Seeing gray in a black and white book/Free passes to characters

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 165082

> >>Alla:
> But what I agree with you is that the amount of scrutiny of good   
> guys is much higher than the character you mentioned. And again, I 
> deeply respect everybody's rights to point out characters ethical  
> mistakes, **every** character mistake, but I do find it amusing     
> when Snape is given free pass for everything starting from his     
> teaching tactics and ending up with murder. IMO of course.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
(Just a clarification point: did you mean *dis*agree in that first 
sentence?  Because I'd actually say that Snape is one of the most 
scrutinized characters in the Potter-verse.)

I guess I just wonder whose posts you're laughing at.  Who has ever 
given Snape a "free pass" at teaching tactics or the murder of 
Dumbledore?  Has *anyone* while discussing Snape said that his 
various actions just plain don't count and shouldn't be looked at 
all?  I don't recall anyone doing so.

Taking myself, I am on one side of the extreme in that I think Snape 
is actually a very good teacher (one of Hogwarts' best, IMO) and that 
he enjoys his job.  (This isn't a popular position, even amongst 
Snape lovers. <g>) But even given that, I *do* see times where Snape, 
as a teacher, either makes a mistake or lets his emotions (anger 
usually) get the best of him.  I just don't think he's abusive and I 
don't think he should be strung up by his toe-nails.  Is that what is 
meant by a "free pass"?

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> Basically any justification of what Snape does to Trio reads to me 
> as an excuse.
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Right, but that just means you see Snape as pretty much black.  All 
of his actions are based on something negative.  People will argue 
against your perspective and, for example, say that Snape taking 
points from Gryffindor because Hermione helped Neville on a potion 
was justified.  That's disagreeing with your position that none of 
Snape's actions towards the Trio are justified, but it's not giving 
Snape a free pass.

To give Snape a free pass in that example would be to say something 
like, "taking the points was wrong, but since it's Snape I'm totally 
cool with it".  And that's not the sort of argument I see getting 
made.  (Except when it comes to the good guys actually. But that's 
because there's an attempt to squeeze the good guys into "white 
hats".)

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> And not that I do not do it myself. For example, to go back to 
> Harry's using Unforgivables.
> <snip>
> Having said that, I absolutely excuse Harry here because of the     
> pain he was in, etc. It does not mean though that I would call his 
> action right, not at all. I am not going to say that there is any   
> sound reason for him to do so, except the pain he was in, but this 
> **is** an excuse.

Betsy Hp:
Yes, but this sort of "excusing" or handing out of free passes 
generally only happens with the good guys.  It's going on with the 
bathroom scene discussion right now.  Instead of agreeing that, yes 
slicing someone open is not a good thing to do, folks are trying to 
say "well it's a bad thing, but since it's Harry I'm cool with it".  

I have *not* seen that happen with Snape.  If it's the Tower no one 
(that I've seen) has said "murdering Dumbledore was wrong, but since 
it's Snape, I'm cool with it".  Some folks say he had no choice, 
others say, he didn't actually kill Dumbledore, and others say, he 
killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore's own orders.  But that's not the 
same as saying murder is fine especially since it's Snape.

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Most of the characters are gray.
> > <snip>

> >>Alla:
> Are they though? Sure, there is greyness in every character. But to 
> compare greyness in say Ron and Snape?
> <snip>

Betsy Hp:
Of course there are different shades!  That's the very definition of 
gray -- there's wiggle room.  And discussions should make room for it.

> >>Alla:
> I am just thinking that a little equality would be nice :)
> Not a requirement mind you, but I do agree with Eggplant that Snape 
> is not scrutinised as much as everybody else **at all*.

Betsy Hp:
Well first off, I completely disagree that Snape doesn't get 
scrutinized.  Goodness, how often to we get folks signing off with "I 
hate Snape discussions!" tags?  Too often, IMO! <g>

But I do agree that there's a lack of equality in the judgement of 
characters.  The good guys can do something completely cowardly and 
ignoble (like say, an adult attacking a child because he doesn't like 
what that child's father just said, yes I'm looking at you Hagrid) 
and everyone talks about how gosh darn funny it was.  And a bad guy 
can make the noble decision to not kill an unarmed opponent (Draco 
vs. Dumbledore on the Tower) and suddenly it means the non-killer is 
a coward.

And I honestly think that inequality comes about because folks are 
very intent on shoving these gray characters into a black or white 
box.

> >>Betsy:
> > Any interpertations of character that insist on making every 
> > decision Hermione makes absolutely correct are going to founder.  
> > Just as any attempts to force Draco into a purely negative mold   
> > are going to founder.  JKR won't allow it, bless her.

> >>Alla:
> But interpretations that make Hermione a potential Umbridge and 
> Draco, let's see a victim of Harry's spying ( after all, that is    
> the reason that Draco attacked him with Crucio <g>) are amusing.

Betsy Hp:
You may find them such, but they are not giving any of the characters 
a free pass, and they're not coming from a sanctimonious need for 
character perfection.  Which is two sides of an attitude that I think 
builds a straw man rather than addresses the actual issues.

> >>Alla:
> <snip>
> But that does not mean that if people honestly do not see anything 
> wrong with Harry's actions in one scene or another, they will not 
> counterargue.

Betsy Hp:
Which is fine, of course.  The whole point is that JKR leaves plenty 
of room for discussion.  I was more suggesting that the "no one is 
perfect so we shouldn't be allowed to argue that Harry isn't perfect" 
argument is an attempt to move the discussion *away* from Harry.  In 
a sense it's saying that because Harry is a "good guy" none of his 
actions should ever be questioned: they're either good or they're 
character seasoning.  I think that's starting from a false premise, 
and doing JKR a disservice.

Betsy Hp