Grey!Snape and Character Growth (was:Voldemort's Plan for Snape & the Ring..

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 162814

> Carol responds:
> I don't think I've made this particular argument (I can never have
> too much of Snape)...

Jen: LOL.  FWIW I wasn't speaking of any particular person, I only 
remember hearing that argument. 

Carol: 
> ...but I do think that the key point is not a change of heart in
> Snape but the revelation of his loyalties, which will come as a
> shock to Harry. 
<snipping>
> Carol:
> Exactly. The enemy who will *change* is Draco. The seeming enemy who
> will be revealed as being on his side (DDM!) is Snape (assuming that
> we're right). So where is Gray!Snape? I don't see him. 

Jen:  I'm not asking anyone to "see" this version, just trying to 
answer questions or comments re: the origin of Grey and where I think 
it differs from DDM.   And even though it's not an OFH theory, I do 
understand now (more than I did post-HBP) why people read Snape as 
OFH because I see elements of out-for-himself in Snape's *character* 
without believing they extend to his loyalty.  Perhaps the elements I 
see will prove to be red herrings to shadow the loyalty question or 
perhaps they will play a significant role in Snape's story.  Right 
now I favor the latter explanation.

DDM started as a way to differentiate Snape from out-for-himself or 
evil on the loyalty issue only, but now it's evolved to include how 
Snape is loyal, the ways his loyalty is characterized, a comparison 
of Snape's loyalty to Harry's and speculation about his part in book 
7.  That's natural for any theory, people can't simply say "Snape is 
loyal" and not support their position with canon.  What I don't get 
is why these points of support don't then become part of the whole 
package that is DDM?  

If I read a very complicated analysis from someone saying they are in 
support of DDM then I am going to assume the evidence they present is 
also part of DDM.  I'm not going to assume DDM is only about the 
loyalty question if what I'm reading goes into details about Snape's 
character and the plot that extend beyond the question of Snape's 
loyalty.  It seems like a lot of work for no payback imo, to write a 
carefully supported position only to say the hard work is superfluous 
in the end.  Why doesn't the supporting evidence and additional 
material become as crucial to the theory as the issue of loyalty 
itself?  

Even if Snape is not the main character and not the POV character and 
Harry is the one who needs to grow, JKR has still made Snape a 
crucial part of Harry's story in ways that go beyond the loyalty 
question.  She does not write simple denouements in my opinion!  
There are pages of reasons why a character chose to take certain 
actions when she's ready to reveal something.  Yes Harry gets to see 
a person's loyalty (or lack of) but more importantly, he given the 
information to understand *why*, how all the elements fit together to 
cause a character to act, think and operate in his/her given 
situation.  Often those elements are contradictory or unfavorable to 
the person but it's still clear that Harry gets what he's supposed to 
get and understands how that one character fits into his life and the 
larger story.  When I read a theory, whether it is DDM, OFH, ESE or 
Grey, they are all an attempt to answer the entire puzzle of Snape 
imo, not just the piece about his loyalty.  

Jen, who doesn't have another point-by-point argument in her at the 
moment.