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

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 141680

> > >>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.

Alla:

How would it send every major character twisiting and turning, Jen? 
I am very confused now. In what aspect? In a sense that they trusted 
Snape? If it so, it was clear enough to me in HBP that they really 
did not, they trusted Dumbledore's judgment, first and foremost. 
Would it make Dumbledore more fallible? Yes, quite tragic that, I 
agree, but also very sympathetic to me.

Maybe you were talking about different twist and turns? If yes, 
could you clarify?


> Betsy Hp:
<SNIP>
> 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. 

Alla:

LOL! Have you read Magic Dishwasher?


 
> > >>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.

Alla:

As far as I can remember nowhere in the books Dumbledore says  that 
Snape's story will be a redemption story AT THE END of all that. He 
says  that Snape is no more DE than he is, he says that Snape felt 
remorse when he came back, but that is in the PAST, not in the 
present. If professor Trelawney were saying that Snape will end up 
at the side of Light, that would be a different story :-)

What we have are hints that Snape's story can go this way, IMO. but 
we also have PLENTY of hints that his story can go the different 
path.
Some of those which come to me right away - VERY strange insistence 
that kids were confunded in PoA, which could be interpreted as Snape 
protecting them of course, but can also be interpreted as desire to 
stop them to tell the truth about Sirius' being innocent, Harry's 
feeling weaker after Occlumency lessons, which could be intepreted 
as I guess as normal reaction after Occlumency lessons, sorry don't 
remember any others right away, and cannot come up with positive one 
myself, but also can be interpreted as Snape deliberately opening 
Snape mind for Voldemort, oh, and of course Snape saying himself - I 
spinned him a TALE of deepest remorse. Of course don't forget 
Emmelyne Vance , as far as we know - she IS dead and Snape claims 
credit.

The blanks can be filled either way, IMO. The support for Non-
redeemable Snape in the text is at least just as strong as 
redeeemable one, but for some reason the HUGE majority of fans ( and 
my data can be skewed of course, no official research or anything :-
)) filled it as Redeemed!Snape.

I DO see redeeemable Snape still, but my Rdeemable!Snape did commit 
a murder on the Tower


> 
> > >>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.

Alla:

I don't think Nora is dismissing them ( sorry, Nora please correct 
me if I am wrong). I think she is saying that they could be filled 
EITHER way. The best case of course is James as bully and Snape as 
victim during SEVEN years of their schooling, even better is that 
James' motivations AND Snape motivations are being described with so 
much clarity after reading one scene, which may not even be 
complete, IMO.

I again have to cite Vmonte's example - if Draco puts the scene at 
the end of GoF in his Pensieve starting  the moment Gryffs cursed 
him, he comes out as poor innocent victim and  Gryffs as a gang of 
bullies. Now, I know you sympathise with Draco and don't think that 
he deserved to get cursed, but wouldn't you agree at least that HE 
provoked Gryffindors by coming to their appartment  and insulting 
Cedric,who just died and threatening Hermione's life?

I don't want to get into discussion whether his punishment was 
adequate or not, what I am saying that if we were to see that scene 
from the moment Gryffs cursed Draco, we were BOUND to fill the 
blanks incorrectly?

I think Pensieve scene could be  the example of the same.



JMO of course,

Alla