[HPforGrownups] Re: Would Harry forgiving Snape be character growth for him? /Lupin's Loyalties

[Magpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 164215

Magpie:
> I'm talking about a slightly different issue about Snape's being
wrong in
> the past is *evidence* that he's LV's man now, and that Dumbledore
must be
> ignoring this obvious piece of evidence while Harry is not. That's
the thing
> that's too negative. <SNIP>.

Alla:

Okay, please, please explain that to me, because I do not understand. You 
agree that some people are just evil, but if Snape did not change, it is too 
negative? How is it too negative?

Magpie:
Sorry--even I can see I'm getting kind of confusing!

First, Snape is the *one* character who has allegedly changed and yet still 
is unpleasant. It's not like he's just one more bad guy who remains bad, 
he's the one living example of a bad guy changing sides despite obviously 
still being unpleasant. We've got two other potential examples in Regulus, 
who died before the series began, and Draco who could potentially stop 
before he crosses the line.

For an example of someone who really switched sides, and went from being an 
active DE to someone actively working against LV (at great risk to himself), 
there's only Snape. So having him turn out to be bad through and through too 
carries more weight than just some bad people not changing. It takes the one 
central redemption story and ends it in failure. All the good guys were 
always good.

Throughout the series Snape has been about this conflict: bad guy or good 
guy? He genuinely hates our hero and is out to get him as a teacher, yet 
also works against the real villain who wants Harry dead. Then we find out 
that Snape actually was once a DE--that already is a point in the "Harry was 
right about Snape being a bad guy" right there. He *was* a bad guy, he *did* 
support Voldemort. He even set him after Harry to begin with.

Only now he's allegedly a spy, and the question is: why did he change sides, 
because it's not like he seems all that chastened or like he's become a good 
guy. Dumbledore won't tell us--but he says he trusts him completely, and 
that he was genuinely repenent. Harry's left frustrated not because he 
really sees Snape doing things that *must* make him a DE (until he kills 
DD), but because Snape continues to do petty things to him and to hate him, 
and since he's not acting like he wants Harry's life saved and as if he's on 
Harry's side it's hard for Harry to deal with that.

That, to me, makes it negative because it ultimately validates an emotional, 
angry and simplistic judgment to a person over a judgment that's based more 
on empathy and understanding the person from his own pov, even if it's 
confusing. And the person in question is our one character who was a DE and 
changed sides to become an agent for Dumbledore.

Magpie:
<SNIP>
 But I think
> that's why Dumbledore's hinted there's more to it--you have to understand 
>  > Snape's whole situation and what's important to him, and Harry doesn't
> really get all that yet. He doesn't have the information to understand > 
> Dumbledore's view.

Alla:

You mean additional reason to trust Snape? Sure, that is possibility and as 
I said yes, information is missing, probably, but what if it does not, what 
if Snape deepest remorse was all that there was?

Magpie:
I think the "more" doesn't have to be some other thing besides remorse (like 
a UV or whatever). It's explaining how Snape could actually feel this 
remorse. To use an opposite example, Peter switched sides too. Imagine if 
Snape was told that Peter switched sides and didn't believe it any more than 
Harry does about him; if he said, "Peter's always been James Potter's fan 
boy. He'd never hurt him. Voldemort's being tricked--Peter's just pretended 
to be with him."

The understanding of how Voldemort could believe Peter isn't double-crossing 
him would depend on understanding Peter, more than anything else. 
Understanding that yes, he loves James BUT he's a coward who always sucks up 
to the biggest bully and he came to believe Voldemort would win, so he 
jumped ship.

It's totally understandable why in HBP Harry didn't find the remorse story 
convincing. The trouble is we've not yet really gotten a reason to 
understand why Dumbledore thought it was convincing.

> Magpie:
> It's not that, exactly. Lucius Malfoy's a jerk in his private life and 
> works > for Voldemort. There are not really many pleasant DEs that we've 
> met (none
> that I can think of). But the issue is one having to be linked to the > 
> others. As Sirius says, the world isn't made up of good guys and DEs. > 
> Umbridge wasn't a DE, and she's even worse than Snape. Filch isn't a DE. 
> All > DEs may be unpleasant people, but not all unpleasant people are DEs. 
>  > Regulus actually was a DE, but may turn out to be the first person to 
> have > tried to do what Harry's trying to do to destroy Voldemort.


Alla:

Oh, man. I do not know what to snip here. Yes, I agree with everything you 
wrote in this paragraph, with absolutely everything.

My problem is what does it have to do with Snape? Why cannot Snape NOT 
change if some of these people different? Did JKR specifically say that 
Snape just has to change? As you said there are many unpleasant people who 
are DE in the books and plenty of people who are unpleasant but not DE, so I 
guess my question is who says that Snape necessarily belongs in second 
category? Does it make sense?

Magpie:
It does make sense--but remember if Snape is in a second category, he's the 
only one. The only living character that we've seen go from active DE to 
actively helping Dumbledore. If Snape's one more Lucius Malfoy, that's a lot 
of weight on Lucius' side. All we've got in the other category are Regulus 
whom we've never met and who didn't live after his redemption and 
potentially Draco who might only prove he was never DE material in the first 
place.

As the story stands now...and this is harder to explain because maybe it's 
just me as an editor "feeling" the way the story seems to be pulling...it 
seems like Snape's the one who has changed (before the series started). If 
Harry is right about Snape still being a DE that's already been revealed 
halfway through the story--it's the way it stands now. Everyone thinks 
Snape's killing Dumbledore shows he's really LV's man, and thinks they were 
misguided to trust Dumbledore on that. All we really need is for Snape to 
probably have a "stupid old man!" speech, and for Harry to then on his own 
decide that even though Dumbledore was wrong, he was still right to have 
given Snape a second chance in principle (presumably this decision will be 
made with Snape still properly dead or in jail, of course). That's where he 
is now, I think. He loves Dumbledore, and forgives him for making the wrong 
decision about Snape--but it was the wrong decision.

> Magpie:
<BIG SNIP>
> It's also wrong-headed to consider someone being unpleasant to you
> personally as evidence that they must hold certain beliefs that
are
> different from yours, because things just don't always work that
way. Snape
> could certainly still be LV's man, but his dislike of Harry Potter
doesn't
> have to lead to that. It can be an independent part of his
personality.

Alla:

Mmmmm, see I keep saying yes, to a lot of what you wrote and am loosing the 
gust of our disagreement again. :

I think Harry had seen or learned about things that Snape did that are not 
personal, although they are mixed with personal, I guess and that may point 
to Snape working for LV. How is it wrong to think
that person who killed DD ( the most significant example) is working for 
Voldemort? It happened outside of the classroom after all.

Magpie:
Oh, that's not wrong. I think killing DD at this point seems like the reveal 
that Snape was indeed LV's man. (I believe we'll get further information 
that shows that was misleading, but right now it seems like he's just 
declared himself for LV.) Believing that Snape is LV's man because he killed 
DD seems to prove Harry was right all this time--Harry's subjective pov 
didn't have anything to do with that conclusion. He saw him kill Dumbledore. 
If it had been Lupin who did it instead of Snape Harry would think he was 
LV's man too.

Alla:
There are also mixed reasons - like knowing Snape hatred of his father and 
that Voldemort attacked his parents, surely it can be a sign that Snape is 
Voldemort man?

Magpie:
I would say no, not exactly, because this is something that's already known. 
Harry's not really picking apart DDM!Snape as we know him, because DDM!Snape 
has always been an ex-DE who set LV on Harry's parents. He attacked Harry's 
parents before he was DDM, and in fact that very act that's supposedly 
wrapped up in his changing of sides. So attacking Harry's parents can't be 
evidence against DDM because DDM!Snape has always incorporated that fact.

Alla:
Snape disliking Harry Potter can absolutely be an independent part of his 
personality, but the fact that Harry is on Voldemort most wanted list and 
Snape dislikes him as well, can point to something here IMO.

Magpie:
But why? Especially when we even know that Snape's dislike of Harry has to 
do with James? And when Snape has protected Harry himself instead of letting 
him die when he had the chance? Others have pointed out that it would make 
more sense for ESE!Snape to suck up to Harry, and while I wouldn't say that 
Snape's being obnoxious to Harry means he can't be a DE, it doesn't much 
prove he is either. As we see in HBP, a DE like Bellatrix doesn't care if 
Snape likes Harry or not. She wonders why he didn't kill him as she would 
have.

Alla:
Like for example if say Hanna Abott said Professor Snape dislikes me and he 
is Voldemort's man, then yes, there would have been a huge disconnect for me 
between two parts of this sentence. But with Harry
it is a different story, solely because Harry and LV fates are so connected 
( and thanks to Snape too, aren't that ironic?)

Magpie:
Yes, but their fates being connected doesn't necessarily mean that Snape has 
to *dislike* Harry. Barty Crouch didn't seem to dislike him. Plus Snape's 
not a difficult person to get to dislike you. He doesn't like Neville 
either, or Hermione.

Alla:

No, I was asking why you would think that in this instance JKR would have to 
explain how Dumbledore was tricked. It read to me as
if it would have been DD fault, you know?

And I would never consider it to be DD fault.

Magpie:
I think she'd have to exlain it because it's already out there as something 
that must be explained. Dumbledore *almost* explained it in HBP and then 
didn't. So it's got a big circle around it saying WATCH THIS SPACE. 
Dumbledore knew Snape hated James as much as Harry knows it. Why did he 
trust him completely? Harry asked him, iirc, and Dumbledore didn't lay it 
out. Then everyone later claimed he never told them either.

Not giving us anything else would leave us with the explanations we've 
already gotten: Dumbledore wants to see good in people so was suckered by a 
tale of remorse (a tale that sounds laughable to others). He just believed 
Snape's act. It's essentially the flipside of Harry's own desires with 
Snape--he wanted him to repent so believed him when he repented. Harry 
wouldn't blame DD because Snape must be blamed and DD must be mourned, but 
the lesson would still be: Don't get suckered in by DEs claiming to feel 
remorse like Dumbledore did.

Alla:
Oh, I want to ask you that question for few days, but could not find a posy 
where you said that DD is good at understanding people, so thank you for 
mentioning it here.

Could you give me an examples of where DD was been a shrewd judge of 
character, him  being extremely good at reading people, etc.

Now, I will give you that on the Tower he may have understood Draco and  I 
don't think that is a given either, just the path in that direction is open.

But besides that, I remember plenty of examples where DD understanding of 
people really sucked IMO.

Let's see he admits that he forgot how youth feels in OOP as to Harry and 
Sirius, he hoped that Dursleys would treat Harry as their son, etc.

Magpie:
I think he does understand people in those instances. His mistake there 
isn't that he misunderstands but that he over or underestimates. He 
understands what Sirius was going through. He knew he was condemning Harry 
to dark years with the Dursleys. He didn't buy Tom Riddle's act when 
everyone else did. He *hoped* they would be able to rise to the occasions 
they were put in and they could have, but they didn't. That's not 
misunderstanding them, it's giving them a chance or a challenge despite 
understanding them. It's not a mistake of misunderstanding what makes the 
individual tick, it's not taking other things into account (things like 
youth or how Sirius' treatment of Kreacher might lead to the right trap or 
Harry's stumbling right onto Snape's sore spot).

What you quoted about Dumbledore not remembering how youth feels is a good 
example, imo. It's not that he doesn't understand the individuals he's 
dealing with as individuals--he gets basically why they do what they do. 
It's just that's not all there is to it. That's why once somebody does do 
something Dumbledore didn't plan for--like when Harry goes to the MOM--he 
doesn't need it explained to him why. He immediately sees what he missed.

With Snape's remorse he's going beyond that. From what I've seen he seems to 
know Snape really well, even if Snape doesn't always do what Dumbledore 
wants him to do. If Snape's remorse was fake Dumbledore's completely 
misunderstood him as an individual.

Jen: This seems like a good place to insert a question on my mind during the 
discussion.  I don't really understand the emphasis on Harry being right or 
wrong about Snape and how that will end up being
a huge lesson Harry needs to learn.  Why are people certain JKR will 
emphasize this aspect so much?  I understand the loyalty issue needs to be 
fully revealed, and see why Harry has to understand how
destructive his hatred and resentment toward Snape are, that his feelings 
are undermining what should be the more important issue of defeating 
Voldemort.

Magpie:
It may seem like the right or wrong part is a bigger issue just because 
we've all become embroiled in a discussion about which one we think is 
better for the story.:-)

But even so, JKR has already emphasized it a great deal. Snape's a big 
mystery character in canon with more things coming back to him without being 
revealed. The whole reveal of the first book is about Harry's being wrong 
about Snape being the bad guy, then we've got books of Snape being a good 
guy but a rotten person who hates Harry...and now he kills Dumbledore? I 
think that's an important issue!

Jen:
The theme I see more vividly is Harry coming to terms with the gray area of 
life rather than being completely right or wrong about Snape, Draco or 
Slytherins in general.

Magpie:
But that's part of it. There's gray and then there's black. Right now 
Harry's all about the black when it comes to Snape. There will be plenty of 
other things going on, but I think Snape's true story is going to be an 
important thing for Harry to deal with.

Carol:
James Potter seems to have had a talent for Transfiguration, and maybe the
others did, too (Peter Pettigrew isn't as talentless as everyone seems to
assume), but they weren't born with that ability. They had to study and
practice for something like three years, presumably at the expense of their
homework in subjects other than Transfiguration, to become (illegal)
Animagi.



Sherry now:
There is no canon to suppose they didn't do their other homework or
schoolwork.  Yeah, we've had this debate before here on this list, but I
find the fact that James and friends became animagi to help a friend to be
remarkable and commendable, not something to sneer at and belittle.  It was
probably fun and exciting as well, but that doesn't negate the talent and
hard work it could have taken to do it or the incredible expression of
friendship it was.  Friendship means more to me than anything, and this is
one of the most special stories in canon for me.  Far more compelling and
moving than a friend murdering a friend for the greater good.


Magpie:
JMO, but I didn't think what Carol said belittled their abilities. She was 
just describing a difference between Animagi and Metamophagi--one's a skill 
you learn yourself, one's something you're born with. I would think that 
showed MWPP as being the more skilled of the two, since Tonks' skill is just 
a trick of birth while there's is proof of ability put to hard work all on 
their own. I would take that as a compliment.

(Though I agree they could very well have continued doing their homework all 
that time--it took years while they were learning, iirc.)

-m