A Shot at Redemption (Was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)

[jessicabathurst]

No: HPFGUIDX 142904

Lupinlore wrote:

<snip>
 
> So, if it really was a true AK, what would that mean?  Would it be 
> possible for Snape to be truly and completely on the side of light 
if 
> he indeed used a real unforgiveable?  I think many people sense 
that 
> the answer to that is "No," and hence we have an argument about 
> whether he really cast an AK.

> As I see it we have three possibilities if the AK was genuine and 
> successful:

<snip #1, which I agree isn't interesting.>

> 2) Snape is good and his use of the AK is a special case, as with 
the 
> Aurors.  Okay, but that's hard to swallow, especially as Snape 
isn't 
> an auror and even the aurors' use of unforgiveables is presented to 
> us in a way that makes them seem morally questionable.  Why would a 
> good Snape who wanted to kill Dumbledore use an AK?  There would be 
> many other ways to kill the man without resorting to an 
> Unforgiveable.  Is that because it's what a DE would do?  But why 
did 
> the DEs in the ministry at the end of OOTP seem so reluctant to use 
> them?

Jessica:

How many other ways?  Given the unusual physical powers of wizards, 
what would have killed Dumbledore?  (I'm being very serious here.)  
I'm not even certain that dropping Dumbledore off of the tower would 
have killed him, given that falling from a great height didn't kill 
practically squib Neville.  Sectumsempra?  I don't know.

> 3)  We are supposed to take the word "Unforgiveable" as being 
> literal, morally if not always legally.  Thus if Snape did indeed 
use 
> an Unforgiveable he's not good in a moral and magical sense.  Of 
> course a not-good Snape need not be loyal to Voldemort.  

<some snippage here about the merits of #3>

>  ...but at the same time would give due to all of the evidence that 
>  Snape has a severe dark side that merits concern and indeed, 
>  punishment.  It would mean that the AK is 
> in fact another clue about Snape, just as are DD's constant 
> blitherings about how he trusts the Potions Master.  DD is telling 
>  us  that Snape is not always on the side of evil, but the AK is 
> telling  us he's not one of the good guys, either.  

I, too, believe that "not-good" does not necessarily mean "evil,"  
but I'm not convinced that Snape isn't one of the good guys.  His 
dark side is certainly more visible and active than most of the other 
characters in the series, but it also seems to give fuel to what 
could be considered positive about Snape:  his curiosity, his 
research into/invention of curses and cures, his love of DADA.  I 
don't think his dark side per se deserves punishment, although 
killing Dumbledore certainly does.  (Since I think Snape will be 
tortured enough knowing that he killed his mentor and a man who loved 
him, I prefer that his punishment be of the legal variety, which I 
agree will be forthcoming.)

> In any case, if we take JKR at her word about Unforgiveables - and 
I 
> don't think we have much evidence that she wasn't being literal - I 
> don't see any way for Snape to cast a successful AK and come out, 
in 
> the end, as being good (in the sense of morally good, not in the 
> sense of being against Voldy, which could spring from all kinds of 
> motivations).

And this asks the question:  can one be morally good and commit a 
mortal sin?  (I don't mean this in the strictly Catholic sense, but 
in the Most Serious Sin sense.)  What does redemption mean in a case 
like this?  Lupinlore, you wrote:

> Could a Snape that has cast an AK be redeemed?  I suppose so, but 
> only at the cost of his life (after giving an apology to Harry and 
> Neville for his behavior, of course, which would be required for 
his 
> redemption under any circumstances).*  What message would that send 
> about redemption, I hear some ask?  Simply that redemption is very 
> hard and very costly, and sometimes costs you everything you have.
> *Would a Snape who dies but does not admit he has been wrong and 
> apologize be redeemed?  The answer is absolutely no.

I would disagree on both counts.  I don't think Snape has to die to 
be redeemed (although I think his chances of surviving Book 7 are at 
about 10%), simply because death in itself wouldn't do anything 
except end his life.  It wouldn't make up for any of the crimes he 
may or may not have committed, it wouldn't help Snape see the error 
of his Death Eater ways (if that's what he's returned to), and it 
wouldn't reconcile Snape with Harry.  Redemption would require Snape 
to a) recognize his sins, b) atone for those sins, and c) make amends 
where possible.  Since the only sin that I see Snape needing to atone 
for is the murder of Dumbledore, I'd expect to see Redemption!Snape 
enacting Dumbledore's agenda in Book 7:  protecting Draco, protecting 
and enabling Harry, and revealing crucial information to the Order 
and/or Harry about Voldemort.  (How he would do this is anyone's 
guess.)  It's not possible for Snape to make direct amends to 
Dumbledore, so he's got to live with that guilt on his own.  

It is, however, possible for Snape to make amends to Harry and 
Neville, although I'm not certain I'd classify Snape's assy behavior 
towards them as a sin or as an evil, so I don't think that he needs 
to apologize to them to be redeemed.  There's a huge difference 
between being a mean teacher and being a murderer.  Also, I don't 
expect Snape to go all 12-Step with this redemption thing and start 
making amends with everyone; atoning for Dumbledore's murder is the 
primary thing.  (Although, now that I think about it, I'd love to see 
Snape in a Death Eaters Anonymous group with Karkaroff and Regulus 
Black.  "It's been twelve days since I baited Muggles/cast an 
Unforgiveable/wore an unflattering hood.")

Yours,
Jessica
(who is still at work at 8pm and wonders if thirty is too late to 
discover that you have a trust fund)