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

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 141672

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

> >>Nora: 
> But it doesn't require *my* twisting and turning to work, which is 
> what's different about it.
> <snip>

> >>Jen: 
> So it is better to twisty turny every other character so Snape
> can fit into OFH? Unless I'm misreading, that's exactly what would
> need to happen. An overhaul of nearly every other major character
> and what we understand about their motivations and agendas up to
> this point.

Betsy Hp:
I agree with Jen that OFH sends not just Snape into a rather awkward 
game of twister.  I'd also add that you *do* have to twist and turn 
yourself, Nora.  Because you can't have a Snape so comfortable at 
playing the two most powerful wizards in the WW against the middle 
that he doesn't emigrate or join the Ministry or do something to 
take himself out of the game when it starts to heat up (as it 
obviously does in GoF) who is stupid enough to trap himself with the 
Unbreakable Vow.

> >>Nora:
> 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:
Which directly contradicts an OFH!Snape.  If Snape is stupid enough 
to take the Vow (and I'm still not certain why an OFH!Snape would 
even consider such a thing, what is the gain?) then how on earth has 
he survived the last two years?  Or the year or so before baby!Harry 
vaporized Voldemort?

Your OFH!Snape seems based on Snape basically just trying to stay 
alive and comfortable. IOW, you don't seem to be arguing for an "out 
for his own power" version of the OFH.  It's illogical for that 
version of Snape to *limit* his options.  Which the UV does.  So 
that requires you to come up with a rather twisty reason for Snape 
to do so, if you want to avoid contradictions.

> >>Nora:
> Either DDM or ESE try to straighten him out into one line, whereby 
> all actions have a single end.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Hmm.  I'm not sure I buy this.  DDM, especially I think, leaves 
plenty of room for human error or pathos.  (Snape is loyal to 
Dumbledore but hates Sirius.  Conflict will naturally occur, just as 
it did with Sirius.)  OFH needs an almost superhuman version of 
Snape (he really is the most clever wizard in the world!).

> >>Nora:
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
Not all versions of DDM are created equal, I do agree.  Especially 
if one is trying for a super shiny Snape.  But Harry *does* misread 
things.  The text makes it so obvious I think it's dangerous to take 
*all* of Harry's views and observations as gospel.

Also, I really haven't seen anyone arguing that Snape was faking 
anything in the Shack. (I'm sure it exists, but it's certainly not 
popular amongst the DDM set.)  Especially after OotP showed us that 
Snape had a pretty good reason for loosing his head so completely.  
Again, DDM *does* leave room for Snape to have his own issues.  OFH!
Snape is in less shape to afford them, I think.  (Why would an OFH!
Snape remain at Hogwarts once Lupin was hired on?  What possible 
motivation would he have?)

> >>Nora: 
> Assumption of a redemption plot is a fan-filled blank, a way to   
> fit the story we have into a model.

Betsy Hp:
And something argued by Dumbledore himself.  So I'm not sure where 
fans are going out on a limb here.  Yes, Dumbledore could turn out 
to be wrong, but it's not like there's no textual support for such a 
plot.

> >>Nora:
> 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.

Betsy Hp:
They're certainly aren't made up whole-cloth.  So I'm not sure why 
you're so eager to dismiss them.  (Not conducive to an OFH!Snape? 
<g>)  JKR gave us those flashes of memory and the pensieve scene and 
the great mystery of the Prank.  Are you arguing that they're all 
meaningless?  Yes, any readings of the scenes involve guesswork 
(just as associating Voldemort with the heir of Slytherin was 
guesswork in CoS) but it doesn't mean any and all readings are the 
product of an overheated imagination.

> >>Nora:
> Blanks are everywhere in the story, deliberately.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Because JKR *wants* to leave us guessing.  I seriously doubt JKR 
won't give us answers.  It goes against her style.  I also expect 
that the answers will make sense.  Just as the final reveal in CoS 
made sense.

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

> >>Nora: 
> 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...

Betsy Hp:
Ah.  So you *do* agree than, that Harry behaved rather badly when he 
gave Lucius the prophecy to protect Neville.  It's an... interesting 
philosophy but it's certainly not one shared with the Potterverse.  
JKR *does* think Harry did the right thing.  Neville's life (and/or 
sanity) is rated higher than the faceless masses by JKR.  

And so when she wrote in the threat against Draco's mother (she 
could have easily written Voldemort only threatening Draco's life) 
she added a side of goodness to Draco before he even appears on the 
tower.  Draco, suddenly made responsible for his mother's life, does 
the best he can to protect her.  He's no longer "on the immoral 
side", he's being exploited by it.  It's a huge difference.

> >>Nora:
> I think Draco may have (*may* have) come to care about not wanting 
> to kill other people.

Betsy Hp:
When has Draco killed before?  On what do you base the killer!Draco 
starting point?  I honestly don't think Draco moves on this issue.  
I *do* think it's the first time he's had to face it, but I think he 
never was a killer to begin with, otherwise the task would not have 
been so psychologically difficult for him.

[Actually, this is something I rather admire about JKR.  In a world 
of action films and thrillers galore (which I totally enjoy, don't 
get me wrong <g>), it's rather refreshing to have someone come from 
the standpoint that killing - even an enemy - is not, and should not 
be, an easy thing.]

> >>Nora:
> 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*.

Betsy Hp:
I'm not exactly sure what this sentence means. <g>  I think you're 
saying that Draco may not yet realize he's morally culpable for 
opening the route to Hogwarts and for making those two attempts on 
Dumbledore's life (which nearly killed two people).  And he might 
not.  Though his fairly shattered pychological state (right at the 
moment of victory, too) speaks to something, I think.  His need to 
clarify to Dumbledore that he did not intend Fenrir's presence is 
also meaningful.  However, I think we'll have to wait until book 7 
to get the entire fallout of the tower scene on Draco's moral 
growth.   

Betsy Hp