Was the eavesdropper unimportant to Harry? WAS: Re: Snape again

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 147052

<snip> 

Alla:

That is probably my main disagreement with your argument. We do NOT 
know how Harry would have reacted if eavesdropper had different name, 
we only had a chance to see Harry's reaction to Snape. IMO of course 

For all I know, Harry would have gone just as ballistic if he 
discovered that eavesdropper was Dung and actually example with 
stolen goods shows IMO that he would have gone ballistic, because 
when Harry sees Dung with "stolen glasses" that is much LESSER 
insults to Sirius' memory than what Snape did by giving prophecy to 
Voldemort and Harry is still very upset.

I submit that eavesdropper became more significant when he got a 
name, but of course that his name is Snape was an extra insult to 
Harry.


Julie:
I submit that the eavesdropper became more significant when he got
a name, but when that name was Snape, the eavesdropper took on a
blame *out of proportion* to his actual blame in the death's of 
Lily and James Potter. This wouldn't have happened if the name had
been Lucius Malfoy or Mundungus. Harry would have still been angry
but he would have seen their responsibility in correct proportion--
i.e., they did something wrong and even evil, but it was Voldemort
(and also Peter) who primarily got James and Lily killed. When it's 
Snape, in Harry's mind it becomes Snape who primarily got James and
Lily killed. Because of Harry's existent hatred and mistrust of Snape,
he assigns Snape blame out of proportion with his actual crime. 
 
That to me is the difference when it comes to Snape, as opposed to
others. Harry assigns him more blame than he actually bears for his
crimes (same thing with the death of Sirius). It's natural, but it 
also is not rational. And while Harry's emotions are important in 
defeating Voldemort, if his emotions keep him from evaluating events 
accurately, that can only hurt him. IMO.
 
Julie


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]