Twist JKR? (was:Re: Dumbledore's pleading...)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 141662

> >>Nora:
> OFH provides an accounting for this event, although I know that    
> you don't like it.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
I don't like OFH because it requires so much twisting and turning to 
work.  (I'm rather surprised *you* like it Nora. <g>)  I'm not sure 
if you support the OFH!Snape who's out to rule the WW himself (in 
which case you need to explain his lack of minions or any sort of 
political manuvering), or the OFH!Snape who just wants to live a 
comfortable life (in which case you have to explain why Snape stays 
in the game, instead of say, scampering off to Durmstang where he 
may well have become headmaster himself).  (See Pippin's post on 
this particular subject.)

And I do think OFH fails to account for Snape saving Dumbledore in 
one instance and then killing him in another.  There's no obvious 
gain for either action, and the contradictory nature of the actions 
leave an OFH proponent making with two different arguments on their 
hands.  (And then there's always the Unbreakable Vow to wrestle 
with.  What's the direct OFH argument for that particular can of 
worms?)

> >>Nora:
> Oh, I think Neri's post is extremely relevant, because it         
> describes almost all the ways which fans read, and all the things 
> which fans do, to make patterns out of the information that we're 
> given.  It points out quite well how little solid information is  
> there, and how much of the arguments are based on what we fill in 
> the blanks with.

Betsy Hp:
It points out the ambiguities and blanks, yes.  But I don't see any 
examples of fan filled blanks.  Unless, you're suggesting that 
there's no importance whatsoever in the dribs and drabs JKR has 
given us.  Which would be weird, considering she used an entire book 
to make the point that Snape is a half-blood.  I tend to be leery of 
theories that encourage ignoring cannon.

> >>Nora:
> Has Snape developed over the course of six books?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Yes.  He went from an unpleasant teacher, to someone with a personal 
link to Harry's father, to Dumbledore's spy, to a double agent, to a 
child prodigy with a personality compatible with our hero, to our 
hero's most personal nemesis.

I know you'll point out that it's not *Snape* developing here, 
rather Harry's (and therefore our) view of him.  Which is exactly 
why JKR has been ambiguious with him.  Snape doesn't really change, 
but as Harry learns more and more about him, the view of him does.  
Unlike with, say McGonagall, who is pretty much exactly as she 
seemed in PS/SS.  JKR has managed to make Snape dynamic by making 
Harry's reaction to him dynamic.

> >>Lupinlore:
> <snip>
> I would agree with Nora that we do see more of a character dynamic 
> in Ron than in Snape. Most of Snape's appearances are pretty      
> boring and predictable (i.e. here he comes, let's see how nasty    
> and childish he can be this time).
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hee! So that's why Snape provokes so many passionate posts from 
you?  Because he's so very, very dull?  Oh yes, scenes with Snape 
are so much wasted paper in which no plot moves forward, Harry has 
no reaction, and the readership hides their collective yawns.  (That 
exlains the utter fandom silence on the man... wait...) <bg>

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > <snip>
> > To try and say that JKR is writing a morality that 
> > encourages sons to let their mothers die is an uphill battle I 
> > think.

> >>Nora:
> I wouldn't say that either.

Betsy Hp:
So you agree that Draco's worry for his mother's life was not an 
example of selfishness?

> >>Nora:
> But I would say she's writing a morality where one has to consider 
> very, very hard the consequences of self-absorption and what it    
> can do to other people.

Betsy Hp:
Wait, so not wanting your mother to die is an example of self-
absorption?  I'm confused.  So, when Harry handed over the prophecy 
to stop Bella from torturing Neville, was he expressing a self-
absorbed tendency to put his school tie over the safety of the WW?

> >>Nora:
> <snip>
> The morality of the Potterverse does seem very social to me,      
> rewarding sincerity over authenticity.  

Betsy Hp:
So you're saying Draco was not sincere in his worry about his 
mother?  How do you figure that?

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > But then it doesn't set an impossibly high standard for any
> > character to achieve to be on the side of good. They are none of
> > them saints, so it's unwise to be too judgmental of them. The tar
> > brushed on one character may well paint another.

> >>Lupinlore:
> It's a pretty big jump from "they are none of them saints" to "it's
> unwise to be too judgmental." 
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
How?  Nora was arguing that Draco was selfish in putting his 
mother's safety over that of Dumbledore's.  You start down that 
slippery slope and suddenly Harry is selfish in worrying about 
Neville's safety.  James is selfish in giving his life (that of a 
strong solider) to protect his son (won't be of any worth to the 
Order for several years at least).

I'm not seeing any great leaps here.  The Potterverse is not made up 
of saints, so you have to be careful when you define an unforgivable 
sin.  You may take down more characters than you really mean to.

Betsy Hp