Snape really was a Good Guy - Canon in the House

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 174397

> >>Chuck:
> I, too, have struggled with the complexity of Snape's character, his
> relationship with Harry, Dumbledore, and the rest of the Order of   
> the Phoenix.  While it was clear even before DH that Snape's       
> remorse over the death of Lily is what turned him around, to see it 
> in print in the Pensive was unnerving (the whole Pensive sequence   
> is my favorite part of the whole series).
> 
> While I too feel a sense of wanting more, I think that JKR did her
> best: we now know that the ONLY reason that Snape turned was his
> remorse over Lily's death.  Had she not died, he wouldn't have been
> "saved."  So does that diminish his "good" acts from that point on? 
> Is he only being "good" because of the remorse?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
The problem I have (and the reason I so deeply dislike DH and the 
entire series now) is that I think DH *removed* a lot of Snape's 
complexity.  You're correct that it was only Snape's one-sided and 
slavish love for Lily that caused him to work for Dumbledore.  And 
that's because he's Slytherin.

As per the books, Slytherins are bad.  They cannot achieve true 
goodness no matter how they try.  Which, in an odd and rather 
despicable way (IMO), gives Snape an out.  Of *course* he was nasty 
to Harry.  Of *course* he joined the Death Eaters.  Of *course* his 
one and only reason for putting himself under Dumbledore's complete 
control was a sad and twisted love.  He's Slytherin.  His fate was 
determined as soon as the Hat called out his House.

It's a cold and depressing way of looking at life but it's what JKR 
wrote.

> >>Chuck:
> The one thing on which I do feel cheated is the fact that Dumbledore
> doesn't have as much of a struggle--he truly believes that Harry    
> will survive his encounter with Death because of Lily's blood that 
> runs in Voldemort's veins, so JKR has given Dumbledore a convenient 
> out. 

Betsy Hp:
And that's because Dumbledore is a Gryffindor.  It's the flip side of 
the coin.  Gryffindors don't have moral struggles because their moral 
supremacy has already been determined at the Sorting.  "Convenient 
outs" are their due for being so golden and pure. 

> >>Chuck:
> Snape's stuggle is genuine--he truly believes that Harry must now be
> sacrificed, yet he does indeed convey the message to Harry while
> Dumbledore can pretty much be rest assured that Harry will not die.

Betsy Hp:
The interesting thing is that even as a Slytherin, even being as 
simplified as possible by the author, Snape *still* manages to be one 
of the more complex and interesting characters.  But that's because 
most authors prefer to create characters that *do* face moral 
struggles.

Snape becomes less complex because his struggle is, and could only 
be, in vain.  But he's more complex than those around him because he 
at least has a stuggle.  It's just the conversation about him is 
curtailed because none of what he does is in his control.  He's 
Slytherin and that's all the motive or purpose JKR will allow.

I'm not sure if this makes any sense.  Frankly the Calvinist logic of 
Predestination that JKR has used never did make much sense to me.  
But that's what she did and I think that's the only way of 
approaching the books.

Betsy Hp