Is Snape good or evil? (longer)

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 148745

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dungrollin" 
<spotthedungbeetle at ...> wrote:
 
> Dung:
> Do you not think it would be deeply ungrateful of DD to not even 
> say "sorry I got you into this, mate?" You don't think he might 
> feel just the teensiest bit guilty?

Guilt doesn't strike me as the right emotion in this case, because 
Dumbledore hasn't been in the same kind of superior/controlling 
situation that we've seen in him when he actually has expressed 
guilt.  I think he's trusted Snape to be an independent agent here, 
and so Dumbledore's responsibility for the situation is decidedly 
second-hand.  More of a "Oh, Severus, how did you do this to 
yourself?" than 'guilt', but I guess as always.

> Dung:
> And you don't?

No, it's a universal weakness.

> *Any* interpretation of Spinner's End involves that, not just mine 
> and Alla's, because canon *is not consistent*.

That's fair.  What I would contend is not exactly shocking--we read 
the confusing and fragmentary evidence according to which larger 
pattern we want to validate.

> Perhaps you missed the bit of my post where I said that I was 
> trying to prove my assumptions were more firmly rooted in 
> canon than Alla's. You seem to be dismissing them as equally valid 
> (or not) as any other assumptions, simply because they're 
> assumptions, without even looking at the evidence I presented. 

I am dismissing them as more valid than any assumptions because of 
the nature of the material, yes.  I don't think one can make a solid 
canonically-backed decision between your position or Alla's (or a 
number of other variations), because of the level of destabilization 
of what we thought we knew.  Previously, the idea that Snape was not 
on the side of good was much harder to challenge, because challenging 
Dumbledore's

> Dung:
> There's a good way of testing it. You come up with a hypothesis of 
> what is driving Snape's behaviour, and you try to predict what he 
> should do under a given set of circumstances. 

A lot of guessing, still.  I don't even know if it will work in 
principle, because we're in the realm of literature and not the realm 
of real life.  What it also is eminently open to is the BANG or the 
radical shift.  I know a lot of listies (not saying that one is here) 
take the pattern argument most seriously, that certain things match 
with earlier patterns of behavior in the books.  I distrust that 
argument as the kicker because it doesn't allow for disruptions.

> Dung:
> Thematic it might be, but it's lousy as far as a good story goes. 
> After six books of Harry wondering repeatedly *why* DD trusted 
> Snape, you think the answer's going to be "well, he just ... *did*."

It may well be 'Dumbledore *really believed* Snape's tale of 
remorse'.  That remorse may have been genuine, or it may have been 
faked.  But I can imagine Dumbledore choosing to believe something 
like that, and then refusing to tell anyone else because he knew they 
wouldn't value it and treasure it as he did, and he's trying to 
protect Snape from the slammer.  There's thematic connections there, 
and the additional kicker (great setup for conflict) of the event 
itself (confession, whatever) being somewhat unrecoverable.

Of course, it's potentially hochdramatisch if you imagine Some 
Variation of Nasty Snape taunting Harry with this, too. :)

-Nora's mileage varies on many things, but not on the sublime Finnish 
hockey team, wooooo!