Responding to the responses to a LONG collection of DH related thoug

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 173066



> 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?
Joe:
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."
 
Julie:
That is one interpretation, though I really think they were chosen
selectively by the AUTHOR to convey the real Snape to Harry and
to the readers. Snape has been perhaps the central ambiguity of the
series and would be the point of any more misdirection when this is
the final book, the end of the series? (Not that it will or should 
stop anyone from molding Snape into a worse-or better-person than he
was of course!)

> > 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.

Joe:
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.

Julie:
I intepret the epilogue the same way as I do the Pensieve scene. This
is the final book, and I think it is not only Harry's but the author's
last word. We do not have to accept her interpretation or intent, but
there it is in any case.


> > 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.

Joe: 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.
Julie:
I'm a bit conflicted here. I don't think I'd want someone to love me
the way Snape loved living!Lily, because he is too damaged to express
it or act on it. Though if I died and he loved me enough to protect
my child, I'd be okay with that ;-) And I have to ask, what's the point
of a restraining order? Snape *never* goes near Lily once she breaks
it off with him. This whole dangerous stalker image if Snape is NOT
supported by canon, or by Snape's own personality (he hides his love
of Lily from her, he doesn't pursue her relentlessly with it).

> > 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.

Joe: Snape always struck me as being too good a wizard 
for this sort of thing to be an accident, so that raised an eyebrow.

Julie:
I'm okay with it now that it's canon, as it is proof that Snape can
do something good that has *nothing* to do with Lily. But I confess
when Molly said "It could have been worse" I was CONVINCED Snape took
the ear off on purpose to avoid something worse--Snape, you clever 
spy, you avoid killing George and only take off his ear instead, so
you can keep your all-important cover with the DEs intact! This
especially would fit with portrait!Dumbledore's advice to Snape that
he must keep his cover during that attack at all costs. But, alas, I
must accept the nobler version ;-)
 
> > 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.

Joe: 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.

Julie:
I agree it is good. But I also think it probably was enough that Lupin
was part of the group that taunted him, even if Lupin perhaps never 
took part in the actual taunting. He tacitly accepted it, thus tacitly
agreed that Snape deserved seven years of harassment (Snape's view).

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

Joe:
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.")

Julie:
Much as I said above, I don't see any reason JKR would neglect to speak
through the *hero*. He's the central person in the book, so why
wouldn't we take his last word as her last word? 
And I too agree with Sssusan's assessment that Snape's was not a
conversion based upon a total reordering of moral principles. But 
it was based on a reordering of *some* of his moral principles, IMO,
thanks to his long association with Dumbledore, and yes, his ability
to love, even if that love extended only to one other person (because
the latter gave him the ability to feel remorse and guilt and act 
from it).

 

Joe: 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.

Julie:
I do think it's a bit convenient to blame Harry's new ability to crucio
on Voldemort's soul piece (and the locket was long destoyed by that time
wasn't it?). I found that scene uncomfortable myself, because I don't really
see any good explanation for Harry being willing to use a torture curse.
There are other magical ways to subdue people. And I'd really prefer my
good guys to abstain from enjoying torturing even their worst enemies, 
though I do understand that in trying circumstances even the best of us
do want to inflict pain on others. Doesn't mean one has to give into that
impulse though.

Julie 


________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]