Harry - Forgiving Snape and Killing Dumbledore

[Steve]

No: HPFGUIDX 162939

---  "wynnleaf" <fairwynn at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> >
> > Antonia:
> > > > Question: since when it is so important that Harry
> > > > should forgive Snape? ...
> > 
> > 
> > > bboyminn:
> > >
> > > I'm somewhat inclind to agree with Antonia here. 
> > > 'Forgive' is a pretty strong word, and I don't think
> > > Harry or the Wizard World will ever forgive Snape 
> > > for killing Dumbledore, but I suspect they will come
> > > to understand the choice he made, and with that 
> > > understanding will come a degree of lenience.
> 
> wynnleaf
> Whether or not any of us think that Harry *needs* to 
> forgive Snape, I think it's fairly clear that it is 
> what JKR has planned, and therefore I assume *she* 
> thinks he needs to forgive Snape.
> 
> ...edited...
> 
> We may or may not think Harry has to do it from a moral 
> perspective.  But I think JKR has set up the literary 
> constructs by which Harry *must* forgive Snape.
> 
> wynnleaf
>


bboyminn:

Oh, I absolutely agree with you WynnLeaf, JKR has set 
Harry's hatred of Snape up for the very purpose of 
tearing it down at the end. In fact, I'm convinced this
will be one of the most important sub-plots of the next
book. How can there not be some resolution between Snape
and Harry, for better or worse; it's just unthinkable 
from a literary perspective.

Let me diverge for a moment to discuss the nature of
/forgiveness/. Part of the point I was making is that
'forgiveness' is a very strong word when taken literally.
But there really is a range of /forgiveness/ that allows
us to fogive people on one level, yet not forgive them
on another. In a sense, there is Forgiveness (note: 
capital 'F') and then there is forgiveness (note: small
'f'); the two not necessarily being the same. 

I do disagree to some extent with Carol who seems to 
think the underlying theme of the series is moral 
forgiveness, and while that may be an element of it, I
don't think it is at the heart of it. Even if moral
forgiveness is there, that doesn't mean Social and Legal
forgiveness are. 

I think Harry will reconcile his feelings and attitudes 
toward Snape after some fashion. He will do it to a 
degree that lets him accept and trust Snape's help. To
me, how this will happen is one of the most intriguing
aspects of the next books; though I can't imagine /how/
which is exactly what makes it intriguing.

That certainly implies a degree of /forgiveness/, but 
that doesn't necessarily let Snape off the hook. Even 
under the best of circumstances in the real-world 'mercy' 
killing, while they may be morally understandable, still
must answer to the law. Of course, in situations of
extreme circumstances under extreme conditions, a mercy
killing might be understandable, and certainly that
understanding combine with knowledge of the extreme 
circumstances would bring a degree of mercy from the 
courts. But, none the less there would be legal action, 
and there would be consequences. 

However, that said, as I read the "Who Killed Dumbledore"
thread, it occurred to me that maybe nobody killed 
Dumbledore; that is, nobody is to blame for his death.
Taking that one step farther, perhaps he was killed by
circumstances rather than by an individual.

Note that may people have pointed out that the AK spell
that Snape allegedly used, did not act in a fashion
consistent with what we have been told about the AK
spell. I have always explained that away by pointing
out that the same spell can have different power under 
different circumstances. 

In one case, Harry stuns Ron and Ron simply falls over.
In another case, Dumbledore's Stunning Curse had enough
force to splinter a thick wooden castle door, and still
have enough remaining power to substantially impact 
fake!Moody physically as well as stunning him. Conclusion,
we are just seeing a specific power driven variation of 
the AK.

However, if indeed that was an out of the ordinary
AK cast by Snape, then perhaps we have another explanation.
We do see spells that miss their targets having more
physical impact than spells that hit their targets. This
occurs several times thought the series.

So, what if Dumbledore is already dying? What if the
combination of the 'Dead Hand' curse plus the Cave
potion plus Dumbledore's inability to get to treatment
are actually killing Dumbledore? What if life actually
left the obviously fading Dumbledore's body the 
instant before Snape threw the AK curse. That would
explain the extreme physical impact that threw Dumbledore
over the rampart. Because Dumbledore was already dead,
the AK would impact like a /missed/ curse which we have 
ample examples of the physical power of, rather than
a 'hit' AK which seems to have little physical power. 

So, in a sense, Snape didn't kill Dumbledore, he simply
threw his dead body over the rampart. That could 
explain a lot of things, and if Snape can somehow
establish it as fact or even as a plausable idea, it 
could get him off the hook with Harry and off the hook
with the courts. As to his mistreatment of students that
would have to be left to Karma.

In a way, this is the classic re-occuring serial TV/movie
show (Commander Cody, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon, etc). We
are left with a cliff hanger at the end and at the 
beginning of the next episode we see that things were not
as they seemed in the previous episode. Classic example, the
death and return of Sherlock Holms. 

So, to the first point, I can accept /forgiveness/ on some
level, but not absolute blanket complete forgiveness 
regardless of whether it is social, legal, or moral. I 
agree with some that in some way, however large or small,
Snape has to pay something. But him paying and /forgiveness/
are not mutually exclusive. It really is not an all or 
nothing proposition.

To the second point, maybe no one killed Dumbledore, maybe
he just died.

Of theories I have many both large and small. 

Steve/bboyminn