good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 175411




Alla:

**I** was not saying any of those things, actually :) I was 
paraphrasing the argument which I saw several times to respond to 
last part of yours - that you did not see anybody trying to justify 
Snape's calling Lily a mudblood.

Therefore if the argument in essense claims that it was a forgivable 
mistake, to me it is **still** a justification of Snape's calling 
Lily a mudblood. BUT that argument said pretty much what I 
paraphrased  - no more no less - that Snape was stressed out and had 
no choice but to lash out at Lily, since it was so embarassing for 
him to be saved by a girl.

I prefer not to guess what was meant - forgivable mistake or 
something else.


Julie:
All mistakes are forgivable, depending on the circumstances. And
before DH we didn't know the exact circumstances. Based on canon
we had through HBP it was as reasonable a conjecture as any that
teenage Snape didn't regularly use that word. We had no idea if
Lily and Snape had any sort of relationship, or why Lily blinked
with surprise when Snape used the word. Adult Snape never used
the word either, so this one use in all the books to that point
could easily be an aberration on his part, and forgivable if he
genuinely didn't mean it *and* didn't normally use it. Post-DH
we do know that he regularly used the term and only regretted 
using it with Lily because of his feelings for her, so now we
know it wasn't forgivable in that context (short of Snape reforming
right then and forsaking the Pureblood ideology.)

Really, nothing is unforgivable if one truly repents and makes
amends, which is rather the theme of the books, no?

Alla:
Oy, I feel so wierd typing it, because I always do not feel 
comfortable talking about how fans argue, not what they argue, 
because in my experience even when something like that starts not as 
flame war, it can so easily became one, but I 
just felt that I have to clarify my words again.

Let me stress it again, I have **no problem** whatsoever with anybody 
justifying any action of Snape or any other character.

But do I think that Snape's actions gets justified much more than any 
other character  **in general** ? Yes, I do.

Julie:
One person's justification is another person's explanation. And when
it comes to interpreting the behavior and motivations of characters
like Snape, Sirius, James, etc, we all rely on our own interpretations,
because too little is spelled out for us. I for one NEVER justified
Snape's use of the term "mudblood" which to me means condoning it 
and dismissing any deserved consequences. What I did is *explain* it
using again what canon we had in HBP, asserting that as a teenager
Snape may have used a term that he didn't normally use because he 
was under great stress and humiliated teenage boys (and girls) often
lash out in the nastiest way possible. It even turns out that he DID
use it under great stress when he never would have used it otherwise
*against* Lily. Now that we know Snape threw the term around regularly
at other Muggleborns, and that he had no remorse about that, it wasn't
a forgivable act to Lily, and rightly so. 

But again, this debate all happened pre-HBP, so I'm not sure why we're
talking about it now. Except that I don't want my reasonable explanation
for Snape's use of the term BASED ON CANON AT THE TIME (and certainly 
there were other equally reasonable explanations) to be dismissed as
"justification." Unless of course, every argument ever made by every
person based on incomplete canon information is a justifcation for
that person's interpretation ;-) 

Julie


________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


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