Snape as infidel was Re: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 150354

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at ...> wrote:

> Betsy Hp:
> I think everyone has a different theory on what makes one spell 
> dark and another okay.  That's why it strikes me as unclear. <g>

It's a case where the author may have a clear theory that we haven't 
pieced together yet, or it may be far more ad hoc.

> Right.  The twins would *never* nearly kill someone in order to 
> protect Gryffindors' house points.  And gosh, they'd *never* test 
> products on little children with an eye towards future earnings.  
> That would be wrong. <g>

But there's no *malice* in their actions, no deliberate intention to 
cause harm--or at least that's the impression that I get from their 
continued portrayal, and her comments about them.  Seems at least 
somewhat different in intention and manner than the Slytherin 
gloating, for instance.

> How do you know JKR is okay with it? The fact that the twins nearly 
> killing Montague was the first step on a path that lead to their 
> brother being mauled suggests that JKR isn't all that okay with 
> their actions.  Plus, she does highlight that Montague nearly died. 

She does, but on the other hand, it's presented as an ironic 
situation, one which results from connections that they *never* could 
have foreseen because so much of the chain of actions was out of 
their hands.  Quite different than some other situations of 
culpability elswhere in the series.

> Because Ginny's a shiny Christian and Draco's a dirty infidel?  No, 
> I think it's more that Ginny is a filler character, Harry's end of 
> the series prize.  Draco has more meat to him.  And meaty 
> characters suffer in JKR's world.

I think it's because she's interested in presenting Ginny as a far 
more likeable character, although you can never control fans' 
reactions to anything (you can just whack them with the actual 
realizations of hints until they bleed).

> Oh, yeah, I'm pretty much talking about DDM!Snape whenever I talk 
> about Snape.  Rather than interesting the other flavors are too 
> illogical, leading to the same dead-end.  

But note that your holding fast to DDM! generates some interesting 
problems, such as you mentioned--that not being a very nice thing for 
Dumbledore to do.  Now, that could be actually what's going on, and 
what is problematic is real and will probably generate some further 
textual exegesis; but if you find it hard enough to reconcile, it 
could also be a signal that you're running into difficulties which 
are trying to tell you something.

-Nora will only echo that 'illogical' and 'interesting' are such 
delightfully subjective functions in fantasy literature...