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

[jmgarciaiii]

No: HPFGUIDX 173117

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at ... wrote:
[snip]
> 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!)

Me, me, me: To say these memories selectively chosen by Snape also 
reflect JKR's views seems to me to be conjecture. Certainly, they 
MIGHT be. That JKR makes zero effort to follow up these memories 
with any refuting evidence could be taken as a nod towards this 
viewpoint. But to my mind it's just that: a nod, a hint, an 
indication. That Snape selected these memories to convey specific 
somethings about him to Harry is not arguable. What is open to 
speculation is whether JKR intended these memories to establish her 
view of the character. My point is not that Snape is X or Y, rather 
that we only know what Snape wanted Harry to see.
 
> 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.

Me, once more: What I meant is that I am trying to avoid 
interpreting it at all, if by "interpreting it" we mean assigning a 
meaning to it based on our worldview, our understanding of the 
characters, etc. Some people will read "Harry, in a surge of 
emotion, flossed his teeth." and assume this means he always loved 
Hermione, whose parents were dentists, others will assume 
Honeyduke's ruined his teeth and he's worried he'll need magical 
dentures. My take is to let the character's words and actions stand 
on their own. Why did Harry name a son Albus Severus? 
Because "Severus" is the name of the bravest man Harry ever saw. No 
more, no less.
 
> 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).

Me, contritely: OK, I mangled that one. I did NOT mean that Snape 
was a stalker. I meant that Snape was an unpleasant person, and I 
tried -- and failed -- to say that in a cute way. Mea maxima culpa.
 
>> Joe: Snape always struck me as being too good a wizard 
>> for this sort of thing [cursing George's ear off] 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 ;-)

Me: The nobler version is certainly plausible if one has a certain 
view of Snape. I can live with plausible.
  
> 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).

Me, all over again: But by the time of POA, Snape had had eleventy 
zillion years to realize the truth. Lupin was unfailingly cordial to 
him, and even after Snape was unpleasant to him, he never actually 
did anything about it. It speaks ill of Snape that by POA he hadn't 
seen the light, but it shows some emotional development that but DH 
he saved Lupin.
 
> 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).

Me, still:

1- To assume an author speaks through the hero is an assumption. It 
could very well be the correct assumption, but that is a speculation 
made by the individual reader. I don't follow the reasoning 
of "well, why wouldn't she?" If I'm to be convinced this is, indeed, 
the case (and I reiterate it very well might be), I'd like to be 
shown something concrete to that extent.  

2- Snape loved Lily well before he signed up with Dumbledore. Did 
Dumbledore exploit the stunted, immature emotions (guilt and remorse 
borne of an unrequited and semi-obsessive love) of a former DE to 
bring about LV's final defeat? Probably.

3- My thinking on Snape's conversion is that relatively little 
reorienting of his moral compass took place. To whatever degree that 
happened, I doubt it was materially significant.
 
> 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.

Me, yet again:

I don't think it's a matter of convenience. It's a matter of what 
explanation will fit the facts. For a Crucio to "work" the caster 
has to really want to see the target in pain, and derive pleasure 
therefrom. That is, the person casting that curse has to have 
enough "evil in him" to make it work properly. Therefore, Harry had 
to have enough evil in him to make it work properly. The question is 
then: How did Harry get enough evil in him to make the Crucio work? 
Either he always has had that evil as part of his nature and he 
finally felt comfortable enough to give it voice, or the parasitic 
nature of the Scarcrux (compounded by the wearing of the locket?) 
brought that evil to bear. I don't see any other alternatives.

Also, I think there is a lot of grey area between one zap of the 
Crucio to get Amycus out of the way -- granted, with a certain 
malicious desire -- and Crucio-ing the Longbottoms, literally, out 
of their minds.

> rowena_grunnioffitch:
> Excuse me? Slughorn's attempt at falsification shows how impossible
> undetectable editing is and exactly how much control did a dying
> Snape have? Personally I think he gave Harry a little more than he
> meant to. Just as well he didn't survive, he'd have died of the
> humiliation of Harry knowing all. Besides, the fact that pensieve
> scenes are *NOT* from the subject's pov suggests a degree of
> objectivity.

Me, all over again:

Let me try this a different way. The "Snape scenes" Harry saw are 
all true and unedited. Granted. Agreed. But Harry only got to see 
SELECTED scenes. The stuff he saw was all true, but it's not the 
whole truth, insofar as there are other scenes from other times and 
under other circumstances which Snape, for reasons best known to him 
and JKR, chose not to share. Obviously memories themselves cannot be 
convincingly edited, and they are not subjective. But in choosing 
which memories you share, that is, in editing the selection (NOT 
editing the individual memories that comprise that selection) you 
get to have the viewer see only what you intended. If Snape had a 
memory where he was dreamily caressing Lily's purse or was 
practicing the Imperius curse to get her to be his girlfriend (*not 
that he had!*) would we have seen THAT one?

> rowena_grunnioffitch:
> Frankly I am amazed by the number of people with whom this is not 
> okay. Though how anybody could believe the protagonist of a
> coming-of-age series was going to die at the end is beyond me. 
> Doesn't make mythic sense either. But people are actually *angry*
> that Harry not only lived but got married and had kids! Go
> figure...

Me: I'm happy he lived and had kids. After all *I* lived and had 
kids, so why not Harry? ;-) But I didn't know there was a 
groundswell of resentment that the Boy Who Lived, er, lived. (I 
agree with your mythic take, too.)

On the Ron/Parseltongue thing - I can buy the whole "rue/basilisk" 
thing a lot easier than I can Ron managing to perfectly mimic the 
word "Open" in Parseltongue. As if the Chamber would just 
hear "open" in its lingo and say to itself "Oh, OK, must be another 
heir of Slytherin coming to check the place out. Better let him in." 
That rue thing makes more sense to me.

-Joe