My Apology to JK Rowling

[hectorberlioz]

No, we're not. You're just so wrong, Tess .

Re-read the books. They're about Harry, not Neville ...however much I like Neville or everyone else.

[Tessar]

I'm not saying the books aren't about Harry instead of Neville. I agree the books are about Harry. That's the entire point... if Neville had become the chosen one, the books would've been about him instead of Harry.

But that doesn't make Neville pampered, or make Harry turn into any less of an annoying emo kid at some points.

[hectorberlioz]

Emo? Yeah, he had Voldemort's mind infiltrating his own! Ok, sure he was a little emo at times. But look at all the stuff he had to endure. And plus, I'm glad JKR didn't make him into the Perfect-Yet-Bland-Hero who is uninteresting compared to his sidekicks. Harry was as interesting and or even more interesting than almost anybody else in the books, and that's a huge feat for an author. So...that's why Harry's my favorite

You fangirls can have Snape, take him...

[Tessar]

Blech, I dislike Snape in general. I think his story was sad more than anything else... I never actually got to a point where I liked him.

[Mari]

*wholeheartedly agrees with Tess*
Though I do like Snape. He had a sad character. I can sympathize. Besides, it's great that he's not wholly evil as he was portrayed in the first one. Oh, and Harry could use a person not liking him. Kept him from getting too full of himself.

[hectorberlioz]

*tries to withhold lecture in which he explains Snape was good through all the books, and that it was all part of Dumbledore's plan*

(In case you haven't noticed, I'm suffering from "overzealous-reader-of-the-books" syndrome )

[hectorberlioz]

Actually, I would say Dumbledore was good. Not perfect, but good. The message of the HP books (one of them anyways) is that though there is good and evil, not all the good people are perfect (hence they turn evil, or struggle with it). Seems pretty Christian to me. Evil is a perversion of good and all that. As Sirius tells Harry, the world is not divided into Good People and Death Eaters.

That's not the same as saying "there is no 'Good' and 'Bad,'" rather he's saying the DE's aren't the only bad people out there.

In book one Quirrell tells Harry how his master (Voldie) taught him there was no good or evil. Would Rowling then go on to say the same thing? I don't think she would, and I don't think she did. She DID however put before us a much more complex explanation. The whole point of Harry's crises of faith in book 7 is to show 1) Dumbledore was just a man 2) Harry has to differentiate between seeing a person as right and all powerful/protective. Dumbledore WAS right about Harry/Voldemorte, and he was mostly right about how it would end. But he wasn't perfect or all-powerful like Harry imagined him most of the time.

[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.