Further Notes on Literary Uses of Magic and Anti-Globalization( VERY LONG )

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 168259

Alla wrote:
<big snip>
> Peter is betraying his friends and Snape is betraying his friends, no?
> 
> The **only** difference is to whom those friends are being betrayed,
no? <snip>
 
Carol responds:

You're talking about DDM!Snape betraying the DEs being the same as
Peter betraying the Potters, right? 

But if Snape did betray his friends by spying on Voldemort for
Dumbledore, he's primarily risking his own life, not theirs, both in
VW1 and after GoF. Even if he gave DD names of DEs, which DD then gave
to the MoM (and we don't know whether that actually happened), the DEs
(none of them innocent victims) would then be arrested and sent to
Azkaban to prevent them from committing further crimes. That's very
different from revealing your friends' location to a Dark Lord who
wants to murder them and their innocent child. 

Similarly, sending the Order to the MoM rescue Harry and his friends
may constitute a betrayal of Snape's DE friends because it results in
Lucius et al. being sent to Azkaban, but the primary purpose for
sending the Order was to rescue six kids who otherwise would have been
killed or captured by DEs. So, no, I don't think it's just a matter of
which side you're betraying. Also, betraying a Dark Lord who has
murdered and tortured dozens of people in the hope of bringing about
that Dark Lord's fall is different from betraying the friends who have
entrusted their own safety to you by making you their Secret Keeper. I
don't think it's the same thing at all.

Alla:
> Let's take another absurd hypothetical, let's imagine that Voldemort
is putting a baby of one of his followers in abusive home to protect
this baby's life.
> 
> I am having a hard time that Voldemort would be patted on the back
by either JKR or readers and forgiven for that, because this baby had
to suffer so much, no?
> 
> Why, if you ask me, because Voldemort is evil overlord and that is
what he is supposed to do, but since Dumbledore is **good** the 
reasons for what he did should stand scrutiny, etc. <snip>

Carol responds:

Lovely absurd hypothetical. But I don't think that putting a baby in
an abusive home *to protect the baby* is what evil overlords are
supposed to do. Evil overlords are supposed to kill babies. So, I
don't know about you, but I would praise Voldemort for putting the
baby's life above everything else, including his own interests and the
baby's happiness. I would wonder what was in it for Voldemort,
actually. :-)

> Alla:
> 
> Sure, I do not think that Lupin would be forgiven for that either,
but that is why I believe JKR does not make her good guys **murder**
anyone. (Well there is one debatable event, LOL, but you get my drift)
There are some things that good side just does not do IMO, but the
mistakes that good side **does** are IMO viewed by the author in the
different light. <snip>

Carol responds:

But Sirius Black was planning for nearly a year to murder Peter
Pettigrew and Remus Lupin was ready to help him do it. Aren't they
good guys? Wouldn't they still have been good guys if Harry hadn't
stopped them from committing murder? (They would probably have had
their souls sucked, considering that one was an escaped convict and
the other a werewolf, but that's beside the point.) Wouldn't JKR have
wanted us to believe that they had committed an evil deed for a good
cause (or partially good cause--revenge and protecting Harry)? And
Mad-Eye Moody also has killed at least once though that was
self-defense, not murder. Even if he used an AK to do it, he's still a
good guy, right? It seems as if it's not the action or the side you're
on but the motive that counts most.

Carol, who has lost track of the main argument and is consequently
just reacting to particular points