Twist JKR?/ Some spoilers for Les Miserables

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 141778

 


> Elyse: Yep, and let the "Chosen One" have the pleasure of  choosing 
> which way he wanted to die: at the hands of  Regenerated!Voldemort 
or 
> under Bellatrix's motherly gaze.
>  Come on, be fair. It was either certain death and victory for 
> Voldemort  or being abused, but staying alive. And I dont see how it 
> was possible  for Dumbledore to foresee exactly how bad their 
> treatment of Harry  was.


Alla:

I don't really want to go into discussing  Dumbledore's speech in OOP 
again, but nowhere in that speech he says that he  ahd no other 
options, as far as I can remember. He said you would be   the safest, 
where your mother blood dwells, he said that their DE out on the  
loose, but as I said earlier, it was not hundred percent clear to  me.

But yeah, I think that this is what JKR intended - to be left with  
Dursleys or die, I just think that she did not convey it clear enough  
AND without Dumbledore singing a different tune  in HBP, he comes out  
( to me only of course) in a bad light after OOP for at least not  
interfering and checking up on Harry.
 
Julie, jumping in:
Maybe it's just the general impression given throughout the books
but I thought from the start Dumbledore left Harry at the Dursleys 
because of the protection of his mother's blood, and that *no one*
(especially Voldemort) can touch him there. It may not have been
a choice between life and certain death, but it does seems to have
been a choice between certain protection and uncertain  protection.
Harry stays alive--guaranteed--at the Dursley's until he's grown;
anywhere else his life must constantly be guarded and the slightest
misstep may forfeit it. 
 
Dumbledore's choice makes sense to me. It was the best choice
he could make under the circumstances. It doesn't even matter 
whether it's actually Harry's life that's important or the salvation
of the WW (though I think Dumbledore was after both). If Harry
dies, there is no future for him, good or bad, nor for the WW.  

> 
> 
> > Alla:
> > I would NOT let the  former member of terrorist organization 
> anywhere 
> > NEAR my  students, because I don't know , I would be worried that 
> > this man  may had many dangerous psychological issues left over 
his 
> >  glory days and he may have take it out on my students.
> > 
>  Elyse: Well, whats the point of being redeemed if no one is willing 
> to  give you a job and ostracize you because you *may* have 
> psychological  issues left over? By your way of thinking, we should  
> give life  sentences to all convicts, shouldnt we, because they 
*may* 
> have  psychological issues left over from their time in jail?
> I read this  fabulous Victor Hugo story years ago. I think it was 
from 
> Les  Miserables but I'm not sure. <SNIP>

Alla:

You missed my  point completely, I am sorry for  being unclear.
The reason I  wrote  the tirade about what I would not have done if I 
were Dumbledore  was to show that in many instances Dumbledore is 
BETTER person than I am,  but also in some instances his trust in 
people has to be balanced with other  issues, such as safety of the 
other people he is responsible for.

I  am NOT saying that he should not have given Snape a second chance ( 
although  when I am not in charitable mood, I happen to believe that 
Snape failed that  chance), I think it is a GOOD thing on Dumbledore 
part, BUT I also think  that it was irresponsible of Dumbledore not to 
think about his students  before he did so, IMO.

I am saying that Dumbledore with his tremendous  connections 
everywhere could have find a job for Snape for example somewhere  in 
the WW analogy of potion research institute, or something like that,  
but to keep him away from children.

Oh, and before I get the  objection that this is needed for the sake 
of the story, because I used to  get them, let me disclaim again - I 
KNOW this and without Snape being in  Hogwarts we would have no story, 
BUT the characters do not know that they  are in the story ( ugh, I am 
always having trouble explaining it correctly),  so from the point of 
view of Dumbledore ,who does not know that he is in the  story, 
accepting Snape to be a teacher makes little sense to me. Trust him?  
Yes. Help him to find a way to make a living? Absolutely. But NOT  
endager the students, because Dumbledore decided to give hima  second  
chance.
 
Julie:
I see your point about Snape not teaching children. His methods 
leave a lot to be desired, and he'd probably be better off elsewhere
(and happier, as certainly would most of his students!). But I do
disagree with the level of misjudgment on DD's part. Snape has
never *endangered* any student. Bruised them a bit with his 
verbal slings, maybe. But he's left no permanent damage, not
even to Neville. 
 
I also must point out that in all the years Snape has taught
we only know of two students he has been truly abusive 
with verbally. Of course there may have been more, and if
some were as initially incompetent as Neville there probably
were. (Does anyone but me ever wonder why there wasn't
an *out and out* war between Snape and the Weasley twins
during their years in Potions class? I think it's strange that
has never been mentioned, as I can't think of anyone else
beside Harry who'd rub Snape as badly as those two! Yet it
seems the twins might actually have respected Snape 
enough to more or less behave in his class.)
 
I do think Dumbledore would never let a teacher if he knew
they would truly endanger his students (surely Umbridge
would never have gotten in if Dumbledore had a choice). And
Snape, for all his unpleasantlness, isn't one of those teachers.



Alla:
To be fair, I think Dumbledore suffers from having to wear too  many 
hats, way too many -  He has different responsibilities as  
Headmaster, as Leader of OOP and as spiritual leader of the light ( 
that  mostly speculative title, but I think it is there - sort of lead 
by example)  and those responsibilities sometimes require to take very 
opposing actions,  IMO.
 
Julie:
I agree. Particularly when it comes to Harry, it must be very hard
to balance Harry's best interest with that of the WW. That's been 
the reason behind many of his mistakes, like not telling Harry what
was going on in OotP.

Alla:
Oh, and I LOVE "Les Miserables". Talk  about great story of  the 
redemption. The difference why the story of  Jean Valjan worked so 
well for me as redemption story is because we SEE  Valjan being 
genuinely remorseful for his sins ( which IMO are so small and  
insignificant in comparison to Snape's - he stole because he was, but  
that is not the point) AND  we see him being nice to all people   and 
keep sacrificing his own happiness for Kosette  and Marius (  
spelling?). I believed Valjan remorse because I read about it on the  
pages over and over again, I cried when he died.

Going back to Snape,  I think that his remorse is only hinted to in 
very brief passing, everything  else is just us filling out the blanks.
 
Julie:
This is true, however there are two pivotal reasons for that. One
is that the books are almost 100% Harry's POV, and we can't
really learn much about a character like Snape (one who is so
ambiguous) when we can't get inside his mind. And Two, why
would JKR reveal the depth of his remorse at this point? Snape
is easily the biggest mystery of the series, so JKR has to keep
us from being able to truly read him or understand his motives,
or that central mystery is gone. Snape's deep remorse, or lack
thereof, is something that can't come until the end. That's when 
we'll find out if whether it's appropriate to cry over his death ;-)
 

> Elyse: 
To make a short story slightly longer, yes trust is an  
> essential part of his character. That is exactly why JKR should not  
> make Snape evil. Because then she would imply that the essential  
> feature of the epitome of good is such a tragic flaw.  <SNIP>

Alla:

Since I think that Dumbledore having flaws is  pretty much established 
in the books already, I would be perfectly fine with  such implication 
and yes, just because someone did something bad ( killed  Dumbledore, 
IMO) does not mean that he cannot take a different path in the  future.
 
Julie:
Dumbledore's flaws have been established, and they make him human. 
But I do think if Snape is one, it does diminish Dumbledore's  character.
All those hundreds of "I trust Severus Snape"s throughout the books
would be evidence of a man who is ridiculously lacking in perception
about people. Better his trust in Snape is proven to be well-founded
and based on solid evidence and knowledge (that mystery "reason"
we probably haven't learned yet for Snape's return to the Good side),
than he be proven to have had his head in the sand all along. Better
for a character one can admire anyway.


Julie 






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