazit]

No: HPFGUIDX 135596

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "delwynmarch" <delwynmarch at y...>
wrote:
> I must admit that I am bothered by DD's death too. My only hope is
> that what seems to have happened is not to be taken at face value,
> that Snape is not really what he seems to be, because otherwise...

I think it is very clear that Snape is dedicated to protecting Harry
from harm, odd as it may be. I thought the most bizzare comment from
him was "No Unforgivable Curses from you, Potter!" when Harry tried to
Crucio him after he (Snape) has just used a much worse Unforgivable
Curse on DD. Then later, he prevented the Death Eaters from harming
Harry. Why he does it will probably be answered in book 7, but both
his hatred and protectiveness towards Harry has been a thread in all
books since #1.

As for why he decided to kill DD, I am guessing he was obligated to by
his oath in the beginning of the book, but who knows...

> For 4 books, Harry has very little interaction with DD. Then in OoP,
> Harry actually feels anger towards DD. If DD had died at the end of
> OoP, Harry would have felt much differently about it. Instead, Harry
> gets to spend one-on-one time with DD, throughout HBP. He grows closer
> to DD than he'd ever been, he sees DD weak, he helps him. And then
> what happens? DD dies.

But that's again has been the theme of the books - as soon as Harry
gets close to a protective adult, he is taken out of the picture - his
parents were murdered, Sirius was murdered, DD was murdered...

 And by who is he killed? By Snape, of all
> people! The one person that DD always said he trusted, without ever
> giving any good reason, and that Harry always distrusted, often
> without any good reason either.
> 
> How trite!! How cliche!

It is not trite and cliche since we don't know the answer to why DD
trusted him and why he broke the trust. Until then, there is no point
in passing judgement on the appropriateness of that story line.

> So if it turns out that DD's death is no more than it looks like, that
> Snape was always either on LV's side or on his own (Snape's) side, and
> that DD was an old fool for trusting him so much, then I'll agree with
> Mr Alexis that "DD's death was a rather cheap effort to elicit emotion".

No, I disagree. I think Snape is the most complex and interesting
character in the serie, and I am sure that book 7 will have an
excellent reason for both DD's trust and Snape's seeming treachery.

DD was old and not afraid of death. I doubt that his trust of Snape
was due to his certainty that Snape would not hurt him, but rather
that Snape supports the overall plan that DD had in mind on how to
defeat Voldemort. Just because Snape killed DD does not mean he
foresook that goal - his protectiveness towards Harry in the final
scene between them suggests that he may still have that ultimate goal
in mind (or obligated to it by yet another unbreakable oath?).
Defeating Voldemort does not require DD to be alive, but Harry.

Me I think that it's highly likely that Snape swore another
Unbreakable Oath - to protect Harry. That would explain his actions in
all the books and also DD's trust in him, and also why killing DD does
not necessarily indicate betrayal of that trust.

Salit