I HAD A DREAM OR HOW I REALIZED THAT I MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG./ PART 2 sort of

[Neri]

No: HPFGUIDX 167129

> Pippin:
> If this is a plot-driven story, how come we're arguing about the
> nature of Snape instead of, say, how Harry is going to locate and
> destroy all those horcruxes? Wondering why Dumbledore trusted
> Snape and whether he was right to do so is a character issue, not
> a plot question.

Neri:
It is equally a plot question. It has profound implications for what
had happened until now and what's going to happen in the last book.
And "plot-driven" does not exclude strong characters that we care a
lot about. It just means that the way these characters act is
constrained by plot considerations. JKR is good with plot and most
especially with delivering Bang, at least as much as (I'd say
considerably more than) she's good with character development.


> Pippin:
> 
> Would normally like to? in this case? make do? 
> 
> What kind of drama is that? 
> 

Neri:
Er
 are you saying that the tower scene was *not* dramatic? Maybe our
differences regarding the definition of Bang are bigger than I thought.

I doubt the tower scene could have been made more dramatic than it is
with a lengthy taunt from Snape. More likely it would have made it
less dramatic. Yes, Snape's character perhaps had to make do with less
in this case, so that we readers could get *more* Bang.


> Pippin:
> JKR even gave Snape another opportunity, when he had all the
> time in the world.
> 
> "KIll me like you killed him, you coward," just begs for the riposte,
> "My pleasure!" or "Oh, Potter, if only I could, but you see, the
Dark Lord 
> wants you alive and unspoiled." Instead, we get Snape screaming in
> capslock and looking like he's being burned alive. There's a serious
> lack of gloat there.:)
> 

Neri:
There's plenty of gloat from Snape one page earlier in that same
scene. I personally believe Snape's response here is very important
for the mystery solving (and it is well explained by LID!Snape) but
BANG-wise it doesn't add a lot after the tower scene. The important
point is that it doesn't detract from it either. 


> > Neri:
> > And even with a completely innocent Snape, in order to maintain
> > dramatic effect Harry should probably realize Snape is innocent in
> > less than a two chapters complicated explanation. A pretty effective
> > way to achieve this would be if ESE!Lupin or another ESE holding Harry
> > at wand point would say: "Snape?? Killing Dumbledore?? It was *I* who
> > killed Dumbledore!!!"
> 
> Pippin:
> Or Hermione throws herself in front of Snape and says "NO, Harry! Snape
> didn't kill Dumbledore. YOU did!!"
> 
> *Then* we get the explanations. 
> 

Neri:
No, I don't think it this version would be very BANGy. Because we were
with Harry (actually inside his head) when he was "killing"
Dumbledore, and so we know from first hand that it wasn't really
Harry's fault. It wasn't anybody's fault, the way you present it, and
that's exactly what would undermine the Bang of the tower scene. The
tower scene is BANGy because we see someone whom we thought was a good
guy murdering another good guy, so there's plenty of blame and it's
obvious with whom it lies. But if no one is really at fault for
Dumbledore's death, or rather all of them, Harry and Snape and
Dumbledore himself (and also the usual villains in a roundabout way)
are each *a little* at fault, then the tower scene is going to lose
its dramatic power when you reread it after Book 7. And that's
something JKR doesn't do. I can't recall any big Bang in the series
that is undermined by subsequent reversals. If you want Snape innocent
without undermining the tower scene, then you'd better find a
replacement villain to kill Dumbledore, or something equally effective.


> Pippin:
> Look at PoA.
> Wouldn't it have been more bangy if the Potters *had* been betrayed
> by their best friend? Instead of insane killer Sirius we got  wussy
little
> Peter, and he never would have had the opportunity if the Potters
> and Sirius hadn't planned an elaborate ruse and then botched it.
> <snip>

Neri:
Just ask yourself which moment is more BANGy: Fudge and McGognagall
telling the story of Betrayer!Black and Hero!Pettigrew in the Leaky
Cauldron, or Sirius and Lupin telling the story of Betrayer!Peter and
WronglyAccused!Sirius in the Shack. Don't think too much, just say
quickly which felt more BANGy when you first read it. You got it: the
Shack story was more BANGy. And what's more –  after the reversal the
Leaky story haven't lost its original BANGiness, only it's now BANGy
for different reasons. 

In fact, lets look closely at PoA. Sirius starts this book as the
villain, murderer and betrayer, just like Snape is right now, and in
the end it turns out he was DDM!Sirius after all. So, I think the
DDM!Snapers need to look very carefully at PoA and analyze what it
took to acquit Sirius. It is likely that at least as much would be
required to acquit a DDM!Snape in Book 7. In fact, I'd say it would
take *more* to acquit DDM!Snape, because we saw him committing the
crime on page in one of the most dramatic moments of the series, while
Sirius had committed his supposed crimes off page. Besides, DDM!Sirius
was acquitted in the third book, while DDM!Snape needs to be acquitted
in the seventh and final book of the series that was planned since the
beginning. So, what did it take to acquit DDM!Sirius in PoA?

As it turns out, the first thing it took was a replacement villain,
the one who really dunnit. I think this was mightily important
BANGwise for at least two reasons: first, if someone was guilty of a
horrible crime, and now he turns out not to be guilty after all, and
there's no one else to take the blame instead, it was really nobody's
fault – you lose Bang. The dramatic power is undermined. The second
reason is that it's so much easier to acquit the innocent once the
real villain was found. Harry and us didn't need to run the Pensieve
recording of the killing of the twelve muggles in the street to
convince ourselves it was Peter who killed them. Once the real story
was out it was clear that Sirius didn't have any motive to kill those
muggles and Peter did. Just imagine JKR trying instead to convince us
that no one was to blame, and these twelve muggles were really killed
in an accidental gas explosion. It would have come out highly
suspicious as well as a Dud. 

Moreover, note that it wasn't just any villain out there that JKR had
drafted to take the blame. No, no, it had to be the one who was the
tragic hero in the previous version. Moreover, it had to be someone
who was believed dead for twelve years. Moreover, he had to be an
animagus, and pretending for three books to be Ron's pet and sleeping
with him in the same bed! Why did we need all that, you ask? Because
it's BANGy, that's why. You want to acquit DDM!Snape? You need to
resurrect a 12 years dead animagus from Ron's bed, or find something
else that would be *at least* as BANGy.

And I don't even discuss all those beautiful, carefully planted clues:
Sirius repeating "he's at Hogwarts
" in his sleep, asking Fudge for
his newspaper, Scabbers' photo in the newspaper, his missing toe, the
sneakoscope's warning, Crookshanks response, the mysterious black dog,
the Firebolt from no one
 you need such clues not only for the mystery
plot, but also to generate Bang when everything is revealed. And then
these clues must fit *precisely*, or no Bang. And if there's need to
fill in the backstory, you'd better find a beloved character like
Lupin to tell it. Delivering Bang ain't easy at all, but this is what
makes the Harry Potter series so great. I don't see JKR compromising
on this in her final book of the series merely to make Snape look
better. JKR killed Sirius for Bang, and she killed Dumbledore for
Bang. You think she'll be more generous to Snape?    


> Pippin:
> Therefore I see no problem
> with sacrificing the drama of Traitor!Snape and Betrayed!Dumbledore
> for the pathos of DDM!Snape and Toocleverbyhalf!DD. 
>

Neri:
DDM!Snape is nice Bang if you can get it, although IMO not quite
enough for the price you offer. TooCleverByHalf!DD is a horrible,
horrible Dud.

 
Neri