Hearing from the Great Middle...well not really...

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 140225

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Ceridwen" <ceridwennight at h...> 
wrote:

<snip>

> Ceridwen:
> I think, after all of this, ESE! and ESG! just can't work as tags.  
> Alla, I think, said she thinks Snape is evil, just going by what 
> she's seen of his actions all along.  And, I can see acknowledging 
> that someone who browbeats children, etc. is 'evil'.  No one, I 
> think, doubts that he's evil in the horrible man sort of way if no 
> other.

Actually, it's been argued any number of times, including up this 
thread, that the "horrible man" descriptor is actually NOT accurate 
for Snape as he's presented to us in the books.  So yes, there are 
people who do not think he's evil in that sort of way.  [Given a 
consistent string of interview comments--a consistent one--I suspect 
they boggle JKR a bit.]

> That has no bearing on whether he's on LV's side or DD's 
> side. 

This is an assumption that may be true, or it may not be true.  It 
may be that Snape's behavior towards the students and his other 
actions are operating on completely different principles, and one has 
no implications for the other.  But that's an assumption that may not 
be true, particularly in a fictional world.  The fact that Snape is a 
nasty horrible man to children may be a key insight into his 
character, and there may well be continuity between that aspect of 
his character and what side he's on.

I'm reminded of a post of Lupinlore's, a while back, wherein the 
opinion that JKR generally gives the nice guys a pass was set 
forward.  I don't see that as having been too invalidated by events, 
although it was pre-HBP.  So it's open as to whether her ultimate 
treatment of Snape will conform to that model, or make a bold 
statement in not following it.  Readers see patterns where they want 
to, after all.

> Ceridwen:
> I do admit everything JKR has stated about Snape.  I can see it in 
> canon.  But she never goes beyond what we're able to *see* in a 
> straightforward reading.

It's also a guess that we're going to get much more, or material 
contradictory to, what we are able to see in a straightforward 
reading.  It's an assumption I think most of us would like to see 
validated, but it's still an assumption.  The fandom has created the 
model that canon is incredibly intricate and twisted, but we're still 
waiting for validation of that in many areas.  Try going through 
Inish Alley some time, and seeing how many theories have been 
validated, and how many haven't been invalidated, but just don't look 
so hot anymore.

-Nora sez: sic transit gloria mundi