Why down on all the characters?

[Jen Reese]

No: HPFGUIDX 179354

> Steph:
> That chapter also shows that people aren't always who we think they
> are.  Snape obviously is the other character who fits this 
> scenario. I actually read DD and Snape as two sides of the same 
> coin, or maybe more accurately, the same type of character but who 
> behave oppositely but to the same end.  Snape allows people to
> think him a bad person while secretly working for good (with 
> ulterior motive regarding Lily), while DD maintains a benevolent 
> exterior while hiding Machiavellian machinations to achieve 
> Voldie's destruction.  

Jen: I like your description about them behaving oppositely.  I'd say 
they aren't the same type of character though, mainly because I 
credit Dumbledore with real benevolence as the reason behind his 
Machiavellian plan involving Harry, and read Snape's actions as more 
about personal redemption. 

I do think the Dumbledore/Snape storylines in DH were meant to be 
flip sides, JKR's biggest secrets she wanted to hide by 
characterizing DD as the epitome of goodness, while saying negatives 
like 'why do people like Snape, what is there to like about 
Slytherins?'  It seems like she expected readers to completely side 
with DD/Gryffindors, then her big 'aha' moment was to trot out the 
Slytherins who ended up helping Harry - with Snape as the biggest 
wow - coupled with the surprise outing of Dumbledore as the 
puppetmaster rather than a 'benign' figure of goodness (paraphrasing 
from MTV interview Oct. 15, 2007).  Or at least speaking as someone 
who read the story siding with Harry/DD/Gryffindors, I found those 
particular elements of DH to be surprising plot twists.  (I read the 
Hufflepuffs and Ravenclaws to be mostly filler myself, extras around 
to add weight to one side or the other at pivotal moments.)

Jen