Secrets (Long) OLD POST REPOST

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 186472

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "jkoney65" <jkoney65 at ...> wrote:
>
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "montavilla47" <montavilla47@> wrote:
> >
> > > 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. 
> > 
> 
> jkoney:
> The definition I found for grudge is "a deep seated feeling of resentment or rancor."
> 
> After a decade of James being dead any thoughts of James should have been put to rest. But they aren't they are transferred to Harry. While we talked about the celebrity comment there was still no need for it other than to take a cheap shot at a Potter. 
> 
> This and his other thoughts/actions show that the grudge is still there able to be brought to the forefront of his mind when the need arises.

Montavilla47:

Well, yeah.  But that's normal human behavior.  If, for 
example, you had a sweetheart in high school, who married
the quarterback of the football team and then one day, he 
had too much to drink and drove their car into a tree, you 
might have some resentments towards him, too.

Even if you served him the drinks.

Nobody would get over that kind of thing easily.
But I'll bet you'd be angrier over him driving drunk and
killing your old sweetheart than you would because he
used to give you wedgies.  

But, Snape is singled out as "wasting his life" over
a grudge which is, even after the Prince's Tale, linked by
many fans to those wedgies.  

This is because we were told by two characters who 
seemed very trustworthy, that Snape's feelings were
connected most strongly to the Prank.  But, we see in his
memories that the Prank was only secondary.  The 
important thing to him was that Lily died.  That's 
what caused grief so profound that he could barely
live through it  

And those two characters who set us up to think it 
was all about the Prank or, even more absurdly, 
Quidditch?  One was Dumbledore and he was deliberately
misleading Harry (at Snape's request).  The other was 
Lupin and he was simply going on what he knew--which
was not the complete story.



> jkoney:
> No one is arguing that it is a huge thing just that it still exists. He did have other things on his mind at the end of HBP, but the comment he makes is about James. If the resentment wasn't there, then the comment wouldn't have been made.

Montavilla47:
If you agree that Snape's grudge against James isn't a huge
thing, then we are in agreement.  

Again, I posted in response to someone saying that 
Snape served as an example of someone who had "wasted
their life" in senseless grudges against dead people.  

My argument is that the the grudge business was
blown out of proportion in order to distract from what
was really bothering Snape--which was that Voldemort
killed the girl he loved.  

And, of course, that he was protecting Harry throughout
the series--up until the moment when he delivered his 
memory/message about Harry having to die.  

> > > 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.
> > > 
> >snip> 
> > 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.  
> > 
> >snip> 
> 
> jkoney:
> The Prince's Tale doesn't change my opinion that much. We find out that Snape wasn't always evil. He started off as a normal boy, he chose the DE's and committed who knows what atrocities, and then repented because Voldemort was going to and did kill his childhood friend. We also find out that he has been working with and was loyal to Dumbledore.
> 
> That still wasn't enough for me to forget that he was an arrogant ass most of the time.

Montavilla47:

It's a pretty difficult thing to pull off the the transformation
of the reader's intrepretation of Snape.  It's not quite we weren't
debating the topic hotly for the two years between HBP and DH.

In order to be surprised by the memories, you would have had
to have not read any articles or discussed the books--because
it was the biggest question coming out HBP.  And kudos to 
Papa Rushdie for asking it publically.

And even I'm not going to force anyone to re-examine the books
in light of Snape's memories.  After all, do people need to 
go back and re-think Croody bouncing Draco off the stone floor
in GoF once they realize that he's someone different than they 
thought he was the first time they read that chapter?  No, of 
course not.  

I consider it more fun to go back and consider different 
motivations and perspectives.  But you're not *obligated*
to do it, just because I like it.

On the other hand, I don't see why I shouldn't be able to 
offer what I was careful to call an "alternative" interpretation.

> > 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.  
> > 
> >
> jkoney:
> Well someone turning over my best friends to be killed seems like a good reason to me to hold a grudge.

Montavilla47:

Sirius believes that Peter turned over his best friends
to Voldemort.  Which, you seem to be saying, makes a 
grudge against Peter reasonable.

In the Shrieking Shack, Snape believes that Sirius
turned his best friend over to Voldemort.  So, then,
shouldn't Snape's grudge be just as reasonable?