Is Snape good or evil? (longer)

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 148881

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

> Pippin:
> Are you saying Harry didn't need to be punished?

No.  It would have been nice to see a punishment which would have 
actually made an impression on Harry as to what *he* did, rather than 
setting the tone with statements such as:

"It must be such a comfort to think that, though they are gone, a 
record of their great achievements remains..."

That's just snide. :)  Of course, I'm sure someone will now come 
forward to offer a reading of how this was Snape offering his belated 
condolences, in the only way he knew possible.

> That was true for Harry, as it was true for Sirius and James, and 
> it would have been better for Riddle if had been true for him.

I think you have a far higher estimation of the subtle nature and 
profound consideration of Snape's actions here than I do, especially 
as this parallel fails to get through to Harry at all.  It's 
interesting, that except for the expected boil of anger when Snape is 
his usual charming self, it just doesn't have an effect.  No moral 
drawn.

> Pippin:
>
> There *is* information that Harry simply doesn't have the critical 
> faculties to grasp.

It's profoundly infantilizing to do that, though, and that's part of 
what I think one of Dumbledore's most negative aspects is--and why 
it's appropriate if it helped bring him down, for it's an object 
lesson in what not to do and a way in which the young hero can avoid 
a mistake of his mentor.

<snip>

> Anyway, it was not only Dumbledore who cleared Snape of being a 
> Death Eater, it was a ministry tribunal. To let Harry  to review 
> the evidence and come to his own conclusion is in effect to put 
> Snape on trial again -- why should Dumbledore allow it?

Because there was never an allocution for Harry, one of the wronged 
parties, to hear.  Dumbledore has been protecting Snape for years, 
and refusing to allow anyone else to examine the evidence.

Is it any shock that that attitude doesn't produce trust, but only 
wary toleration at best?

There's one parallel which strikes me as potentially meaningful.  We 
see Dumbledore omit information, but very rarely do we actually see 
him lie.  One place where we do is in the scene in his office in 
OotP, where he outright lies to protect the students.  Could he have 
done some of the same for Snape, because he thought Snape's remorse 
and conversion were genuine, and he wanted to protect him?  Again, 
I'm nervous with Dumbledore's position as sole judge, here.

> How could Snape be expected to grasp that, when all he seems to 
> know of love is that fools wear it on their sleeves?

I've never quite understood your poor damaged Snape.  He's been 
around Dumbledore all of these years, is deeply loyal to him and 
respects him and has this close working relationship, but he's still 
this angry and stunted and none of Dumbledore's philosophy has gotten 
through to him?  None of it has worn off, because the damage is too 
deep?  That seems odd at best.

> Finally, one of the reasons that Dumbledore is trusted so deeply is
> that he respects the secrets he's entrusted with.

And that can be both good and harmful, which is a point I hope I've 
managed to bring out.  It reminds me of an episode of CI from earlier 
in this year, but that's a total tangent and off-canon.  Or, if you 
want an RL parallel, think of both the harm and the good done by 
varied situations of leaks of classified information.

> To put the blame for Dumbledore's failures on his need-to-know
> strategy rather than on the emotional weakness Snape and others
> highlight -- his desire to see only the best in people and his 
> tendency to underestimate their weaknesses -- is to take the story 
> on a tangent, IMO. 

Ummm, I think that Dumbledore's need-to-know strategy is *intimately* 
tied into his emotional weaknesses.  He keeps people in the dark 
precisely because he doesn't think they should have to deal with the 
knowledge that he has, that it will be too hard for them.  He doesn't 
understand that as much as knowledge can hurt, it can also be the 
balm to soul because it means that people feel trusted and engaged, 
and can make better decisions.  From Dumbledore's lofty perch on 
high, need-to-know makes sense, but he's forgotten the nature of what 
he's trying to shift the waves of.

> We don't know who (if anyone) has taken over as Head of the Order, 
> but then Harry's not *in* the Order,  so why should it be anyone's 
> business to tell him? 

Because they have as much of an investment as anyone in the success 
of his venture, and they have probably more of an idea than J. Random 
Wizard out there both who and what he is?  I think he's worth their 
consideration.

-Nora finds a warmer hat for the afternoon