Hermione and 'Evil is a strong word' (WAS Re: CHAPDISC: HBP30, The White Tomb)

[a_svirn]

No: HPFGUIDX 165802

> > a_svirn:
> > But we are not discussing whether he was or wasn't a loyal death
> > eater. For all she knows he could have been as disloyal to
> Voldemort
> > as he was to Dumbledore.
>
> zgirnius:
> I thought you were discussing Hermione's little objection to the
> word 'evil' to describe Snape. That's what I'm talking about,
anyway.
> She says 'evil is a strong word'. She also, after a hesitation,
> agrees with 'murderer' as a characterization of Snape.

a_svirn:
That's just it I don't see why she would hesitate to call him thus.
He *is* a murderer, after all, even if he killed for "the Greater
Good" (not that I believe that such thing exists, but for the sake of
argument.)

> zgirnius:
> I could see her making the objection to the word 'evil' if she had
> started to have some doubt creep in as to whether Snape is indeed
> *as* evil as Harry painted him. (Harry painted a picture of someone
> whose every action was evil: he set up the Potters deliberately,

a_svirn:
Well, he did. The Potters and the Longbottoms. He did know that the 
people he was exposing to Voldemort were these two couples, but what 
does it matter? He knew only too well what they were in for.

> zgirnius:
he
> got them killed,

a_svirn:
He did. He can't get all the credit, naturally, but a substantial
part of it, certainly.

> zgirnius:
he went to Dumbledore and lied,

a_svirn:
Looks like it, doesn't it? What other explanation can she possibly
have? She knows that Snape made a vow to help Draco in his mission,
and she knows what the nature of that mission was. Genuinely 
repentant persons are not supposed to plot against their benefactors. 

> zgirnius:
he killed
> Dumbledore.) The one evil action Hermione knows about for sure is
the
> murder of Dumbledore.

a_svirn:
I like "only".

> zgirnius:
The whole Potters story is shaky. Hermione
> knows how vague the Prophecy was - could Snape really set them up.
> She knows Dumbledore trusted Snape before the Potters died (that is
> why I brought up GoF, not the 'personal risk' bit).

a_svirn:
Actually, the only "shaky" part is that it was the reason for
Dumbledore's trust in Snape. But she has no alternative explanation
for that trust anyway.

> > a_svirn:
> > Yes, but we can easily dismiss any notion of remorse now, can we
> not?
> > Even if it was genuine, obviously it wasn't enough to prevent him
> > from committing a murder.
>
> zgirnius:
> It comes down to what Hermione means by her little comment, then. I
> think she would agree with us both that murder is evil, and with
you
> that Snape committed murder. However, calling a *person* evil is a
> bit different from calling a specific action evil. One might call a
> person evil for doing one evil thing, or one might think of the
good
> the person has done/may do in the future and hesitate, especially
if
> one can entertain the possibility the person's act was an
aberration,
> or driven by highly unusual circumstances. Hermione is aware of
> seemingly good actions by Snape in the past.

a_svirn:
But that's not the case as far as Snape is concerned. He is not an
essentially good man who suddenly fell from grace through a moment's
weakness. He is an extremely unpleasant man with a murky past, and
the only reason why he was tolerated in the order was that
inexplicable Dumbledore's trust. Like McGonagall said,

"I mean . . . with Snape's history ... of course people were bound to
wonder. . . but Dumbledore told me explicitly that Snape's repentance
was absolutely genuine-----Wouldn't hear a word against him!"

Now, that that Dumbledore is gone, killed by the very man he trusted,
the reason for that trust is gone along with him.
And look how the adults changed their tune! Lupin who had assured
Harry that he neither liked nor disliked Snape suddenly remembered
what a good occlumence he is. And he absolutely scorned the idea
Snape might have repented his actions,

"And Dumbledore believed that?" said Lupin incredulously. "Dumbledore
believed Snape was sorry James was dead? Snape hated James. . . ."

It seems that Hermione is the only one who doubts Snape's evilness.

>
> > a_svirn:
> > If you mean the phrase about "great personal risk" we know now
that
> > he has a way to minimise any risks involved at the expense of
other
> > people lives.
>
> zgirnius:
> I'm not clear on how killing someone, other than Voldemort, would
> have helped Snape stay safe as a spy in the first war.
>
> If you are suggesting in a roundabout way that Snape killed
> Dumbledore to save his own life, that is certainly possible (in
> particular, that *was* one of the effects of his action), and
> possibly what Hermione believes as well. If so, I think it is part
of
> the reason for her hesitation to label him evil.
>

a_svirn:
I didn't mean it to be "roundabout". After all the reason for
trusting Snape in the fist war was presumably the same one that in
the second. And I don't think it is "safe" to kill anyone other than
Voldemort. Spying business is never safe, but it is less risky if you
are "ready and prepared" to choose a lesser evil for the greater good
(which is to say, to kill rather than get killed.)