Responding to the responses to a LONG collection of DH related thoughts.

[jmgarciaiii]

No: HPFGUIDX 173014

Responding to some responses and then, as a bonus, to other semi-
related posts I managed to run across between here and there.

> > Joe:
> > Snape/Pensieve - Remember, we are only seeing what Snape wanted 
> > Harry to see. This is Snape's edited version of things. Yes, a 
> > pensieve shows only true things, but it doesn't show EVERYTHING. 
It 
> > doesn't show what we might call "refuting evidence." 
> 
> zgirnius:
> This occured to me, and is in my opinion an important point. It is 
> one reason I believe that Snape came to care for Harry, and why I 
> think his "Look at me" meant not only that he wanted to see Lily's 
> eyes one last time before he died, but also that he realized, in 
his 
> final moments, that he wanted Harry to understand him, not to win 
him 
> to yet another false view of himself. And to achieve that, he 
needed 
> to give an honest account of himself, at least as far as he could 
> manage in the final seconds of his life, lying in a pool of his 
own 
> blood.
> 
> Because the memories we saw were not particularly sanitized at 
all. 
> Why show himself dropping the branch on Petunia? Why show enough 
> memories that Harry could understand his mother's decision to cut 
off 
> ties? Why, most damningly, show that first meeting with Dumbledore 
in 
> its full glory, from start to finish, including the admission that 
> disgusted Dumbledore so deeply? 

Me again:

My point was not that the memories themselves had been sanitized or 
edited, but that they had been chosen *selectively* for these 
memories to convey to Harry precisely what Snape wanted. I meant to 
underscore a difference between "the truth" and "the whole truth."
 
> > Joe:
> > In a way we are taking Snape's "word" for it, a 
> > dangerous proposition in the Potterverse.
> 
> zgirnius:
> It is a deal less dangerous now that the series is complete. 
> That "Albus Severus" bit in the much-loathed Epilogue is more or 
less 
> the last word.

Me yet again:

What we see in the Epilogue (which was "okay, fine" for me) is based 
on what Harry believes. I agree with Harry in that Snape was 
EXTREMELY brave. Since life is a results-driven affair, I have no 
major problem with why Snape behaved bravely. If he did so for noble 
reasons or dysfunctional reasons is irrelevant to me.

> Joe:
> > Doe Patronus - How can two people have the same Patronus?
> 
> zgirnius:
> I think the emotional trauma of Lily's death caused a change to 
> Snape's Patronus (we know from HBP this can happen). Since she was 
> dead, they did not have the same Patronus, as she no longer had 
one 
> at all. That's probably the 'ironclad reason'.

I know a person's Patronus can change by a deep change of heart, but 
can you "will it" to change into something specific? (I guess the 
answer must now be "yes" although the mechanics seem to be a bit 
nebulous.)
 
> zgirnius:
> Oh, but the Sword of Gryffindor! And killing Nagini!! (How cool is 
it 
> that Neville avenged Snape's death, though of course he did not 
know 
> it at the time?) I thought that was an amazing moment for him, and 
> was happy to see Molly have hers too.

Me, still: Undoubtedly cool for Neville, but, for me, somewhat -- 
not hugely -- less satisfying than offing Bellatrix.
 
> > Joe:
> > Ron the Parselmouth - Clunky and clumsy device. Parseltongue is 
not 
> > something learnable. IIRC, DD calls it a gift in COS. (Although, 
> > it's funny that he faked it.)
> 
> zgirnius:
> I think the gift part is when you are born speaking it, like Tom 
was. 
> That does not rule out the possibility of learning it like a 
language.

Me once more: They say "the actual proves the possible" and 
therefore it must be true, but I still found it clunky (but funny). 
It'd've been tidier if the Chamber had simply not been sealed up, or 
if R&H went in the way they had exited (which was different from the 
entry) in COS. It strikes me as weird that for eleventy zillion 
years, the most learned magical folk couldn't figure it out but a 
dropout with a gift for mimickry does it?
 
> > Joe:
> > I defy anyone to tell me they'd 
> > want someone loving them the way Snape loved Lily.
> 
> zgirnius:
> Yes, being loved by the person Snape was as a young Death Eater 
would 
> not be near the top of my list. But he was not the same person 
when 
> he died.

Me: The Snape at the end still had a very stilted, distorted view of 
love. If I had such a character (i.e., Snape at the end) in love 
with me, I'd get the aurors to issue a restraining order.

> > Joe:
> > How does the (by my scoring anyway) third best wizard in the 
world, 
> > Snape, "accidentally" curse off George's ear?
> 
> zgirnius:
> I presume because everyone involved (Snape, Lupin/George, the 
otehr 
> Death Eater) were all flying at high speeds when it happened.

Me, still at it: Snape always struck me as being too good a wizard 
for this sort of thing to be an accident, so that raised an eyebrow.
 
> > Joe:
> > What did *Lupin* ever do to earn Snape's wrath? (Being friends 
with 
> > James & Sirius doesn't count for much here.)
> 
> zgirnius:
> Snape claims to believe that Lupin was in on Sirius's little joke. 
> The only tangible act one can point to is that it must have been 
he 
> that told Sirius how to get into the tunnel. Snape had no way to 
know 
> this was so his Animagus friends would be able to free him for 
jolly 
> romps through the countryside - I presume he therefore decided 
Lupin 
> told Sirius for the purpose of the prank.

Me some more: The fact Snape was hostile to Lupin as far as POA 
doesn't speak well for Snape. Snape had plenty of time to get it 
through his hygienically challenged scalp that Lupin was not in on 
that joke. But in this, Snape came across as petty and vindictive. 
Which is good. A Snape who is pure and noble and mature and oozing 
tortured longanimity is unidimensional at best...I've stepped in 
deeper puddles than such a character.

> Ken
> In the ASV, the version I have on my Palm, Exodus 22:18 says "thou
> shalt not suffer a sorceress to live". Ok, not a prohibition on 
> magic per se, but if those who practice magic are to be executed
> is that not the same thing? It is passages like this one that are 
> the source of of
> the common conservative Christian objections to the Harry Potter
> series. At least that is what I hear in the media, I don't know of
> a single one of my peers who does object to Harry Potter.

Me, piping up:

I'm using the Douay-Rheims version (one which came out WAAAAAY 
before HP) and the translation is pretty similar: "Wizards thou 
shalt not suffer to live." But! It has an explanatory footnote to 
the effect that a wizard (or sorceress, etc.) is someone engaged in 
*invocational* magic, i.e., summoning up spirits via occult 
practices. I grant that not a majority of Bibles will have this or 
similar footnotes, and I further grant that most anti-HP Evangelical 
Christians are unlikely to find all that much much comfort in a 
Catholic edition of Scripture, but there ya go.

> squeaker19450
> I'm sorry, but evidently some folks still don't GET IT. This is
> the author speaking through Harry.

Me:

I'm not sure that Harry is meant to be an omniscient spokeswizard. 
I'd be grateful if you could walk me through it, because I don't see 
it. (Not to say that Harry is necessarily wrong, just that I don't 
think he necessarily speaks for JKR.) Oh, and Harry said Snape was 
the bravest (not greatest, noblest, etc.).

(I rather enjoyed Bookworm857158367's take on the Bloody Baron & 
Snape, incidentally. As well as SSSusan's "His wasn't a conversion 
based upon a total reordering of moral principles.")

On the Good Guys and the Unforgivables. In Harry's case, the 
parasitic nature of the Bit O' Voldemort gaining strength accounts 
for the Crucio bit. The AK is understandable, given the war 
scenario, as is the Imperius curse. But Harry had tried this curse 
in OOP and it didn't work so well, and I don't recall *much* wailing 
and gnashing of teeth over it. Still, while he may have meant that 
at the time (so that the curse actually "registered" with its 
target) and while he may have been gradually degenerating morally 
due to the parasitic Horcrux (exacerbated by the locket wearing?), 
it shows that in trying circumstances, even the "best" of us can and 
do have sharp moral lapses. I'm also trying to make a distinction 
between acceptable and understandable, that is, in Harry's case 
there were mitigating circumstances. The important bit is to realize 
that Harry did not stay in that state which permitted him to go a-
Crucio-ing.