The Fundamental Message of the HP books?

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 176262

LesAJa:
> I favoured the idea, that there indeed was NO ironclad reason for
> Dd to trust Snape, that the ultimate point would be that there can
> never be such a proof, that you have to choose to trust someone. 
> And I favoured the idea that JKR would write it in such a way that
> would make the readers wonder if Dd's trust, given without a last 
> ironclad proof, Dd's faith in the goodness of Snape, maybe was the
> cause that Snape turned to or stayed on the good side. I hoped for
> that.

Jen:  I think you are saying that Snape loving Lily made the story 
you wanted impossible, because that was a concrete reason Dumbledore 
trusted Snape instead of trusting him on faith?  

I read their relationship as very similar to what you expressed 
wanting to see:  Snape's love for Lily, still inside him even after 
his life as a DE - a choice that JKR once said requires suppressing 
virtually all of the good side of a person (paraphrased) -  wasn't 
really very much for Dumbledore to hang his trust upon.  

It's hard to imagine many leaders who are charged with the safety and 
security of so many in a war-type situation would believe that love 
alone was enough to make a person worthy of an offer to change 
sides.  There was no guarantee Lily would be saved, no guarantee 
Snape would want anything to do with Dumbledore if his objective was 
met, etc.  Then Dumbledore backed up his offer with other actions 
that helped Snape rejoin the community he'd lost: Dumbledore vouched 
for Snape in court, offered Snape safety should Voldemort return and 
gave him a job and home back at Hogwarts, which according to Harry's 
assessment in the forest, was the 'first and best home' Snape knew.  

The Pensieve memories from Snape are incomplete, meant only to fill 
in the necessary parts of the story that Harry has to understand in 
order to realize he can trust Snape and therefore believe the pivotal 
moment when Dumbledore talks of how Harry must sacrifice himself. 

JKR did something *very* surprising in this chapter and the entire 
series in my opinion - never revealing Snape's actions as a DE.  The 
only indication we have of the depths to which Snape had sunk was the 
way Dumbledore addressed Snape in their first meeting.  Dumbledore 
was meeting a man who was following Voldemort until the point 
something happened that shook him to his core - Lily's life was 
threatened.  Presumably nothing else would have turned him from 
Voldemort's side.  The goodness left in Snape was that he still 
carried a deep love for his longtime friend, even though Lily had 
closed the door on their relationship, married his enemy and, as far 
as Snape knew, given up on him.  Just as Dumbledore could see the 
possibility for a bit of goodness left in Pettigrew, he trusted 
Snape's love for Lily was enough to give him a second chance. 

LesAJa:
> He acknowledges Snape's skills, but how does it sound like for
> Snape (who died still believing that Dd has only used him all the 
> time), when Dd says "Do not think that I underestimate the constant
> danger in which you place yourself, Severus. To give Voldemort what
> appears to be valuable information while withholding the essentials
> is a job I would entrust to nobody like you."? Like "you are the 
> perfect tool because of your quite unique skills, and I know you 
> live a hell of a life because of that, so terrible I want no other
>  person has to live."?

Jen:  The quote is actually, "...I would entrust to nobody but you" 
rather than 'nobody like you' - not sure if the word 'like' 
influenced your reading or not but it changes up the meaning for me 
to read it with 'like.'  

When reading your response, the question that springs to my mind 
is 'what other life was open to Snape other than the life he had with 
Dumbledore?'  His choices were few when he first approached 
Dumbledore to help Lily.  He could have stayed with Voldemort and 
done nothing to try to save the Potters.  When Voldemort returned, 
Snape might have chosen to leave Hogwarts as Karkaroff did (and be 
killed for his effort) or to declare himself part of the Order (and 
also be killed).  Dumbledore offered him a chance to make a 
difference with the rest of his life rather than to be a DE or to be 
killed, and to Snape's credit, he turned his second chance into a 
life that mattered.  

Re: the way Dumbledore talks to Snape, the fact that he lied to 
him about Harry and kept the Horcruxes from him, one thing I kept in 
mind while reading the Pensieve scenes was that Dumbledore and Snape 
were very dependent on Snape being able to continue his superb 
Occlumency in order to fool Voldemort.  Dumbledore wasn't able to 
reveal everything to Snape for that reason and Snape was a master at 
shutting off his emotions so he wouldn't betray a weakness to 
Voldemort.  The limitations present likely hindered a father/son 
relationship from developing although their complete trust in each 
other struck me as very intimate in a different way from emotional 
intimacy.

LesAJa:
> In the end, it seems, Dd was wiser than anyone, and because of
> that, we may not understand why he does what he does...? Just 
> follow the leader, be "his man", and whatever he wants you to do or
> to ignore is right, and therefore if you do what he wants you'll be 
> good.  I don't like that, I prefer to follow moral rules and not 
> persons.  It's easier to lose track of means and motives if you 
> follow a person, especially if you are emotionally connected to 
> this person. It hinders people thinking for themselves IMO.

Jen:  Thinking about the real world for just a moment, it's difficult 
to think of a moral system that exists without being attached to a 
person or deity.  Religion, social justice, spirituality, political 
movements - whatever a person chooses to ascribe belief to involves 
either identifiable leaders or identifiable deities who offer a moral 
system to follow.  There are no deities in the Wizard World, so JKR 
substituted identifiable leaders who represent ideologies.  

Nevertheless, distilling down the WW to two main ideologies and their 
respective sides, with a large third group of people who don't want 
to commit to either side or don't realize they should, doesn't 
necessarily make for a consistent moral system when reading the 
books!  Like you described in your original post, there are points 
where the ideologies aren't clearly defined and it leads to actions 
and events that aren't immediately connected to one side or the 
other.  A big gray area.

My reading of Dumbledore's talk with Harry in King's Cross was 
different from yours.  While Harry still needed to know information 
only Dumbledore had, Harry was no longer in the role of student to a 
teacher.  Dumbledore offered the only thing he had left, the truth, 
which brought Harry's secondary quest in DH to an end.  Snape's 
memories were the impetus to get him to King's Cross, and 
Dumbledore's story was the foundation for Harry determining what he 
would do next: return and help the living.  He could begrudge this 
man, now dead, for his faults and failings, weaknesses and losses, or 
Harry could forgive Dumbledore and move on.  There wasn't a reason I 
could see for Harry refusing his forgiveness when Dumbledore asked 
for it.

> I hope my post is not too confusing and apologise if it is, as 
> English is my second language.

Jen:  No confusion at all!  Very nice post, thank you.