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

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 141663

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

> Betsy Hp:
> I don't like OFH because it requires so much twisting and turning 
> to work.  

But it doesn't require *my* twisting and turning to work, which is 
what's different about it.  Is that an acceptible difference?  It's a 
profound one.

It lets Snape be twisty and turny in and of himself, which is how 
he's written.  Either DDM or ESE try to straighten him out into one 
line, whereby all actions have a single end.  And in some variations 
of DDM, we get pages of tortuous explanation as to how Harry has 
totally and utterly misread everything, Snape was just acting when he 
freaked out in the Shack, he's playing game after game, etc.

> (See Pippin's post on this particular subject.)

Which I just answered, I do believe.  Lazy afternoons give me the 
luxury to be caught up fully before posting.  :)

Why not run off to Durmstrang is the question of why emigrate if you 
don't have to.  Karkaroff runs off, but Karkaroff has been grilled in 
front of a formal panel in a way that Snape, *because* he has 
Dumbledore as his patron, never had to go through.  Ergo, we have a 
clear explanation for Karkaroff conviently leaving the country, and 
an explanation for why Snape wouldn't have to.  If he's in 
Dumbledore's good favors, why give up his home country and a position 
ideal for keeping an eye upon events of the WW?

> 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.

Lupinlore answered that: before the UV and in a direct encounter with 
Dumbledore, Snape helps out.  Everything changes once Snape has tied 
his hands with the vow, and maybe also over the course of a year.  
People's perceptions of events can change a lot over a turbulent 
year.  My own speculation wonders about Snape's discomfort with 
Dumbledore's unshakable conviction in Harry Potter.  I can see Snape 
wrestling with the issue of "We're depending upon that obnoxious 
kid?  We're screwed.  But I'm not, necessarily..."

> (And then there's always the Unbreakable Vow to wrestle with.  
> What's the direct OFH argument for that particular can of worms?)

No strong opinions, but somewhat inclined (speaking only for myself) 
to view it as Snape getting himself into something he would have 
rather avoided.  That's nicely thematic for him, in a way: Snape 
tends to think he knows more than he actually does, and he's not 
terribly flexible about realizing that.

> Betsy Hp:
> It points out the ambiguities and blanks, yes.  But I don't see any 
> examples of fan filled blanks.

Assumption of a redemption plot is a fan-filled blank, a way to fit 
the story we have into a model.  All the readings of the flashes of 
memory we got in the Pensieve are fan ways of filling in the blanks 
which explain and connect them.  Blanks are everywhere in the story, 
deliberately.  And one of the last points at the bottom, the thing 
about fans now getting to explain even more startling events--there's 
your great example.  Iser would love all of this.

> I tend to be leery of theories that encourage ignoring cannon.

Cannons are considerably more dangerous to one's health, yes.

> 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.

I do distinguish between revelation and development.  As we argued 
before, these are very different modes and can thus be treated 
differently.  Development is current action, revelation is the 
bringing-forth of what has always existed.

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

It's still somewhat selfish, because it's something like "save the 
person who I care about as opposed to the man leading the war effort 
who can thus be responsible for saving hundreds of other people."  
And yes, ethically, I'd say that if you were in a situation where it 
was "save my mother" versus "save 200 other people" and you pick your 
mother, you're being selfish.  There is, of course, the additional 
complicating factor that Draco's on the immoral side to begin with...

I think Draco may have (*may* have) come to care about not wanting to 
kill other people.  I'm really not sure that he's come to an 
understanding about things like enabling and accessory with intent, 
though--just an unwillingness to do it *himself*.

-Nora suspects that McCoy or Carver both could get a conviction on 
Snape, for sure (Casey, not so likely)