The Possibilities of Grey Snape (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 142988

> >>Nora:
> <snip> 
> Otherwise we fall into an ersatz generalized structuralism, and I 
> don't need any more Joseph Campbell in my life. :)  (Nobody does.)

Betsy Hp:
I hate to speak for Sydney since she's been doing so well, but I 
think she's actually pointing to familiar structuralism within her 
argument.  JKR isn't *that* much of rule-breaker in her story 
structure.  Actually, I don't think she's a rule-breaker at all.  
She pulls from a couple of different genres, so that shakes things 
up a teeny tiny bit.  But honestly, if you throw out Campbell's rule 
book  (which is kinda silly, IMO, since he's sort of an expert in at 
least one of the genres JKR is relying so heavily upon) than you're 
bound to miss some really big honking clues as to the direction of 
the story, IMO.

> >>Nora:
> I suppose that's one default possible structural model, but I'm   
> far less more comfortable than I used to be that it's now 'bound' 
> to go that way.  Maybe if it had remained on anything close to the 
> same parameters that it was following, but those got blown apart   
> with a BANG (unless one is intent upon arguing for a line of       
> thought which retrospectively mitigates said BANG). 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
The BANG of Snape killing Dumbledore is an important part of that 
particular structural model.  The person the protaganist distrusts 
*must* do something to cement that distrust right at the moment the 
protaganist will need them most.  That's what pulls the tension to a 
really nice near-breaking point so that the climax is that much more 
satisfying.  Before the Tower only Harry distrusted Snape, now no 
one does.  Which will make the moment where Harry has to make a 
choice (to trust or not to trust) that much more difficult and 
therefore compelling.

Betsy Hp