Draco, the UV, and the First Time (was: re: Trial of Severus Snape - UV)

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 141673

Sherry wrote:
> 
> i could almost buy both DDM and OFH Snape.  But as I see it, if he
did indeed make his choice on the tower, then he chose OFH.  He didn't
prove his loyalty to Dumbledore by then murdering him.  That can never
be justified or rationalized to me.  I'll regret ever reading these
books, if that's how it turned out, because killing another person
should never be seen as a good thing.

Carol responds:
I don't think anyone's saying it's a good thing, only that it's the
lesser of two evils (and perhaps a *necessary* thing if Harry and the
WW are to survive). Snape himself, I'm sure, doesn't view it as a good
thing. He sees it as repulsive and hates himself for doing it (as
indicated by his expression). Perhaps he even hates Dumbledore for
making him do it (if indeed DD believed that his self-sacrifice was
necessary). 

In the HP books as in life, actions have consequences, many of them
unintended. Harry's saving Pettigrew's life (surely a good deed
despite PP's wickedness) results in Pettigrew's escape, allowing PP to
restore Voldemort to his body. Good, in this instance, brings about
evil. Voldemort's murder of Lily followed by the attempted murder of
Harry (unquestionably evil deeds with evil intentions) brings about
his own vaporization and an eleven-year respite for the WW. Evil
brings about good. 

Dumbledore knows all this, just as he knows that sacrifices are
sometimes necessary. He also knows that (in the Potterverse, at least)
death is not the end of all things. (See my post on the concept of
soul in the WW,

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/141562 ).

That being the case, he is resigned to his death. In fact, it is much
easier for him than for Snape, who has to resign himself to perform
the sacrifice, without which neither Harry nor Draco is likely to
survive. He has a personal obligation, not to mention the powerful
motive provided by the UV, to save Draco, and a much more important
obligation--to the WW itself--to save Harry. And the only way to do so
is to kill Dumbledore.

So Dumbledore's death is not good in itself. It is necessary because
of its consequences. Like Lily before him, he is dying to save Harry.
But unlike LV, whose only motive in murdering Lily and trying to kill
Harry is to insure his own immortality (the fact that he failed is not
relevant), Snape's motive (as I read it) is to obey and serve
Dumbledore to the last in order to make the continued fight against
Voldemort possible.

In that reading, Snape's action, like the killing of an enemy soldier
in a war, is neither good nor evil in itself, or rather a necessary
evil. It is the sacrifice of his own mentor for the common good. Much
better, of course, if the multiple causes that led to DD's death could
have been avoided (if Snape had not accepted the DADA position or
taken the UV, to name two). But once he enters the tower, neither he
nor Dumbledore has any choice in the matter.

I can't see how Snape's choice can be read as OFH! since it deprives
him of his job, his freedom, and his one trusted friend. He, too, is
making a sacrifice that may well cost him his life as well. He does
not benefit personally in any way. He has instead lost everything. His
life is no longer worth living and indeed, as far as I can see, can
serve only one purpose--to do whatever he can to help bring about the
fall of Voldemort.

Nevertheless, *no one* (including me) is calling his action "good."
But neither is it evil *if* he deliberately chose to save the young
wizard who could defeat Voldemort rather than the old wizard who, for
all his wisdom and goodness and (now greatly diminished) power, could not.

Carol, who hopes she is never forced to choose one life over another
or the common good over the life of someone who has trusted and
perhaps loved her