Viewing Snape "directly" (Was:Twist JKR? )

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 141689

 
Nora wrote:



So in this general approach, it is pretty self-evident that  Snape 
killed Dumbledore, because it requires the construction of a  
considerable edifice of assumptions to argue that oh, the AK here is  
exceptional, and there could have been some communication, etc.  This  
still leaves open any number of possibilities as to *why*, where the  
same conditions I'm objecting to don't obtain in the same  way.

Think of all the little details which theories of the past hinged  
upon, and which took us nowhere.  Yes, some of the little things and  
some of the discrepancies are meaningful--and most of them are  not.



Julie now:
I would differ by saying it requires the construction of  a considerable
edifice of assumptions no matter *which* Snape one champions, as
we have to interpret each of the dozen or so inconsistencies in  Snape's 
and Dumbledore's behavior on the Tower in some way to then string it 
together into a theory about Snape's underlying motives (Evil,  good,
or simply self-serving). 
 
There is also an important qualification that I think we  should
consider while judging which little things and/or discrepancies  are
likely to be "meaningful" as you suggest, and that is the  *frequency*
of occurences. Though you didn't bring them up here, Mark Evans
and  Alice's gum wrappers have been mentioned as examples of
things fans suspected might have some deeper significance, as
well as Luna's absence on the Hogwarts train you mentioned
recently. The key is that these were all *one-time* occurrences. 
And it is true that most one-time mentions, though they can be
spun into meaningful theories by our creative minds, will turn out 
to have no real meaning at all beyond their initial appearance. 
 
With Snape however, it isn't a matter of one or two  occurences
to consider. We have details heaped on discrepancies heaped on
inconsistencies, over and over throughout SIX books, and each clue 
seems to point a different way. Snape tries to kill Harry--no,  Snape
is protecting Harry. Snape wants students he dislikes to fail--no, 
Snape wants *all* his students to achieve "O" grades in Owls, his
methods notwithstanding. Snape wants to get Harry expelled--but  no,
Snape makes no effort to do so when that goal is actually  attainable,
Snape told LV the prophecy hoping to get rid of James--but no, Snape
went to Dumbledore and tried to save James. And it goes on. And on.
And on. 
 
There are far too many inconclusive details and discrepancies to be 
dismissed as meaningless, or as red herrings (unless JKR cheats,
and I don't think she does). Those continual discrepancies in Snape's
words and behavior ARE meaningful--we just don't yet know exactly
*what* they mean. And because Snape is the embodiment of ambiguity, 
there is no one theory that is clearly a more "direct" or  "straightforward" 
read of the character than any other, because very little is  direct or
straightforward about Snape. 
 
Until Book Seven finally reveals Snape real motives and  loyalties
beneath all the deliberate subterfuge, we are doomed to continue 
this debate, on and on. And on...
 
 
Julie 
--who does expect revelations about Snape's true motives and 
loyalties, but no significant changes in his horrible  personality.
 
 
 
 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]