Secrets (Long) OLD POST REPOST

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 186450

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" <dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>
> Montavilla47:
> 
> I didn't say that Harry was showing a grudge against James.
> I'm showing an example of Harry throwing James into Snape's
> face in PoA, even though it would be absurd for Harry to be
> holding a grudge against his dead father.
> 
> I'm doing that to support my contention that using A in an
> argument against B does not necessarily mean that you're
> holding a grudge against A. It can mean any number of
> things, including that it's an effective bit of ammunition.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Ah, sorry misunderstood you. However Harry does not talk about his father in a bad light, that is why I would not think that he indeed holds grudge against him, Snape however says bad things about him and that to me makes an obvious example of holding grudges.

Montavilla47:
But "saying bad things" about a person doesn't necessarily
equate to holding a grudge.  McGonagall says that James
and Sirius were troublemakers, but she didn't dislike them.

Of course, Snape doesn't like James at all.  I daresay he
still does hate him.  But that's not the same as holding a 
grudge, or worse, nursing it.  And it's certainly a far
cry from allowing it to blight and waste you life.

And that's really the part I take issue with.  Look, I 
can still get annoyed when I think about the way my
mother gave away that favorite toy of mine when 
I was six years old.  (And I do.... on occasion.)

If I were really mad at her, I might even bring it up.
But that doesn't mean I'm twisted up with hatred
and holding a grudge, I hope.  It simply means that
when we get angry we tend to bring up things that
happened in the past--whether or not they 
pertain. 


> Alla:
> >
> > You are right, Snape has a lot of reasons to be angry in this scene, however
> the reasons he **says** that he is angry about are :
> > a) Harry is using his spells against him;
> > b) His filfy father was using his spells against him.
> 
> Montavilla47:
> 
> Well, it's not like Snape can stop and explain to Harry
> that what he's really upset about at the moment is the
> fact that he was forced to kill the one person who didn't
> consider him scum.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Indeed, however it is not like if he does not say one of the reasons why he is upset, then another reason must be not true in my opinion. To me it is again, omission of the part of the truth.

Montavilla47:
Well, the best misdirection is going to be truthful, rather
than an out and out lie.  But it's a matter of degree.  I just
don't think it's that big a thing.  Snape's dealing with a lot
of stuff--and if he had to rank the things upsetting him
at that moment, James's use of Levicorpus twenty years
earlier would probably rank far behind:

1. Having to kill Dumbledore
2. Having to become a fugitive
3. Having to get that idiot Malfoy to a safe place
4. Having to keep the DEs from killing anyone
5. Having to keep the DEs from killing that idiot Potter
6. Wondering if Hagrid knows how to put out a fire
7. Trying to avoid the hippogriff poo littering the grass
8. Oh, yeah.  That idiot Potter is flinging spells at him.

> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> I think it's a bit too hard to argue Snape as a noble character--
> in the sense of being forgiving or magnanimous. I don't see him
> as being forgiving at all--least of all to himself. But if you don't
> re-examine his character in light of the Prince's Tale, then you're
> holding onto a false interpretation of his character. The whole
> point of the Prince's Tale is to change our view of Snape.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> To me Prince's tale gave new information about Snape, it did not change his character completely at all.

Montavilla47:
There's a lot of room between "completely" and "at all."  Obviously,
Snape isn't going to change completely.  In fact, he's not to change 
at all.  It's our view that is intended to change.  Hopefully, it will
change in a direction that will make it seem plausible that Harry
names one of his sons after the man.  

Of course, I realize you think it's nuts that Harry does that, so 
I would say that it didn't have its intended purpose for you.  
And in my case, it couldn't raise my opinion of Snape, since that
was fairly high to begin with.  Instead, it lowered it a bit, because
I was disappointed about Snape being so indifferent about 
Voldemort killing a child.


> Montavilla47:
> <SNIP>
> There's no point where Snape says, "I do not hate James." And there's
> no point where he says that he does. But when Dumbledore scolds
> Snape for not trying to save James or Harry from Voldemort, Snape's
> reaction is indifference. Not anything about how he'd be happy
> if James died, or how James deserves it, or even how he much he
> feels in James's debt about that saving his life thing. James is
> *nothing* to him at that point.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> To me him asking Dumbledore to provide safety for Lily and not for her husband and baby even though Snape was the one who set Voldemort on them was proof enough that he hated them, IMO of course. I mean, he wants Dumbledore to save Lily but says nothing about James, I make a conclusion that he wants James to die, IMO of course.

Montavilla47:
Yeah, to me it shows him as indifferent.  I kind of think that's
a bit worse than hating James.  


> 
> Montavilla47:
> Moreover, Snape denies in PoA that James was doing anything
> but saving his own skin during the Prank. He obviously feels
> no debt at all to James about it. Which makes what Dumbledore
> told Harry a lie.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I do not see how one follows from another. Snape says that, yes, but where does he say that I feel no debt to James?

Montavilla47:
Well, there's also that not asking Dumbledore to protect James 
thing.  If Snape felt that he owed a debt to James then he'd ask 
Dumbledore to save James, wouldn't he?  Logically?  I mean, 
wouldn't that release him from that crushing sense of obligation
that feeds the massive grudge he's nursing?


> 
> Montavilla47:
> Not to say that Snape wouldn't have had a romantic
> relationship with Lily if she would have been willing--but
> it seems really clear to me that Snape knows that *he* blew it with Lily. It wasn't that James won her--it was
> that Snape lost her.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I do not have book with me right now, but Snape seemed awfully upset to me when Lily mentions James and Marauders and that she spents time with them. But I have to double check.
> He knows that he lost her friendship, for sure. But I got from Prince memory that Snape saw that Lily was moving to Marauders way before their break up happened, IMO of course.

Montavilla47:
He was certainly concerned when Lily told him he ought to be
grateful to James instead of harping on his "theory" about Lupin.
But when she says that James is a toerag, he relaxes.  But her
relationship with Lily is over long before Lily starts dating James.

So, there's no support for the idea that James "won" Lily away 
from Snape.  JKR makes it as clear as she can (as clear as those 
posters on Sirius's wall peg him as hetero) that James and Severus
were not direct rivals for Lily's love.  Or friendship.  Severus never 
got to experience Lily as a lover, while James never appeared to 
know her in a non-romantic friendly way.


> Montavilla47:
> So, I don't think Snape's ability to hold grudges
> is that unique. If it were the defining trait for his
> character then we'd be hard pressed to pull him
> out of a crowd.
> 
> Alla:
> 
> Absolutely, a lot of people do, I agree. I just find Snape's ability to do that to be how to put, very distinctive and strong? And long?
>

Montavilla47:
I don't know.  Sirius managed a good grudge against
Peter that lasted at least twelves years and nearly 
caused him to murder the rat.  

He also kept up a grudge against Snape that--as 
far as we can tell--lasted until he died.  Which had as 
little basis as Snape's grudge against him.  

We don't really get to see if anyone keeps holding
a grudge against Snape after he dies.  We never, got
example, get to see if Neville asks Harry why he named 
his son after the Greasy Git of Hogwarts.  

Hmm.  I guess the record holder of grudges would
be Helena Ravenclaw who still seems miffed at her
mother even those she's a ghost.  

Nicholas is, of course, annoyed about being kept
out of the headless hunt, but he's only been dead for
five hundred years--and the ban against him is still 
ongoing.

Aberforth, according to someone, refused to speak
to Albus for a long time after Ariana's death--although
they eventually reconciled.  He also spoke badly
about Albus when he told the story to Harry.  Was
he holding a grudge?  If so, I think Aberforth would 
be the record-holding grudge-keeper among the 
living.