Truth vs. what meets Harry's eye (Was: Is Harry an idiot because he thinks Snap

[cubfanbudwoman]

No: HPFGUIDX 140671

Carol:
> > But what Harry sees throughout the books, even Dumbledore struck 
> > by a spell that knocks him from the tower and is followed by his 
> > death, is subject to interpretation, both Harry's and the 
> > reader's. 
<snip>
> > But Harry has often been wrong before, and neither what he see nor
> > what he feels is an infallible guide to truth in the sense of what
> > really happened.
<snip> 
> > Can we confidently conclude that we really know what happened on 
> > the tower? I don't think so.)
> > 
> > Certainly Dumbledore is dead. Certainly Snape spoke the 
> > words "Avada Kedavra" and cast the spell that sent Dumbledore 
> > over the wall of the tower. But we know, and Harry knows, that's 
> > not the whole story. 
 
Alla:
> Yes again. All that I am saying that with Dumbledore is dead and 
> Snape saying "Avada" Harry judged what happened well, even if it is 
> not the whole story.
> 
> When Harry has more evidence, IF he will have more evidence, then 
> he will probably change his judgment.


SSSusan:
Giving away, yet again, that I'm three full days behind, I poke my 
head out to say, also in defense of Harry, that I don't blame him a 
bit for coming to the conclusion he came to... esp. given his history 
of mistrust of Snape.  

HOWEVER... I'm actually quite in agreement with Carol in her basic 
premise in the post to which Alla responded.  I think we *do* have 
evidence in the book of several situations where what appeared to be 
true turned out not to be, even if it made *sense* that the person(s) 
believed what he/they did.  Carol's examples of Hufflepuffs believing 
Harry to be the Heir of Slytherin and the witnesses' belief that 
Sirius had killed all those people are excellent ones.  In the tower 
scene, we know what we witnessed, but did we witness enough?  Do we 
*know* enough?  


Alla: 
> I keep thinking about SSSusan post about "straightforward reading". 
> Maybe she will painfully smack me across the head after reading 
> it :-), I don't know, maybe those are semantics, but I think that 
> Snape guilt IS the most straightforward reading.
> 
> I am not saying that this is the " CORRECT" reading or "the BEST" 
> reading of JKR books , mind you, but I am saying that  conclusion 
> that Snape is guilty jumps out at me without thinking about clues. 
> Which could be clues, but also could be red herrings, no?
> 
> That is why I am arguing against calling Harry an idiot for 
> thinking that Snape is guilty. Because I don't like calling myself 
> an "idiot" :-)


SSSusan:
Hey, I went to a Quaker college.  I can't do the smacking across the 
head thing. ;-)  

But, while I agree with you on not calling Harry an "idiot" for 
coming to the conclusion that he came to, I would argue with you 
about the MOST straightforward read being ESE!Snape or Turncoat!
Snape.  

If one saw just that scene, I would agree.  If one were Harry, I 
would agree.  But with 6 books of history & evidence *coupled* with a 
lack of knowledge of what Snape was thinking or feeling or what 
condition DD was actually in or what/if anything passed between those 
two men, and adding in Snape's behavior on the grounds afterwards, I 
think it can still be a pretty straightforward read to believe in DDM!
Snape.

Siriusly Snapey Susan