Evil Snape

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 154277

> Carol:
> <SNIP>
> 
> > But there's always a reversal. The plot structure requires it. And it
> > has to happen in the second half of Book 6-7, not the first. Rest
> > assured that she does have surprises in store for us and for Harry,
> > and at least some of them, almost certainly, relate to Snape.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> That's a possibility. Or the main surprise already happened ( Snape 
> killing DD) and in the second part the consequences of such surprise 
> would be dealt with among other things.
> 
> But I wonder why you say that there is always a reversal. Where do you 
> see a reversal at the end of OOP for example. What turned out to be 
> not what it seemed?

Pippin:
If I can jump in here, it's true there's no reversal in OOP, but there's
no resolution either. The only big issue that got resolved is who was
going to die, and that was completely extraneous to the book --
unless it turns out that someone *was* plotting Sirius's death. But
that would be a reversal, since right now we're meant to think it was
a random act of war.

As Alla says, the big revelation about the prophecy didn't resolve
anything much, even without being revealed as a misinterpretation in 
Book Six. Otherwise, at the end of Book Five, Umbridge was still alive 
and in power,  Grawp was on the loose, and  Lupin promised to step 
into a protective role only to abdicate it almost immediately.

In other words, in the context of Book Six, Book Five doesn't really
stand alone. Book Five is most likely the first part of a three book 
novel with each book corresponding to one act of the classic three 
act structure.

In that case we shouldn't expect the climax, the reversal or the
resolution  until  the last book. 


> Alla, who agrees on that part, unfortunately, but who thinks of very 
> different Snape redemption - as in him deeply regretting "killing 
> Dumbledore" and trying to make Harry see it - that he, Snape regrets 
> what he did.
>

Pippin:
If Snape is DDM, he is not the traitor, in which case all that stuff about
Dumbledore's weakness of seeing only good in people is simply
irrelevant -- and since Rowling has told us it isn't, the traitor must
be someone else.

But if someone else is the traitor, it would hardly be economical to 
have Snape bear the responsibility for Dumbledore's death. 

IMO, Snape does not need to be redeemed from loyalty to the Dark Side, 
but only from his misdirected hate. IMO, that can only happen when the 
righteous anger behind it is recognized and dealt with.  Meanwhile 
Harry has to realize that his own righteous anger is leading him into 
a similar trap.

Pippin