Snape's role/ Blaming characters

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 176621

Julie:
<SNIP>

> Finally, if Snape's did make Harry's survival possible, and 
everything that  
> went
> with it, including the eventual defeat of Voldemort (and it's a 
very good  
> possibility
> that he did), so what? People's actions have unintended 
consequences, which 
> by definition are unrelated to intent or to their "goodness" 
or "badness."  <SNIP>If Snape did  "save" 
>Harry and the
> WW, he was joined in this act by Voldemort, who also set this 
course by  
> acting on
> that silly prophecy. And I see no reason why Harry would or 
should  thank 
> Snape--
> nor why Snape would expect or want thanks--as it was just one more 
in a  long 
> line
>  
> of unanticipated consequences that make up much of the story of 
human  (and 
> WW)
> existence!

<SNIP>


Alla:

So what if Snape saved Harry? That is my thing, I do not buy that 
premise, that is all. I strongly **disagree** with it. Of course the 
story is full of not anticipated consequences and I think that Snape 
saving WW is one of them and Voldemort obtaining body partially 
because Harry saved Wormtail is another.

But I do not buy that Snape **saved** Harry when he went to Voldie, 
that is all. I think he made him suffer for sixteen years - that is 
what in mind Snape did to Harry.

I mean of course he had some happiness when he entered WW too - 
school, friends, but no I am not buying that Snape saved Harry by 
**telling the prophecy**.

He was saving him later, yes, but maybe without making him Chosen 
one, all that saving was not needed.


So, yeah, do not think that Harry has to thank Snape AND do not 
think that Snape **deserves** thanks for telling prophecy, at all.

> Ceridwen:
<SNIP>
> Blaming the characters?  We do that all the time here.  Dumbledore 
is 
> a puppet master, Snape is abusive, the Weasleys are the ESE-est 
> family in the WW, etc.  <SNIP> How are we supposed to 
> discuss the books, the story part, if we don't blame or praise the 
> characters?  These are the legitimate vehicles Rowling used to get 
> her story across.  She gave these characters personality traits, 
> lives, deaths in some cases, which is why I call her the Creatrix 
of 
> the Potterverse.  I don't see how we should not blame, etc., the 
> characters when we discuss the story.  <SNIP>

Alla:

Yeah, while on story related substance I am totally with Adam, I 
agree with you here completely :) ( But Sirius was right and that 
makes all the difference goes to my favorite lines I read here ever, 
thanks Adam :))

Adam, do check out some of my pre DH posts if you so wish sometimes 
and see how much I blamed Snape for erm.... lots of things ;)

I refuse to be told that I should not, you know? Because even post 
DH I have plenty of things to blame him for and while I will defend 
my favorites from blame if I do not feel they deserve ( and our 
favorites are pretty much the same), I think it is a very legitimate 
thing to do so :)

It is just fun thing for me to think of characters as real  
sometimes from within the story and wanting to blame them if I so 
desire and I imagine for other people to.

Mike:

<SNIP of the whole post that I so loved>

For me, that means that the Marauders are not being hypocritical,
because in their world "Dark Magic" is defined as something different
than the minor dark magic that you have defined above. Also, a "Dark
Arts Practitioner" is defined as one who uses "Dark Magic", the
Capital Letter variety. As I said, we may not know where they drew
the line, but it doesn't seem to be a problem for them. And us not
knowing what has been clearly defined to them does not make them
hypocrites, imo.


Alla:

Me too again.