Snape as infidel was Re: Kant and Snape and Ethics and Everything

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 150284

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

> I've always hoped Snape would survive, and in a more or less
> unreformed state -- I mean, I'd like to see him change his mind 
> about Harry, but in accordance with *his* moral code, not because
> he decided his moral code was deficient. 
> 
> Snape to me is less a sinner than an infidel -- an unbeliever with
> respect to the Gryffindor chivalric ideal which I suspect is 
> Rowling's stand-in for Christianity and with respect to enlightened 
> methods of instruction. I would not like to be told that the
> only good infidel is a dead infidel, much less a converted one.  Not
> by someone who says her message is tolerance, anyway.

Now this is an interesting perspective, because I think it does make 
a lot of sense.  However, I have to say that I think Rowling thinks 
that Snape's moral code *IS* deficient, and that's a good word for 
it.  It lacks something, it's missing something, it's not totally 
wrong but there's something notably off about it.

I do find it interesting that pretty much all DDM!Snape theories 
depend heavily upon Snape's actions somehow having been validated by 
Dumbledore's will, that he's still fundamentally acting with 
Dumbledore's wishes in mind.  If he were not to be, it's just too 
uncomfortably close to being evil, isn't it?  I don't recall too many 
arguments for Snape's own morality being independently superior or 
moral.

And for all of Rowling's talk of tolerance of persons and the like, I 
think that's knotted together with the necessity that those walking 
an inferior path (and not all paths are equal--this is not a 
relativistic world) has to recognize this.  Draco lowers his wand and 
does not kill--an admission that the path he was following was 
wrong.  This involves an acknowledgement of method and manner being 
important, not only the actions but how one carries them out.

I get the suspicion that if Snape is to live, he's going to have to 
have some kind of concession scene.  This is a little like what Neri 
has been arguing for in the moral relationship of Dumbledore and 
Snape: Dumbledore wants Snape to independently realize why and what 
that Snape has been doing or acting upon is wrong.  There are 
fictional universes where compromise would be thematic, but this 
doesn't strike me as one of them.

> Not that Snape is a complete buffoon: that wouldn't be very
> tolerant either. I think we're being led to a reversal in which
> we cease to take Snape's bullying seriously, but see that his
> life and his dignity are as precious as any other sinner's.

I'd still love an answer to my general contention that Snape has 
actually become *less* comic in many ways as the series has 
progressed.  At least that's my impression; the further we go along 
and see how deep his grudges go, the less they seem to inhabit the 
world of comedy (the nasty teacher figure) and the more they become 
pathological, more than a little bit scary.  Neidisch, with a 
surprisingly deep level of obsession on certain topics.  After all, 
the progression has been to steadily darken Snape's character, 
revealing more and more negative things (along with pulling in some 
positive highlights and other complexities).

(Structurally in comedy, it tends to be the hero who removes the 
senex/mentor from the scene in order to surpass him and reintegrate 
the fabric of society in time for the wedding scene at the end.  I 
can't think of any comedies which involve violent removal of the 
mentor by an antagonistic character--anyone got any?)

And to grant the fundamental dignity of another human being is not 
necessarily to approve of all of what they do: if you take some 
models, there is a responsibility to help someone change and realize 
the error of their ways.

-Nora wonders who all the characters would be if they were suddenly 
dropped into the world of New Comedy