Beating the Snape Thing to Death
| At the risk of sounding obsessive on the "Snape - good or evil?" thing, I was just looking back over some of Pauli's old posts and noticed the original one Snape being good, and just wanted to make one clarification on my position. I do not believe that trusting Snape was "wrong" on DD's part. I do not believe it was even "incorrect." I think DD knew the risk of Snape being affected by Voldy and was willing to take that risk, even at peril to his own life (although this would raise the question of whether he unwisely put the lives of the students and other faculty at risk). I predict (on my theory that he was not "good" while killing DD ... and I realize that Pauli has a theory that Snape may have been saying something else in his head, and I'm not sure what I think of this mainly because I don't think enough has been given one way or another in the books to say one way or the other whether this is even logistically possible ... it might be, but my guess at this point is that it is not) that Snape will come to realize that DD took this risk and that this realization will affect Snape for a final turn to do something decisive for the good side. I think in one conversation Pauli said to me he didn't like the idea that DD got screwed because he "goofed up." I may have been guilty at one point of thinking that DD goofed, but I now am not of that opinion. I think he was well aware of the possibility of things going the way they did and he chose to take that risk for Snape's sake, ie willingly to make himself vulnerable. |
Comments on "Beating the Snape Thing to Death"
-
Pauli said ... (September 30, 2005 5:42 PM)
:
-
Pauli said ... (September 30, 2005 9:25 PM)
:
-
Merlin said ... (October 02, 2005 5:28 PM)
:
post a commentGood point - a major difference between Dumbledore and Voldemort is that Dumbledore allows himself to be vulnerable. Voldemort's whole being rejects the idea of vulnerability from his days in the orphanage when he disbelieves that his mother could have been a wizard because she died.
Another thought I had is that I don't think it's overly obsessive to discuss, try to figure out or speculate about Snape. Rowling has structured the story in such away that the reader is forced to wonder about his loyalties.
I was just talking with Joshua Depew the other night (I called for Nate whilst I was up in GC over homecoming weekend but he and Julie were out and Josh just sort of started in on questionns about Potter ... it was fun talking to him) and he brought up something that I am sure I should have thought of before and have probably heard people mention but never stuck in my head strongly like it should have
"Severus" means "severed" ... meaning he is divided. I think that the effect that you see in HBP is that the tension in his loyalties really, in effect, severs him from himself .. he is a man divided.
This sort of fits with the "bad influence" Voldemort has on people ... has on Snape even if Snape went back to him originally completely intending to be on DD's side. Voldy willingly separated himself from himself in making horcruxes and his influence on others is to make them divided persons. This is a completely new stage beyond the name "piebald" in Lewis' Perelandria: one can be of two natures, and indeed every human is piebald in the sense of being both flesh and spirit. but Voldy's system pits the self AGAINST itself.
It reminds me of a friend who recently achieved an MFA from the Art Acadamy in lower Manhattan. At one point he said he was considering for his diploma project doing a rendering of the scen from Greek mythology in which (I bleive) Apollo has won the contest against the stupidly arrogant Pan and has him strecthed and is about fley his skin from his body. In other renderings the caption had usualy read "why are you separating me from myself?" the painting was going to be titled, "The Tyranny of Reason"