DH rambles and crows eating _ LOVEd this book

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 172519

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" <leslie41 at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> Leslie41:
> Yes, of course...and at that point he is pathetic and disgusting.  
He 
> evolves out of that, and spends the next twenty years of his life 
> making up for his past ill deeds.

And, I think, committing even more.  Like abusing the child of the 
woman he supposedly truly loved.  Funny way of showing true love, 
that was.  Now, of expressing jealousy, rage, and obsession, not so 
funny.

>
> 
> Alla:
> > Heeee, to  get to Snape for a second, I guess his death makes my 
> > point as well that she wanted to show suddenness and 
senselessness, 
> > but at the same time I cannot help but smile at the delightful 
> > irony JKR brought there ¡V potion master dies from poison with no 
> > chance to get an antidote or anything like that.
> 
> Leslie41:
> That may indeed be an irony, though I would guess Rowling finds it 
> less than "delightful".  It's clear from the book that she intends 
> for us to admire Snape just as much as Dumbledore.  Perhaps more.

Oh, dear.  I'd say if that's what she intended she fell flat on her 
face in the mud.  Snape and Dumbledore are both very complicated 
characters, no doubt about it.  Both of them carry heavy burdens of 
guilt.  Dumbledore's is expiated by his love for Harry.  Snape has no 
such redeeming emotional factor, unless you count a neurotic 
obsession with a dead woman whose husband and child he would gladly 
have slaughtered.  In the end his books have to be balanced in other 
ways.  It is true that seems to adopt some of Dumbledore's values 
over the years -- witness his "saving people thing" (irony of a 
similarity to Harry, of course).  But his burden of sin, both past 
and continuing, is too heavy for him to escape an extremely high 
price.  In the end, Snape's books have to be balanced in blood.


> 

> 
> Leslie41:
> Why should there be a confrontation now?  What is needed is 
> understanding.  Of course she would not let Snape taunt Harry, 
> because Snape's taunts of Harry usually had a point to them.  They 
> were usually used to educate him.  And when those taunts failed (as 
> with Harry's occlumency lessons), it's Harry that is seen to be at 
> fault, not Snape.


ROTFLMAO!  Harry's fault, was it?  My goodness gracious.  I think the 
point of a confrontation would have been much needed justice.  But, 
that is overtaken by events in the narrative.  Snape finds a very 
satisfying and appropriate end, having been revealed to have been at 
most a useful servant of Dumbledore's, never a subject of approval or 
paternal regard.  Harry, having become a Christ-figure, graciously 
forgives him as Christ-figures are wont to do.
>  

> 
> Leslie41:
> Somehow I don't think this is so.  Snape made his mistakes, but he 
> paid for them a thousand times over. If Lily and Snape were to meet 
> again (and there's no reason to suspect they won't, since such 
things 
> seem to happen in the Wizard afterlife), how do you think she would 
> treat the man who was her beloved childhood friend, the man who 
saved 
> her son's life, again and again, when his own father, her husband, 
> failed?
> 

I'd say if she is not a cruel, idiotic wife and mother indeed she 
would have no use whatsoever for the obsessive creep who abused her 
son for years in the name of his love for her.  And if she does have 
a use for him, both James and Harry would be well within there rights 
to turn their backs on her decisively.  Not that at least Harry would 
do so.  Christ-figures are forgiving that way, more's the pity.


Lupinlore