Characters' inconsistencies WAS: Re:What did you like about Harry Potter?

[Carol]

No: HPFGUIDX 183825

Winterfell wrote:
> 
> Actually it is by definition both an irony and an inconsistency.  An
inconsistency is : displaying or marked by a lack of consistency,
especially not regular or predictable, erratic: inconsistent behavior.
Snape's actions (untill the noble reasons we find out about were later
discovered) in AK'ing DD were not viewed as regular or predictable as
a member of the OotP and as a trusted friend and colleague of DD. So
they were inconsistent with his connection to DD.  

Carol responds:
But that doesn't make him an inconsistent character as literary
critics define the term, a point I've already discussed in response to
Alla. I agree, however, that Snape's AK is inconsistent with some
readers' expectations, at least with our conception of Snape as
Dumbledore's man. For readers who thought Snape was ESE!, it was in
character and consistent with their expectations. But that has nothing
to do with the wavering behavior of a truly inconsistent character,
who may be inconsistent through weakness or self-interest (like the
real-life Stanley brothers of the fifteenth century, who managed to
serve the House of Lancaster, the House of York, the formerly Yorkist
Earl of Warwick when he allied himself with the Lancastrians, the
House of York again, and Henry Tudor, with their "loyalty" depending
always upon self-interest and the person most likely to emerge as the
winner). Snape's behavior cannot be called "erratic" based upon one
action that is later explained. Inconsistent with the established
pattern, yes; but that doesn't make Snape an inconsistent character
once his motivation is explained.

Winterfell:
Also, incidently, for those who crucify Harry for using Crucio and
Imperius spells, I haven't heard too many people after reading DH who
criticized Snape for using the AK curse.  It seems to be inconsistent
to criticize Harry and not Snape.  They both used Unforgiveable Curses
didn't they? Or would that be ironic?  Oh yes, Snape's was for a good
reason, that's right.  (And Harry's wasn't?)

Carol responds:
First, no one is "Crucifying" Harry. It's JKR's inconsistent attitude
toward the Unforgiveables (which appear to be misnamed) that some of
us find disturbing. And I don't hear anyone criticizing him for using
the Imperius Curse on Travers in an emergency (though I did and do
wonder why Confundus didn't suffice). Harry's use of Crucio, the
torture curse, when Stupefy would have been equally effective and he
wasn't even in danger (he was under the Invisibility Cloak) is another
matter that I won't go into here. Nothing will convince me that it was
either "gallant" or justified regardless of the nature of his enemy.
It was merely an eye for an eye, retribution of vengeance, not
self-defense.

Snape, as you know, was in a different position altogether. Dumbledore
had already asked him to kill him (in a quick and merciful way to
prevent his being tortured by the DEs or torn to pieces by Fenrir
Greyback). The AK, which causes instant death, was the obvious weapon
of choice (which again leads the reader to wonder why it's
"Unforgiveable" when other curses can cause a more painful death. I
suppose the only reason is that there's no countercurse--once hit by
that curse, you can't be saved--unless you're Harry or Voldemort.)

To sum up, Harry and Snape both used Unforgiveables in an emergency
when, it seems, no other curse would do. The Crucio, however, was
probably not the most effective weapon in Harry's arsenal if his goal
was to knock Amycus unconscious. If you choose to view torture, even
brief torture, from beneath an Invisibility Cloak as "gallant" or
necessary, I can't convince you otherwise. I simply disagree. But the
fault is not so much Harry's as JKR's for leading us to believe that
the Unforgiveables were the weapon of the enemy and that the good guys
were too "noble" to use them.

Winterfell: 
> As for Snape's behavior not being terrible or having lasting effects
on Harry, what about Snape's behavior during occlumency lessons? His
treatment of Harry during those lessons, bad or whatever, was a key
reason for Harry not learning occlumency and the main reason LV was
able to put the images of Sirius's capture in his head.  I'd say the
consequences for Harry were quite lasting.  True, it was a very
necessary plot device by JKR, but nonetheless it was Snape's bad
behavior that was the catalist for Harry's future actions.

Carol:
Snape praises Harry ("For a first attempt, that was not as bad as it
might have been")--faint praise, to be sure, but coming from Snape, it
means "Good!" Snape controls his temper when Harry uses a Protego that
results in his own memories for a moment being revealed--after all, he
has authorized Harry to use any spell he can think of to defend
himself and has placed his crucial memories in DD's Pensieve as a
precauation against exactly that occurrence. The only times when he
actually becomes angry with Harry are when Harry reveals memories that
can only be Voldemort's, not his--evidence that Harry is not
practicing Occlemency to block the scar connection. He is actually
"unnerved"--temporarily paralyzed by fear--when he sees Harry's dream
of the corridor. That uncharacteristic reaction should have told Harry
that Snape was seriously concerned for his safety. Instead, Harry
finds it mildly amusing. As for Snape's reaction to finding Harry
invading the memories that he had specifically set aside so that Harry
wouldn't see them, I think his reaction is perfectly justifiable. I'd
have exploded with anger too if some impertinent teenager dared to
invade my privacy in that way. And Dumbledore knew about it, knew the
reason that Snape angrily ended the lessons, which were ineffectual
anyway because Harry wasn't practicing his lessons. If DD had ordered
Snape to resume the lessons, he would have done so. There is no record
in canon of the adult Snape disobeying Dumbledore, regardless of his
feelings in the matter. Snape can't be blamed for Harry's failure to
practice nor for his acting on the implanted vision that LV placed in
his head. (If Dumbledore had told him, or allowed Snape to tell him,
what it was all about, Harry would have known to block those dreams.
Instead, he *wanted* to have them.)

Not even Harry himself blames Snape for the failure of the Occlumency
lessons once DD explains where the blame really lies (not counting
Harry's share, which he tactfully ignores). Harry instead chooses to
blame Snape for taunting Sirius Black, which the narrator makes plain
is the finding of a scapegoat because it's too painful to acknowledge
that he, Harry, should have known better than to go to the DoM in the
first place. (Black's own recklessness in fighting on the dais of the
veil with Bellatrix, taunting her rather than concentrating on
defending himself, is never mentioned, but the reader can see that
Black died as he would have lived, mistaking rashly fearless to the end.)

Carol, not trying to convince Steve (Winterfell), just expressing her
own views in answer to his responses