My Apology to JK Rowling

[hectorberlioz]

Inked,

You're right---and I completely agree---that there is a difference between "good" and "nice." Rowling points it out more than once in the series. However, as much as the Slytherins liked Snape, I think Gordis' reading of the books remains. Snape turned "good" for Lily's sake, and no other. A noble but selfish reason, though I think Rowling shows how he gradually became more and more Dumbledore's real ally. Though D did have some reservations at the back of his mind about Snape, he always emphasized that he trusted Snape.

So, back to square one: I don't like Snape. He's a good and interesting character, a very strong creation for an author, and a vital part of the story...but that doesn't mean I have to like him ;-)

PS: See Slughorn for an example of judging a character by the colors of his banner, and then being wrong. Surprised me, in a good way.

PPS: Doesn't Slughorn act as a second Sorting Hat?

[Gordis]

Sorry for posting out of turn...

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

Snape turned "good" for Lily's sake, and no other. A noble but selfish reason, though I think Rowling shows how he gradually became more and more Dumbledore's real ally.

Note that there is another Death Eather who has "turned to light": Regulus Black. Now, in contrast to Snape, Regulus had totally unselfish reasons - he indeed saw the error of his ways, was disgusted by the atrocities Voldemort was perpetrating. Snape was right there by Regulus's side, but had no qualms about torturing and killing - as long as it was not his beloved Lily on the receiving end.
Just compare the two characters and you will see the sad truth about Snape.

(I decided to open a new thread for my rant about Blacks)

Originally Posted by hectorberlioz

PS: See Slughorn for an example of judging a character by the colors of his banner, and then being wrong. Surprised me, in a good way.

PPS: Doesn't Slughorn act as a second Sorting Hat?

That seems very interesting, but I am not sure I understand what you mean, Hector. Could you, please, elaborate?

[Nurvingiel]

I think you've got Snape wrong Gordis. Snape was a good man. The reason he participated in some of the horrible stuff the Death Easters got up to is because he was a double agent. If he had, say, stuck his neck out for Charity Burbage, he would have blown his cover. He was the only Order member to penetrate into Voldemort's inner circle; his role was crucial. In fact, he was the only Order member to do so. He was able to give them help no one else could.

And while he doesn't stop the Death Eaters (he can't, since it's crucial they think he's one of them) he doesn't jump in to their activities with relish. He only kills Dumbledore because Dumbledore asked him to. I can't recall him murdering or torturing anyone else.

Now, Snape is good, but he isn't nice. He never gets over his rivalry with James Potter and as a result, he is permanently set against Harry. He favours the Slytherin students outrageously. He bullies Neville (extra bad since I love Neville; he's my favourite character). He's racist.

Some of this is Snape putting on a show for the children of Death Eaters (Malfoy, Crabbe, Goyle, Nott) but some of it I think is Snape being a jerk. But you can be good and a total jerk.

Edit: Okay, you don't have Snape wrong. I do agree that Regulus is awesome though.

[Gordis]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

I think you've got Snape wrong Gordis. Snape was a good man. The reason he participated in some of the horrible stuff the Death Easters got up to is because he was a double agent. If he had, say, stuck his neck out for Charity Burbage, he would have blown his cover. He was the only Order member to penetrate into Voldemort's inner circle; his role was crucial. In fact, he was the only Order member to do so. He was able to give them help no one else could.

And while he doesn't stop the Death Eaters (he can't, since it's crucial they think he's one of them) he doesn't jump in to their activities with relish. He only kills Dumbledore because Dumbledore asked him to. I can't recall him murdering or torturing anyone else.

All this is correct, Nurv, when we look at the double-agent Snape: post-Lily's death and especially post-Voldemort's return. But what about him before it? First he had become a Death Eater -quite willingly- and only then the member of the Order, initially only to save Lily, later to avenge her.

Snape was born in 1960, graduated in 1978 and likely got the Dark mark straight away, Lily died in 1981. There were three years for Snape to do all sorts of crimes serving Voldemort. Regulus Black was younger than Snape, yet he had ample time to get disgusted by Death Eater activities and to repent. Snape didn't, not for moral reasons.

[Nurvingiel]

When Snape got the Dark Mark and what he did when he got it is pure speculation. I still think he's a good man. Selfishly-motivated, yes, not always mature, yes, but inherently a brave and good person.

[inked]

No, Nurv, Snape was not inherently good or brave. He repented of his weaknesses and failings (which had cost him Lily's friendship and possibly her love) and he became brave and good by his choice.

Snape lost his way in the dark wood just like Dante had. Snape recovered his first love (God) just like Dante did through Beatrice. Lily Evans Potter was Snape's Beatrice and the vessel of God to which he gave himself to God. you really should read John Granger's works on the symbolic writers and their messages to get a better handle on the connections.

Snape, like Harry, makes bad choices. Snape, like Harry, repents of his bad choices. Snape, like Harry, chooses to believe and do right. Snape, like Harry, dies for those he loves, doing right. Snape is the character who, like Harry, suffers long and uses it well to redeem the situation at hand.

[Nurvingiel]

I don't disagree with you Inked. But I do think Snape is a good and brave person, because he chose to be.

It's interesting how alike Snape and Harry are. They probably have more in common than Harry and James Potter.