On the perfection of moral virtues.

[julie]

No: HPFGUIDX 169021


>
> Julie:
> > Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were refering
> > to Harry surviving DH. It is true that Harry thwarted 
> > Voldemort in the instances above. I won't go so far as to
> > say he saved the WW at that point, as Voldemort still 
> > survived to gain a body in GOF. So I can't really see 
> > Snape (or most anyone outside of Ginny) even thinking 
> > Harry saved his life. Harry may do so someday, as he 
> > will certainly save the WW, but he hasn't been put in
> > that position yet. 
> <snip>
> 
> Dana:
> I disagree with this assessment because Harry did save Snape's life 
> when the spell rebounded in GH, sure it was actually Lily who did 
the 
> saving but if Snape is good then this event did safe him from being 
> on the wrong side. We see what happens to people that wanted to 
leave 
> LV's service, they do not live to tell the tale. So if Snape really 
> defected at great personal risk then Lily's actions removed that 
risk 
> at least for more then 13 years.
> 
> If Snape is truly good but just a nasty person then he owes his 
live 
> to the Potters more then once and how does he repay them? By 
bullying 
> their son. Yes, a really noble man that Snape. 

Julie:
Then we're back to giving credit for unintended consequences
that result from actions, with no regard to intent. Therefore,
Snape saved the entire WW by blabbing the Prophecy, which 
caused Voldemort to target and eventually kill the Potters,
wherein his AK attempt on Harry rebounded and vaporized him.
Thanks to this fortuitous event, Voldemort (who was clearly
winning that first "war" according to Dumbledore) did not
take over the WW, kill the Order members and their families
(which would have included Harry Potter) and everyone else
who stood in his way, and turn the lives of those who'd 
managed to survive into living nightmares. I just want to
know...why hasn't Snape been given the Order of Merlin for
providing the WW with this 13 year respite from Voldemort??

Obviously the last sentence is a joke, since I'm just 
illustrating the pitfalls of crediting people with the
results of their actions regardless of intent. Or blaming
them, since by that logic Harry undid all the good of his
survival at DH by saving Wormtail in POA, thus allowing
Voldemort to regain his physical form and greatly enhance
his power.

> Julie earlier:
> > As for Snape, we don't yet know how much personal danger
> > he has placed himself in throughout the books. Though it
> > is true he certainly wasn't in any personal danger in PS/SS.
> > That wasn't the point though. The point was Harry didn't
> > thank Snape for saving him. Which is not required, though
> > I actually wouldn't have been surprised if Harry had, as
> > their relationship, while unpleasant, hadn't deteriorated
> > to outright hostility at that point.
> <snip>
> 
> Dana:
> Well the only problem I have with Snape placing himself in personal 
> danger, throughout the books, is that we never actually see him in 
> any mortal peril. We see that his return to LV's side is less 
> dangerous then defying the man and not return (LV promised the one 
> that left him forever would be punished but we never saw Snape 
paying 
> for it). We see that Snape lives through sending the Order in OotP 
> and we see him live through the UV in HBP. For me it is not that 
> difficult to come to the conclusion that Snape only made very 
> calculated risks that never truly risked his own life. And that 
> wouldn't make these actions noble. 
> 
<snipping rest of Dana's argument for why Snape sucks
entirely>

Julie:
Your many arguments about Snape having not a single redeeming
quality may come true. I still stand by the fact that we do
NOT know just how much danger Snape has faced, nor why Snape
did many of the things he did. JKR has written it that way
deliberately. Snape may yet prove to be both courageous and 
remorseful about his DE days. Or he may not. If he does prove 
to be those things, that won't excuse or erase his general
meanness or lack of maturity in holding on to old grudges
(as you say, Snape should have had the ability to hide his 
hatred for Harry, which even Dumbledore expected he could 
and should do). You are operating on the assumption that
his meanness means he can't be on the side of good or have
any moral virtues whatsoever, while I say the two are not
mutually exclusive.


> 
> Julie earlier:
> > I haven't taken much part in the debate over Harry's grumpiness
> > with his friends, but I admit I do feel free to call Harry on
> > his misdeeds. Why? Because Harry is the hero, one of the good
> > guys, and I automatically hold him to a higher standard than 
> > Snape, or Draco, or any of the other questionable characters.
> > (Those on the definite side of evil--Voldemort, Bellatrix, 
> > Fenrir, etc--I pretty much ignore, as they're lost causes.)
> <snip>
> 
> Dana:
> Well it is interesting that the hero is supposed to be perfect 
while 
> Snape fans consider Snape the hero for his actions as well but give 
> him slack for behaving the way he does.

Julie:
Who said the hero is supposed to be perfect? He's human so 
he's NOT supposed to be perfect. Some fans prefer to look
at the hero and see only his virtues. Others are willing
to look at his faults and discuss how he can improve. That
isn't demanding that the hero be perfect, but that the hero
GROW. Unlike other characters, who can stay stuck in their
self-destructive ruts, the hero MUST grow, or his journey
doesn't mean much.

Dana:
 If Snape is the hidden hero 
> of the books then he should be held to the same standards as you 
hold 
> Harry. 

Julie:
You are saying that, not me. Snape being on the side of good
doesn't make him a hidden hero, or any kind of hero except
maybe an anti-hero.

Dana:
If Snape is one of the good guys, as many presume he is, then 
> he has no excuses for his behavior. You can't say he is one of the 
> good guys and then allow him to behave nasty while the good guys 
are 
> not given the same slack. 

Julie:
I don't expect that. As I said before, the "slack" comes in
when we are talking about actions taken where the motivation
isn't clear. Until DH we can't know Snape's true motivations,
so we can't truly judge him. We can guess, as you guess on 
the side of completely bad and unredeemable, and I guess on
the side of mean but with a moral standard.

BTW, I concede Snape's general meanness, bitterness, and
immaturity in perpetuating his old grudges. Always have.
It's the other stuff that remains unanswered.


 <snip>
> 
> Dana:
> Is JKR really keeping Snape's motivations deliberately ambiguous or 
> are these just the ideas of the readers and why it is now being 
> exploited by the publishers to create more interest in the final 
> book? Because JKR has never been ambiguous about Snape being a 
> horrible teacher (or even person) or that bullying your students, 
is 
> the worst thing a teacher can do.

Julie:
Yes, JKR is keeping Snape's motivations deliberately ambiguous.
Besides the way she so obviously writes him that way (the 
Tower scene could have been written very clearly if she'd
wanted to show Snape's true "evil" character without a doubt)
there is also her cackling laugh and refusal to answer when
fans have asked repeatedly for more information on Snape
(patronus, who he loved, etc, etc) or have asked directly 
if he is good or bad. There is no doubt whatsoever that it
is JKR behind the Snape ambiguity, not we deluded (as you
would imply) fans.

As for JKR's comments, she's said Snape is a deeply horrible
person, that there's more to him than you see, that you 
shouldn't think him *too* nice (the latter comment is 
actually a concession that he can be "nice" in the sense 
of doing something for the right reason, BTW). But she is
also about to give away the real Snape, who's appearance
is a mean, horrible person. After all, if he's something
different or more complex than simply and unredeemably 
horrible, and she implies such too strongly, then what is
even the point of writing him (given that she would have
just killed all the mystery)?


Dana:
 Yet as we see in previous 
> discussions Snape's teaching methods are considered noble by his 
fans 
> while it never was the author's intent to make this noble in her 
> books. 

Julie:
I think the argument has been that his methods are effective 
in general, not noble. Though most have agreed that his 
targeting of Harry and Company for unnecessarily harsh 
treatment is not effective nor acceptable. BTW, you keep
painting "Snape fans" with the same brush. That's neither
fair not true.

Dana:
> It was never ambiguous that Snape acts on his hatred for James, 
> Sirius or even Lupin and why he even insults Tonks because of her 
> association with him. 
> 
> She never makes it ambiguous that Snape acts on his own rather then 
> working with DD and that he calls DD's judgment into question on 
more 
> then one occasion. The only thing that makes Snape's actions 
> ambiguous is DD's trust has in him but not what we see of him on 
> page.  
> 
> Only his fans make him ambiguous because DD's trust in him must 
mean 
> that there is more to Snape then meets the eye but personally I do 
> not think it will be so. 

Julie:
Er, Dana, do you realize you just quoted JKR? She said 
straight out "THERE IS MORE TO SNAPE THAN MEETS THE EYE."
So it WILL in fact be so, from the mouth of Herself.

<snip>

Dana:
> For me Snape not wanting to listen to reason in PoA and trying to 
> actively take a man's life is enough for me to conclude Snape can 
> never be truly good, not even close. Good means that you value the 
> life of another person regardless of your personal feelings for 
that 
> person. Harry had every reason to have Wormtail executed by Sirius 
> and Lupin but he still believed it was not right to play judge, 
jury 
> and executioner at the same time. Snape does not have this moral 
> compass that drives his actions and only this is enough to conclude 
> that if the circumstances presented themselves in such away that to 
> him it is justified killing a person and this means he would betray 
> the reason for DD's trust in him, in a heartbeat, if it was okay in 
> Snape's own believe system. 

Julie:
I just have to say this is a ridiculous argument. Snape
did NOT try to actively take Sirius's life. He threatened
a KILLER (as far as anyone knew at the time) with being 
soul-sucked, which you can equate with killing, not unlike
a cop telling a killer he has just arrested that he's going
to face the death penalty. Snape is quoting the WW LAW as
it would apply to Sirius, while in the process of TAKING
Sirius to the authorities, exactly what he is supposed 
to do. At no time is he being judge, jury and executioner
(he's only being judge, based on his current knowledge,
as far as we know it).

BTW, Snape COULD have killed Sirius then and there, and 
totally gotten away with it. Sirius is a wanted killer, 
Snape knows that and knows the Ministry is not going to
punish him in any way for taking out such a threat (didn't
the Wanted poster even say "Dead or Alive"?). So *why* 
oh why doesn't he?

To decide that Snape in fact does have a moral compass
is a completely valid conclusion, and it is mine. I'm sure
here you can argue that Snape is really a cowardly snake
who didn't want to endanger his meal ticket in Dumbledore, 
or whatever you wish to come up with to support your Snape
is totally and unrepentantly evil theory. And you can do
that because Snape remains DELIBERATELY AMBIGUOUS. So 
have at it ;-)

<snip more Snape entirely sucks>

Dana: 
> Let's see how Snape repays his dues. 


Julie:
Yes, let's. 

Julie, excited to note that repayment is due in exactly
two months ;-)