Disarming spell/ Character's choices/Buffy!

[littleleahstill]

No: HPFGUIDX 185573

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lizzyben04" <lizzyben04 at ...>  
> lizzyben:
> 
> Really I think the best analogy to the Slytherins of Harry Potter 
are
> the vampires of Buffy. The key point about vampires is that they 
lack
> a soul & are therefore incapable of true selfless action or 
altruism.
> They can love & make great sacrifices for the *individual*
> person/vampire they love, but they don't give two cents about 
humanity
> as a whole, except as a resource to exploit or use. 
> 
> So Spike, for example, can be in love with Buffy (somewhat 
creepily) &
> try to protect her & be willing to sacrifice his life for her; but
> this does not make him a good guy. Because he'll do it only for the
> person *he* loves; he wouldn't care about anyone else. Cause he's
> still a soulless monster w/o empathy. And even that one love is 
shown
> to be somewhat obsessive and selfish - because he lacks a soul for
> real goodness or moral virtue. That's pretty similar to Snape's 
story
> to me, at least in how Rowling intends us to view it. She says in
> interviews that Snape wouldn't have cared what happened to Harry at
> all if he wasn't Lily's son. In the Prince's Tale, she pounds over 
&
> over that Snape does it for Lily, and only Lily. Narcissa does
> something good for Draco, and only Draco. Because they lack a soul 
&
> are therefore incapable of true selfishness or altruism. 
> 
> As compared to, say, Harry, who chooses to die to save all 
humanity,
> as Jesus did. I think the comparison is stark and intentionally 
so. If
> Harry is her emblem of pure altruism (dying for all mankind), the
> Slytherins are his absolute antithesis (saving their own skins). 
JKR
> never *wanted* to redeem the Slytherins & is probably be puzzled by
> fans' desire to do so. 
> 
> 
> lizzyben

Leah: 

Yay, Snape as Spike - I could definitely see that post DH. But 
eventually Spike wants so much to be worthy of Buffy, that he sets 
out to get himself a soul and wrestles demons (literally) to obtain 
one.  At the very end, Buffy tells Spike that she loves him, and 
he's progressed enough to say thanks for saying it, but actually, no 
you don't, and then he goes on to help save not just Buffy, but the 
world, fighting off the hordes from the abyss with the stone of 
Whatsitsname and giving his life in the process.

I don't think Lily ceased to be a prime motivator for Snape, but she 
ceased to be the only motivation.  Snape doesn't care only about 
Lily when he tries to save Draco, either in HBP or in the final 
confrontation with Voldemort in the Shrieking Shack.  He doesn't 
care only about Lily when he says 'Lately, only those I could not 
save'.  

Neither are Snape and Narcissa trying to save their own skins when 
they spy on and lie to Voldemort. They're putting their skins at 
great risk.

I'm disagreeing here, but I do agree that a lot of what is written 
in the books and a lot of what JKR says in interviews appears to 
support your analysis, and there are other things (as written above) 
that don't. That's partly why I find DH such a muddle.  And I do 
agree that Rowling wants us to admire that Gryffindor 'saving people 
thing', and I think the reason a lot of fans want to redeem 
Slytherin is that they actually see more moral worth in what 
the 'good' Slytherins do than in the Gryffindor approach.

It seems to me that people who act out of genuine altruism to all ae 
are actually pretty rare, and probably born not made.  Most of us 
find it much easier to do things for those we love than strangers.  
There is a lot of wonderful work done by people who eg became 
involved with the children at one particular neglected orphanage or 
witnessed one particular miscarriage of justice. There was Oscar 
Schindler, for example, who was not a 'good' man, and could not have 
cared less about the Nazis until they targeted his workers, *his* 
Jews. He went on from saving them to saving all whom he could 
save.   Rowling described Harry in one interview as 'just good'.  
I'd disagree, but that's not the point.  You can't be redeemed if 
you're 'just good', there's no need for it, and there's much more 
interest, as well as rejoicing, in one sinner who repents etc. It's 
the struggle for a soul that I want to read about -others may well 
differ.

Leah