Did Snape kil DD? WAS: Re: PoA - Snape knew?/

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 143620

h2so3f wrote:
<SNIP>
> I think if anything JKR is more mindful that rules and laws are 
> set in the community's effort to protect its members. When a 
> situation arises that the existing laws did not anticipate then it 
> is right to break them if that is the only way to protect others. 
> It doesn't seem right to judge the 'morality' of a novel (which is 
> not trying to do anything more than simply telling a story) by a 
> reader's own moral standard. 
 

Except that such judging is inevitable and unavoidable.  Whether 
that's good or bad of indifferent or all three, stories do 
have "morals."  Some of them are very conscious morals.  Some are very unconscious morals.  Some are sophisticated, some are basic.  But the morals are always there.

Around this time last year there was an interview with Clint Eastwood talking about "Million Dollar Baby."  That movie WAS about euthanasia, of course.  Eastwood actually said that he didn't think the movie was advocating anything, but just telling the story of some people.  He also said that he had played Dirty Harry for years and that didn't mean he advocated going around shooting people.

I laughed and laughed, but really felt he had missed the point.  
Stories exist in a moral universe, and your reaction to that moral 
universe is a crucial part of your reaction to the story.  Using the 
story's morals as a criterion for praise and condemnation is perfectly legitimate.  Stories do speak to us deeply, and that should be acknowledged.  But when they speak to us in a language we find abhorrent, then I don't think it's legitimate to meet that abhorrence with "well, it's just a story."

Lupinlore, who thinks that a Dumbledore/Snape murder plot or 
contingency would be cheesey, unbelievable, and induce a great deal 
more laughing, but not in a good way