Harry and Snape's Salvation (Re: No progress for Slytherin?)

[sistermagpie]

No: HPFGUIDX 173950

> montims replied:
> > you see, I don't believe Harry is "superior" - he has been 
selected
> by the prophecy, and has to react to many different challenges 
because
> of it.  But as he continually tries to explain, and Ron finally 
gets,
> most of it comes about by luck, the help of friends, and DD's
> guidance.  He is a good person because he has suffered as a child 
and
> consequently has empathy for others who suffer.  But he's not
> superior, and I think at the end would never claim to be 
superior.  To
> what/whom?  Slytherins?  Muggles?  House elfs? Goblins?  LV? - 
well,
> maybe.  But he sees too often how his initial judgements are
> incorrect, and that people are not black and white as they might 
first
> appear.  If he is superior, who is his inferior?
> 
> Carol responds:
> First, I think I agree with montims but I'm not quite sure. Perhaps
> you could follow up and clarify a little?

Magepi:
As I said in my response to that post, I think it became a different 
issue when taken out of context. I was responding to Lupinlore's 
view of Harry's forgiveness of Snape, not saying that in general 
Harry walks around saying he's superior. I do think the text clearly 
does say he's superior to many people. And I don't think that the 
hero can't be superior to anybody in a story--that's why he's the 
hero. I think it would be humanly impossible to never find yourself 
thinking your better than anybody ever.

Carol: 
> Second, I think that all of us (and I'm not referring to anyone
> specific here though I am responding to this thread in general) 
could
> stand to sit down and calmly reread the books without imposing our
> hopes and preconceptions on them, and I certainly include myself in
> the advice I'm so blatantly ignoring. :-) 

Magpie:
Yes, I think we could do that. I'm not sure I will, but a lot of 
what I'm saying is about realizing where I was imposing my own hopes 
and preconceptions on the text. In removing them, the story is still 
coherent, it's just got different priorities.

Carol:

Aside To SSS from another thread: If JKR's
> statements don't seem to fit the text, maybe we should accept that 
as
> a clue that she's not fully aware of her own authorial intentions.

Magpie:
Absolutely. Or that she's concentrating on saying something in a way 
that makes sense to her and isn't aware of the reactions every 
single reader is having. I don't think a reader getting something 
out of the story necessarily means the writer put that into the 
story on purpose at all. 

Carol:
> As for Harry being in charge of Snape's redemption, which I think
> Magpie is suggesting, I don't think so. Snape redeems himself,
> expiating his sins, whether Harry acknowledges that or not. I agree
> that Snape has *earned* his redemption, but it's important for 
Harry
> to see that. And it isn't just a matter of forgiving the adult 
Snape,
> it's understanding Snape as a whole, even identifying with him--
Harry
> and Severus and *Tom* as the "abandoned boys" who found their first
> and only home at Hogwarts. 

Magpie:
No, I agree with you--I think Snape has earned his redemption and 
Harry is just seeing that--and his identifying with him as an 
abandoned boy is also something I totally acknowledge that Harry 
does. He tends to identify with abandoned boys and orphans in 
general. Snape earns his redemption through great bravery and love 
of Lily.

Carol:
Yes, Snape earns his redemption, but
> Harry must have an epiphany to understand that. And his compassion 
and
> empathy and forgiveness are so tied in with what he's witnessing 
that
> he's not even aware of them.

Magpie:
Meh. It just didn't do it for me. The epiphany seemed limited to me 
(again, perhaps due to my own expectations projected onto the text). 
Harry sees that Snape has in fact loved Harry's mother all his life 
and has been incredibly brave and protected Harry his whole life. 
The scene just didn't beat with empathy and forgiveness for me at 
all. 

Carol:
 There's no conscious admission that he
> was wrong, not recognition that he forgives Snape, but that he has
> done so is obvious from the public vindication and the name he 
gives
> his second son.

Magpie:
Yes, that's more what it read like to me. Harry sees Snape's 
memories and so now he taunts Voldemort with this and names his son 
after him. It's like knocking out a mountain troll. There are some 
things you can't know about a person without ending up respecting 
them, and the fact that they loved your mother your whole life and 
spent their life bravely protecting you with great danger to himself 
is one of them.


Carol:
> What wrought the change in Kreacher from a cringing, cursing,
> scheming, filthy little bit of apparent scum to an aging Boy Scout
> among house-elves? Surely, it *was* Harry's compassion as he, too, 
has
> a change of heart, a change of perspective, a new understanding 
much
> like the understanding he gains of the dead Snape through the 
Pensieve
> memories, only in this case, he can extend his understanding and
> compassion to a living being.

Magpie:
Harry needs to know what happened to the locket. Kreacher tells 
Harry a story of huge tragedy that's also about he and Regulus being 
really brave and Regulus dying to bring down Voldemort. This elicits 
compassion from Harry, but since he's still showing less compassion 
than I've had towards the character of Kreacher throughout the book 
when he wasn't that, Harry's behavior isn't that exceptional to me. 
(And he's certainly rewarded for it in the text beyond what most 
normal people could expect.) As I said, I know that Harry shows 
compassion at points, he's just one of the last characters I'd ever 
choose to illustrate a character who's about compassion. 

Carol:
> Hermione (who seems finally to have grasped the psychology of
> house-elves) tells Harry that Kreacher is loyal to people who are 
kind
> to him 

Magpie:
Again, not exactly a sophisticated examination of compassion at all. 
It's a perfectly good development in the story, but no, I don't read 
this section and think it's a great lesson in compassion. Kreacher's 
psychology sounds a bit more canine than the average human to me.

Carol:
> If Harry is a Christ figure (and I do think he is), it's not 
because
> he shows compassion to everyone or to his "inferiors" (though we've
> certainly seen him progress from virtual oblivion to the suffering 
of
> others to compassion for Neville, a Gryffindor; to Luna, an 
eccentric
> Ravenclaw; to Kreacher, the filthy and hostile house-elf he 
regards as
> betraying Regulus; to Snape, the hated Slytherin teacher who
> "murdered" Dumbledore. Harry's own suffering makes his compassion, 
or
> his empathy, or whatever it is, possible.

Magpie:
I don't think Harry shows much empathy or compassion *at all* is my 
point. It's not something I'd use to describe the character any more 
than I'd say that Harry as a character is particularly nervous or 
gluttonous or inventive. He doesn't have to exemplify every positive 
trait to be a hero. Not that he doesn't show compassion at all ever, 
but if I'm looking for a Christ figure in the compassion department, 
Harry doesn't cut it. There are ordinary people walking around who 
are by nature far more compassionate than Harry even at the end of 
the series. I'm happy to give Harry props for all the virtues he has 
in abundance. Compassion and empathy are not among them. He's not 
completely without them, but he's no model for them, imo. Certainly 
not the point where he's approaching a Christ-like level!

-m