Victory for TEWWW EWWW

[houyhnhnm102]

No: HPFGUIDX 173107

Nora:

> he was motivated out of an explicitly personal 
> concern. This has also just been echoed by the JKR 
> commentary on the Today Show:

> "Was Snape always intended to be a hero?" "Is he a 
> hero? I don't see Snape as a hero... he's very brave, 
> but..." "Would he have protected Harry if he hadn't 
> loved Lily?" "No, not at all."

houyhnhnm:

This quote might make a little more sense in context 
(I can't seem to find it).  Right now it has me a little
confused about Rowling's moral philosophy.  If a hero 
is someone who acts out of principle rather than personal 
concerns, who is a hero in Rowling's books?

Not even Harry (although I liked Harry better in DH than 
in any book since PS).  When Dumbledore lauded him for 
never being tempted by the Dark Arts, his response was, 
"Of course I haven't.  He killed my mom and dad."

Harry is motivated by vengeance for his parents.  
Neville is motivated by vengeance for his parents.  
(Hermione's actions towards her parents is the ultimate 
EWWWW for me.)  I can't think of a single character 
for whom the driving force was not personal affection 
for a child, a friend, a spouse, or a benefactor. Who, 
in all the seven books, is motivated by principle?

Rowling has made it abundantly clear that for her, 
loyalty and affection at the merely personal level 
are the highest good.   So why, even now, does she 
withold her full approbation from the character who 
embodies her values more than any other?  Because 
Snape is the Other.  He was born to be The Other 
and nothing he could have done would have changed that.
Rowling, in the end, is unable to do without an Other
to devalue and stigmatize.  

EWWWW is right!