Viewing Snape "directly" (Was:Twist JKR? )

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 141631

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "M.Clifford" <Aisbelmon at h...> 
wrote:

> Valky:
> Oh Nora, I can't let that one slide by, sorry. <bg>
> 
> The questionableness of the Avada Kedavra on the tower *is* 
> minimizing the approach to assumptions.  Consider what assumptions 
> need to be made to *believe* that it was an successful Killing 
> curse.

We saw Snape say "Avada Kedavra".  We saw a green jet of light.  We 
saw said jet of light hit Dumbledore.  You have to do far, far more 
work to say "It wasn't actually an AK!" than to go "Well damn, that 
was a killing curse."

JKR was kind enough to specify the color of the light this time 
around, nu?  You have to postulate that there is some way to fake the 
AK, that Snape did it, and then that the fall killed Dumbledore, or 
somehow the potion amazingly killed him after said fall.  That ain't 
minimizing assumptions, I think.

I know the exceptionalism argument for the AK, but I think, yet 
again, that's instance of trying to work around what we 
have.  'Exceptional' requires, IMO, a better standard of 'normative' 
than we have at present.  I'm not saying that's always the wrong 
thing to do--I'm just saying that it's more work, and thus more of an 
assumption.  Yes, it's assuming simplicity to assume that it was a 
genuine AK.  It's less of an assumption than that it's not.

> You have to assume Dumbledore was tricked by Snape first and is it 
> a huge assumption to say Dumbledore was fooled for 16 years and 
> ultimately betrayed despite repeated warnings from so many trusted
> allies? Yes it is. 

Repeated warnings from so many trusted allies?  I can think of Moody 
in the courtroom scene, and Harry's objections (which Dumbledore 
never puts to rest), but the rest of the Order seems to have 
been "Well, we thought Dumbledore knew what he was doing--he sure 
didn't share..."

As well, my personal model doesn't require Dumbledore to have been 
fooled for 16 years, just for two or so.  There *are* different 
options than "Snape has always been evil" and "Snape has always been 
loyal to Dumbledore through and through", so don't make me go get my 
buddy Mr. Excluded Middle.  

It's not terribly hard, if you take the model of Snape as someone 
inclined to look after his own interests, to read many of his actions 
in the past books in ambiguous ways.  You have the objection that we 
have to jump over everything he's done for the good side, which is a 
valid objection--although Neri's loverly list points out, accurately, 
how little of that has been very solidly shown to us in canon.  The 
counterargument is that *you* have to deal with all of his petty/self-
centered/malicious actions, such as the on-stage killing of 
Dumbledore.  Either approach is going to have to explain away some 
things.  I like OFH because it requires the minimum of those 
subsidiary explanations--Snape is good sometimes and evil others, 
without exculpation for the bad and denial for the good.

<snip>

> Here I'll start you off with a double quadruple one. Snape killed
> Dumbledore so then explain how Dumbledore died peacefully, with his
> peace shattered and the boy he was protecting, the hope of the whole
> wizard world, left alone and unprepared at the top of the tower with
> his betrayer. 

Acceptance of death (which I assume you're drawing out from the 
facial expression) is not necessarily the same thing as dying with 
all your plans in order, when you wanted to.  I can see Dumbledore 
not fighting against his own death (having the courage to go on, and 
not fearing death) while still dying under what were, we might say, 
sub-optimal circumstances.

-Nora almost wishes for a website update to toss us some crumbs