Will there be an ESE!character in Book 7?

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 147552

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> 
wrote:

> Pippin:
> It was a bang for me, though I am DDM!Snape through and through. 
> Although I'm not clear on who Nora thinks JKR's ideal reader is -- 
> if it's someone who's accepting Harry's evaluation of events 
> without much analysis, Dumbledore's death would be bangy because it 
> never occurred to Harry that Dumbledore might die, much less be 
> murdered.

I think (and this is a guess) that her ideal reader is someone whose 
fundamental sympathies and inclinations lie with Harry.  She 
certainly doesn't understand people who read the books and don't find 
him to be the hero and the sympathetic character.

But she is playing a game with us-the-reader in HBP because of the 
inclusion of these chapters where we aren't riding on Harry's 
shoulder, so she's playing our inclinations against each other.  One 
strong one is that we've seen things Harry hasn't, so we say "Snape?  
Nah.  Too obvious, and we trust Dumbledore."  But there is always a 
strong pull to feel what Harry does, because we're put into his head 
and thus know him in a way that we don't any of the other 
characters.  Harry is by far the most real and detailed person in the 
series.

> while fake deaths, spell words that have no effect, non-verbal 
> spells, and Dumbledore's ingestion of an unhealthy drink, though 
> they sound "outlandish" are all established canon and perfectly 
> well-accounted for. 

We've argued this before, but not in this forum, so I'll throw it out 
there again: what's gained by your "It wasn't an AK curse that Snape 
used, but he threw a poisoned Dumbledore off the parapets" 
explanation?

(Let's leave aside the general amusement that I have on thinking 
about how this would have to be explained in the next book.)

It's *just* to save Snape from having used AK, right?  I think that's 
a cop-out.

One can still believe in DDM!Snape who used the curse, as I know 
SSSusan does.  Then it's a case of embracing and appreciating the 
horror and profound pathos of Snape's actions, forced to use an 
Unforgivable in a situation where he doesn't want to, ripping his 
soul in Dumbledore's service and committing a sacrifice of himself.

Is your Snape somehow profoundly morally improved by this 
explanation?  Does it keep his soul clean so that when all is 
revealed, it turns out that no, he's innocent, and it's that much 
easier to accept him as good?

I don't see the thematic payoff for this amelioration of a horrific 
action.  If the theme is meant to be that it's horrible and BANGy, it 
works.  But if the theme is meant to be that it's a horrifying 
decision for Snape and it's very difficult for him, then coming up 
with a reason for why oh, it's actually not so bad, defangs it in a 
way that just seems, well, cheap to me.  I know you disagree, so I'd 
love to hear from other listies here.

<snip>

> Harry's demonization of Snape *can't* be right. Even Voldemort, who
> has literally demonized himself, is not the way he is because he's
> got "bad character" whatever that is. His evil has natural causes
> (in the context of the WW). It's what he does, not what he is.

"Our choices show who we are" not your thing? :)

There's an excluded middle here.  Harry's *demonization* of Snape is 
something I think he has to deal with, because it's distracting and 
crippling and limits his vision.  You can't understand what you 
demonize.  This does not, however, mean that Snape is not potentially 
evil in a profound way.  It's still an open possibility amongst many.

-Nora curses at the rain