Snape, honorable? (was Re: What would a successful AK mean?)

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 143004

 
Antosha:
<SNIP>
> I don't think Snape is a nice man or  even a particularly good 
person. But I can see at least 
> the  possibility that he did what he did for honorable--or, at least-
-justifyable  reasons.
>


Alla:

YES, justifiable reasons I can see as  wrote earlier - it does not sit 
well with me, but I can see it - as in Snape  honestly thinking that 
that would be  the lesser of two evils,  especially if Dumbledore is 
dying at the moment, but honorable reasons?  Sorry, do not see it at 
all.






Julie:
I think under the circumstances you note--lesser of two evils,  especially
if DD is dying--it could be both justifiable and the honorable thing to  do.
One definition of honorable is something done for the benefit of  others
rather than the benefit of oneself, i.e., self-sacrifice. 
 
Ah, you say, but Snape saved HIMSELF! How is that self-sacrifice? 
Snape did something he didn't want to do (if the conversation Hagrid
overheard referred to this possible eventuality), something that may
have seriously damaged his soul, something that cost him a great
deal personally in the loss of the one man who trusted him and  was
perhaps his only true friend, his teaching position, his freedom, his
good name (so far as it went), and probably his future--and that's
not including that he has to return to Voldemort and act as a DE
at great risk to his life, which will likely be sacrificed in the  end.

Snape, how could you be so selfish! ;-)  If this is  how it went
down, and Snape killed/released Dumbledore (who would most
likely have died in any scenario) to ensure the survival of Harry
and Draco, among others (including himself), then I think it was
both courageous and honorable (and courage is an intergral
part of honor). 
 
Some likely disagree, but one reason I believe this is because
I've yet to see *any* evidence that Snape values his life in the 
sense that he'll do anything to stay alive (as Voldemort or Peter
will do). I suspect Snape would have been quite willing to die 
rather than kill Dumbledore, if Dumbledore would have agreed.
After all, it was Dumbledore himself who said there are fates 
worse than death. Voldemort may not understand that fact, but
I'm betting Snape does. And thanks to taking the honorable path
Dumbledore encouraged--sacrificing his own desires for that 
which will achieve the most good--Snape is living that fate.
 
Snape's action also touches on another Dumbledore theme,
which is doing what's right over what's easy. Snape could 
more easily have chosen to fight and die, even if dying took 
Harry, Draco, Dumbledore and eventually much of the WW 
with him. He could have been comforted by the posthumous
Order of Merlin, and numerous statues erected in his honor.
He would have finally acheived the respect and recognition
he felt he deserved. Yet he gave that up and killed Dumbledore,
for what? Simply to live, as a marked man, a hated man, a
presumed traitor and coward? That might be good enough for
Peter, but I don't think it is for Snape.  
 
This is also a reason I can't see OFH!Snape at all. His best 
interest is served by dying a hero, not by living as a pariah.
(Again I'm assuming with no contrary evidence that Snape  
has no fear of death, nor desire to remain alive at any cost).
If he's ESE it could make some sense if he wants the power 
Voldemort's rule supposedly promises (and if he's stupid 
enough to think Voldemort will give it to him). If he's DDM
it makes sense that he made the sacrifice for Dumbledore,
and as part of his continuing atonement for past crimes (and
for his serious miscalculation in taking the UV at all). But 
OFH, no sense. (And I do like GreyDDM!Snape, though I
see him not as conflicted by his loyalties--which are squarely
with DD--but by his own destructive tendencies, which prod
him to act vengefully. 
 
Julie 
--who strayed a bit from the original  topic


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]