GOF Chapter 14: The Unforgivable Curses

[oryx_leucoryx]

(or - curses which can be unforgivable or gallant, depending on who casts them on whom)

My sporks may become more sporadic, nor will I be responding as much as I have so far, as Real Life is becoming more demanding. I still hope to create opportunities for discussions among you. Enjoy!

By the third day of classes Neville melted his 6th cauldron. Was that 6 in one lesson or the 6th since he started at Hogwarts? In any case, he disemboweled horned toads for detention. But since horned toads are actually some species of lizard I don't think his near nervous collapse had to do with thoughts on Trevor, just the effort of a repetitive, unpleasant task.

It isn't the fourth year running that Severus 'failed' to get the DADA job, Harry. The world was not created the day you entered Hogwarts.

Severus is avoiding 'Moody''s eyes. Is the real Moody a Legilimens? I think this avoidance supports Moody's involvement in Severus' interrogation during or after VoldieWar I.

Real-Moody's choice of textbook 'The Dark Forces: A guide to Self-Protection' is the same book Quirrell assigned to them in first year. Maybe that's the standard DADA text back from Prof Merrythought's days. At any rate, I'm wondering now about Umbridge's claim that Quirrell's lessons were age-appropriate. Well, maybe it was a very thick book, with sections for each year.

But 'Moody' is much cooler - he is not going to teach from the book at all! (He's just the opposite of Umbridge, who wanted the students to have books out and wands away.) Yes! He is going to bring them up to scratch about what wizards can do to each other! After some 12 years under Imperius, he gets to demonstrate Dark Arts in front of admiring students! Oh, how Barty is going to enjoy himself this year!

Yes, Barty, you owe one to Ron's dad. (I wonder if Arthur ever contemplated how his shenanigans assisted Voldemort's return. I wish he admitted to it when he claimed Percy was being recruited as a spy. If he gave his example of being used without his knowledge it might have gone over better than open accusation.) Barty, your retirement will be much quieter than you think.

Aha, the Ministry approves of demonstrating illegal Dark curses to 6th years like the twins. But 'Moody' claims to have Albus' approval to accelerate the curriculum a bit. Knowing Albus' attitude to the Ministry I wouldn't be surprised if that were true.

Arthur *would* know about Imperius. As one who dealt with victims of it or as a victim himself? Alas, Imperiurized!Arthur was never confirmed.

"Think it's funny, do you? You'd like it, would you, if I did it to you?" That will be put to test next lesson. Interesting that it is a DE who makes the students think of the difference in perspective between a spectator and a victim. Of course he is not just a perpetrator but a former victim himself.

"I could make it jump out of the window, drown itself, throw itself down one of your throats ..." - Thanks to Elkins for pointing out those were exactly Barty's fears - that his father would force him to commit suicide. Especially after the QWC, when it turned out he could throw the curse off and Winky was no longer around to supervise him.

I can see how practice can help recognize when one is under Imperius and therefore one needs to resist it, but how does one avoid being hit by it? Perhaps Barty was trying to give the students a false sense of security - imagining they'd be able to recognize the wand movement or the beginning of the incantation?

(BTW Ron only knew one Unforgivable Curse, and he wasn't completely certain about that one either. I guess Arthur never mentioned the other 2? Nor did, say, the AK come up in the context of how Molly's brothers died?)

It is so creepy to know that it is Barty inviting Neville to speak about the Cruciatus. Yes, it was popular once. With you. (Don't worry, it wasn't the spider Hermione was being compassionate for. Still, I like it that she opposed a teacher for an upset classmate.)

OK, in a class that includes several purebloods and at least one wizarding-raised half-blood, how come Hermione is the only one who knows about the AK?

Harry is the only one who survived the AK. Unless you count all those who managed to duck behind something or conjure a blocking object in time.

The use of any Unforgivable on a fellow human being earns you a life sentence in Azkaban. Casting them on spiders is fine. As well as on human beings who aren't your fellows, I suppose. That can sometimes be gallant, if you are the right kind of person.

Oh, how the Gryffindors enjoyed the demonstration of Dark Arts in class! A pity Hogwarts only teaches defense, really!

If Neville and Harry (and Hermione, of course) were disturbed by the class but Ron wasn't - does this mean Imperiurized!Arthur is false?

Now I'm wondering how this lesson went with the 4th year Slytherins. Did they know the names of the Unforgivables? Did they pretend not to know? Did 'Moody' taunt Draco with the Imperius Curse? Whom did he taunt with the others?

'Moody' invites Neville to tea. So spooky when one knows who that is. I wonder how Neville reflects on his interactions with 'Moody' later on, when he learns the truth. Because Harry is completely unperturbed that it was a DE who gave him the idea to become an Auror.

Moody attacks first, asks questions later. Does anyone need more evidence the real one was a Gryffindor?

Oh, Neville received a book about water plants. Which Harry will need later that year. But as Neville is mostly invisible to Harry the book won't be of any help.

Barty's act is going fine - Harry is now comparing him to Remus.

Harry and Ron are making up predictions for Divination. Oddly they actually do reflect the events of the coming year, though on a more extended schedule: danger of burns - may be about the skrewts, as Ron says, but also about the dragon Harry will face in almost 3 months. Losing a treasured possession - foreshadows the second task. Getting stabbed in the back by someone Harry thought was a friend - Ron's reaction to Harry's name emerging from the goblet, or 'Moody' turning out to be a DE who attempts to kill Harry? I'm not sure what losing a fight or a bet were about, though this is Hogwarts so there's always a lot of fighting going on, and of course this is the year of gambling.

Since Hermione isn't around to tell them off, Crookshanks is doing it for her. Why don't you go snarling at 'Moody', Crookshanks?

The twins are conspiring about blackmailing Ludo, again. (No, Crookshanks doesn't care about that either.)

Ron seems to be drowning twice. Well, he will be underwater for hours on end. Does this count? OTOH Harry dying by decapitation is a bit of a stretch - Voldmeort likes the AK, that leaves the victim's body intact.

Here comes SPEW, with 50 badges! Ron is treasurer, because he is so financially responsible and Harry is secretary, because Hermione said so.

Hermione's research revealed that elves have been enslaved for centuries, but not anything about what magic is involved to enforce their status. She came up with goals for her campaign without any input from the elves themselves, which shows just how much she believes in treating them as persons with wills of their own.

Hedwig is back with Sirius' reply. It took her under 2 weeks to fly from Surrey to whichever tropical location Sirius was staying at and back to Scotland. Sirius decides that things are serious enough to justify his return, but Harry blows it off. Doesn't he remember that Peter escaped? That Albus believed Trelawney's prophecy about him returning Voldemort to power was true? Wouldn't that put him in danger? (And not only him...)

Later we will learn that Sirius also reported about Harry's dream to Albus. So at this moment Albus knows the following: Peter left Hogwarts in June, probably on his way to Albania. Bertha Jorkins disappeared in Albania not long afterwards. Tom left Albania (must have been reported by Albus' 'sources') and must have arrived in Britain recently. Albus may already be aware of Frank Bryce's disappearance in Little Hangleton, (Or he may find out this tidbit later on.) Also, someone loyal to Voldemort was (probably) present at the QWC.

Comments

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much for your praise. It really means a lot to me. :-) I'm thrilled to know you think enough of my ideas to use them elsewhere.

Oh dear, I hope I didn't come across as big-headed or anything when I said that, I'm just a HP fan like anyone else here. It's just that I'm delighted when I come across new ideas, insights I never saw, even after all these years in the fandom. (That's why I like this community.) I love it when I can add a good meaty point to my arsenal of arguments. :-) Because I've been in the fandom for 7 years (which makes me a novice compared to many here) the pace of oh-my-gosh-I-never-saw-that epiphanies has slowed down a lot. I got excited when I read your post. :-)

Suppose Rowling had given us a much more interesting story, like this one (which would make a great fanfic, BTW):

Hmmm, a couple of things there which are in common with the fanfic 'The Truth' here (http://www.fanfiction.net/s/5442672/1/The_Truth) by Clell65619. Just a couple.

I guess the point at which we diverge - as of my last post, anyway - is the requirement for society to approve of the hero's actions, even if it's murder. Hmm, I dunno. If Rowling was trying to worry her readers about Harry turning into a 'killer' then she failed dismally on multiple fronts. But the cliche she would have been aiming for would have been along the lines of someone's who's killed - even for the best of reasons - is the 'lesser' of a man/hero because of it.

Maybe the 'Avatar: The Last Airbender' series did that thing better. I won't spoil that series for you, if you haven't watched it, but the hero there has the same dilemma - everyone assumes he's going to kill the bad guy, he doesn't want to. In that series the drama and tension is ramped up by people's rejoinders along the lines of "well, if you're not going to kill him, what are you going to do? / You will fail / Society will be DOOMED". Rowling didn't even try to do any of that; she just invented a never before seen rule of wand lore for Harry to use, zero drama.

Anyway, if Harry *had* killed Riddle - well, he did, sort of - no-one would have batted an eye, he was off the hook, society blessed him for it. If the 'hero' has to kill even if society holds him to be 'evil' for doing so ... well, yes, I can see how that would be even more dramatic, causing we readers to side with the hero, bond with him even more strongly. As long as (a) we readers are *completely* convinced that the bad guy had to go down, and that (b) there was no other way to do it

So yes, I'd read that fanfic. :-)

That is true heroism: Doing the right thing just because it needs to be done, no matter the consequences to yourself.

Which is the big point/insight of your post of yesterday. I'd read the posts of my literary acquaintance and others all trying to pump up Rowling's attempt (if there was one) to focus completely on *Harry*. They - and I - never saw this higher mode of heroism.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Wow! You didn't? But that's precisely why so many of us see Snape as a hero. Because he does the right thing, even though it costs him everything, and perhaps even against his inclinations, because it's the right thing.

And no, you can't argue that "he does it all for Lily". Lily doesn't give a hang for him, and, besides, she's dead. Snape knows this. My friend Sionna_Raven and also Rexluscus have argued persuasively about what Snape's dedication to Lily really shows.

My two cents!

I really like this discussion, btw. You are all so clear on exactly why Harry isn't a hero. Personally, I find it disgusting that the boy gets away with torture and compulsion/brainwashing, yet will not kill his enemy. Killing Voldemort, in defense of his friends and his world, would at most be a venial sin. The others are mortal sins, IMHO.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Wow! You didn't? But that's precisely why so many of us see Snape as a hero.

Oh. No, when I said this:

Which is the big point/insight of your post of yesterday. I'd read the posts of my literary acquaintance and others all trying to pump up Rowling's attempt (if there was one) to focus completely on *Harry*. They - and I - never saw this higher mode of heroism.

I was focusing entirely on *Harry* the whole time. When I said "higher mode of heroism" I was considering oneandthetruth's remarks and how they could have applied to Harry, but didn't, and how Harry isn't a hero because of it. And how others, the pro-Jo canon apologists, struggle to try and fit Harry into the hero mould.

I see oneandthetruth's quick reference to Snape in his first of his two comments, but otherwise he was talking about an alternative storyline featuring the Half Blood Prince, not the actual canon.

But no, I never saw Snape as a hero, not for an instant. Because he's a nasty son of a gun, I guess, and also because Rowling puts up the crush on Lily as the sole reason/motivation for his siding with Dumbledore. And that excuse just fails miserably. Mix that in with all the rest of Rowling's stupidity - Dumbledore conveniently keeping the details of Snape's allegiance a secret, thus artificially pumping up the mystery, but making the story a crock in the process, for example - and yeah, any 'heroism' of Snape's got lost with the rest of the bad writing, for me.

It wasn't until a year or so ago that a correspondent on another forum pointed out to me what I felt was a critical fact that I'd missed - that Snape *hadn't* been doing it all because of a 20 year crush on a teenage girl who'd not only spurned him totally but had married his worst enemy and born that enemy a son - but that he sincerely was on the side of the angels. Because there was a critical period between Dumbledore telling Snape that Harry was destined to die and Snape's own death where he could have - should have, if it had been a case of 'all for Lily' - renounced Dumbledore, once he'd realised that he was *not* to save Lily's child.

But he didn't. So that "lately, those I could not save" line (whatever it was, exactly) wasn't just a throwaway sentence.

So, Snape a 'good guy', okay, I can see it intellectually, although it's not clear enough in the shambles and ruins of Rowling's writing to impress me on an emotional level.

Snape a 'hero'? That's even further left field for me at this point. I guess I can see it. Hmmm. I guess this makes you Snape fans more in approval of Rowling's writing than I thought, since she made a point of Harry's calling his son 'Severus' to honour the man's bravery.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oh, yes, I know you were talking about Harry. And no, as a Snape fan, I was not at all in approval of Rowling's writing. Because it's just a mess. There's a huge gulf between what she tells us, and what she shows, and it's just terribly frustrating.

Character assassinations also abounded in DH* - but, I'd say, they started in HBP, or perhaps even earlier. Like you, I disliked HBP, and absolutely loathed DH. It's interesting to me that the filmmakers have worked hard to present Harry as nicer and more heroic than he actually is in the books. In the last two books, this boy is not worthy of your vision of Hermione. Book Hermione - maybe. Oddly enough, like you, I was a Harry/Hermione shipper, but right now I don't ship Harry with anyone, not even Ginny. Because book Harry simply doesn't seem to care about anyone.

How's that for changing the subject?!

*Characters who were given short shrift, written about in mocking tones and then played for pathos, presented inconsistently, or otherwise damaged, written in a contradictory fashion, or ignored ---
Snape. Minerva. Lupin (though his cowardice was canon in POA. His pompousness was something new, however.) Ginny, little as I like her - she was just a nonentity in this book. Ron - what happened to his gift for strategy? Tonks. Molly Weasely - since when did she become a great duellist? Harry. And on it goes. The one thing Rowling did consistently and well in the last two books was the character so many of us call rat bastard Dumbledore. He was consistently creepy and arrogant!

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

In the last two books, this boy is not worthy of your vision of Hermione. Book Hermione - maybe.

Yes. Rowling had those two growing up into decent kids until she decided to turn book 6 into a tale of Sweet Valley Hogwarts and made Hermione into a caricature of a befuddled sex/lust-mad teenager. And Harry was horrible to her in book 7.

Still, things aren't quite that black-and-white. I've been remarking recently that - while Harry in general, I believe, was a worse friend to Hermione than vice versa, and also valued Ron's friendship more (which really makes me mad, given how much Hermione did for Harry) - book 6 was perhaps the one tome where Harry really did put some effort into being a friend. When Hermione and Ron are playing their stupid and unsatisfying-to-read games of puerile jealousy and not talking to each other Harry's making sure that he spends time equally with both of them. Sometimes I forget that, book 6 being such a bad book.

Because book Harry simply doesn't seem to care about anyone.

That's a big exaggeration, isn't it? He chooses to *die* for everyone in DH! Yes, he's on 'automatic' by then; like a Pavlovian dog raised to meekly accept his fate as his 'job'. Exiting Snape's memories he never really *thinks* about his death or explores options; the passage is horribly fatalistic and passive. Harry was given a job to do by Dumbledore and he has to do it.

But, still, even if he's a dolt, even if his free will has been largely squelched by Dumbledore's brainwashing, Harry still (a) doesn't want to die but (b) is doing it because that way society will be freed from Voldemort's tryanny. That's 'caring', I think. Even if he was stirred to get to that point mainly by his own personal brushes with the dark lord rather than reasoning about society as an abstract whole.

Ginny, little as I like her - she was just a nonentity in this book.

Ginny was painted as a not-very-nice girl so I was glad not to see much of her in DH. It's funny how Rowling emasculated her in DH, still showing her as not-very-nice - all those bouts of childish jealousy in every second appearance, her display of petulance at Hogwarts - but outside the books proclaimed how wonderful Ginny was. There was a real dissonance between what Rowling wrote of the youngest Weasley and what she told us we're supposed to have read. And the deliberate shelving of Ginny to the far far background in DH just adds to that.

Ron - what happened to his gift for strategy?

I don't think it appeared long enough to be called a 'gift for strategy'. You're talking chess, right? Outside of book 1 I don't think we saw a single case of 'strategy', did we? We can't blame Rowling for writing something that was never there in the first place. I think Ron's 'strategy' genius is pretty much a fandom creation.

Molly Weasely - since when did she become a great duellist?

Oh, she wasn't. That bout at the end of DH is just a ridiculous farce, horribly bad writing, Rowling just throwing in the cliche because she wanted to see it, despite it hanging loose and unattached to any of her previous canon. Don't give it a second thought, it was simply a bad Rowling error/mistake. :-)

(Sad to read of the review that's recently been released after an advance showing of the final movie where the audience gave 'raucous cheers' upon watching the Bellatrix/Molly scene. Damn it, it's so SAD that Rowling can get away with such inelegant and bad writing!! People are so dumb ... :-))

The one thing Rowling did consistently and well in the last two books was the character so many of us call rat bastard Dumbledore. He was consistently creepy and arrogant!

Yes, he was a patronising smug arrogant son of a gun in book 6, and book 7 upheld that.

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

should have, if it had been a case of 'all for Lily' - renounced Dumbledore, once he'd realised that he was *not* to save Lily's child.

If we really wanted to be picky, we should go back to the night Dumbledore is telling Severus that Lily is dead. Because really, Dumbledore made a 'deal' with Severus.

Severus would serve as Dumbledore's spy and for that tradeoff Dumbledore would keep the Potter family save.

To me, Dumbledore did not keep his end of the deal, well unless there is someone out their that considers Lily being dead equals safe.

IF Snape had really been evil and a all around bastard shouldn't he have called Dumbledore on that fact. Hay you SOB, we had a deal, so wouldn't Dumbledore in some way owe Severus more since Severus kept his end of the deal to the bitter end?

Snape a 'hero'? That's even further left field for me at this point. I guess I can see it. Hmmm. I guess this makes you Snape fans more in approval of Rowling's writing than I thought, since she made a point of Harry's calling his son 'Severus' to honour the man's bravery.

I would think most Snape fans get annoyed when their ideas and thoughts have tended to be crapped on by a lot of the other fans. I remember when I first started coming into the community after the OOTP book.

It almost seemed every discussion I got into people were extra rude to Snape fans. It seemed to be even if you were just considering an idea it was instantly shot down and such. I wasn't originally a Snape fan, I was just reading the series but I did see that their tended to be this mob mentality where Fans of characters like Harry or whoever would automatically shoot you down if you even dared to offer some ideas and theories about the character of Snape.

So technically, the whole reason I ended up being a Snape fan was because of the little shits that refused to see an alternative idea about the character of Snape. So, if anyone drove me to the 'dark side' so to speak it was the people who were diehard jerks when it came to trying to have an open mind about the character.


Personally I hate that Harry named his child after Severus, in fact he named all his kids after dead people. I think it's kind of lame honstly.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

If we really wanted to be picky, we should go back to the night Dumbledore is telling Severus that Lily is dead. Because really, Dumbledore made a 'deal' with Severus.

...

To me, Dumbledore did not keep his end of the deal, well unless there is someone out their that considers Lily being dead equals safe.

Well, sure. Rowling addresses that 'transition' - from wanting to protect Lily to safeguarding her son - in that train of memories in DH:

"I thought…you were going…to keep her…safe…"

"She and James put their faith in the wrong person," said Dumbledore. "Rather like you, Severus. Weren't you hoping that Lord Voldemort would spare her?"

Snape's breathing was shallow.

"Her boy survives," said Dumbledore.

With a tiny jerk of the head, Snape seemed to flick off an irksome fly.

"Her son lives. He has her eyes, precisely her eyes. You remember the shape and color of Lily Evans's eyes, I am sure?"

"DON'T!" bellowed Snape. "Gone…dead…"

"Is this remorse, Severus?"

"I wish…I wish I were dead…"

"And what use would that be to anyone?" said Dumbledore coldly. "If you loved Lily Evans, if you truly loved her, then your way forward is clear."

Snape seemed to peer through a haze of pain, and Dumbledore's words appeared to take a long time to reach him.

"What – what do you mean?"

"You know how and why she died. Make sure it was not in vain. Help me protect Lily's son."

"He does not need protection. The Dark Lord has gone – "

"The Dark Lord will return, and Harry Potter will be in terrible danger when he does."

There was a long pause, and slowly Snape regained control of himself, mastered his own breathing. At last he said, "Very well. Very well. But never – never tell, Dumbledore! This must be between us! Swear it! I cannot bear…especially Potter's son…I want your word!"

Dumbledore doesn't *force* Snape to upgrade their pact, although he puts a bit of (emotional) pressure on the death eater, persuading him to transfer his lust (I don't believe it was true love) for Lily into a desire to protect her son.

You might not think Snape made the correct decision, but at least Rowling connected the dots and wrote of that decision; Snape's continuing allegiance to Dumbledore isn't one of her many errors.

It almost seemed every discussion I got into people were extra rude to Snape fans ... Fans of characters like Harry or whoever would automatically shoot you down if you even dared to offer some ideas and theories about the character of Snape.

Well, Snape's a nasty bloke and Harry's 'enemy' on all levels but the most important (!). And we don't know that they're on the same side of the big war until one of the last chapters of the entire series. So most readers - being on the side of the protagonist, the eponymous Harry Potter of the series - would therefore share Harry's dislike of Snape.

I think I've read the occasional post here and there which tries to make Snape out as a real goodie-goodie where he really wasn't. He was a murdering death eater (although maybe the 'murdering' part is fanon, not canon?). A pureblood bigot. A bad teacher (oh God, not another 200 comments off that observation!?!). He wanted Sirius kissed. Probably other stuff. Actually I'm not convinced right now that he did all he could to stop the Ministry invasion by the kids at the end of OotP.

But yeah, when it came down to the biggest issue, Snape doing the 'right thing', picking the right side of the war, I have to acknowledge that he was one of the good guys. Although Rowling's writing was just so bad, things were so confused and such a shambles, that realisation really made no emotional impact on me, I still can't really 'feel' it. There should have been a big OH MY GOD HE WAS ON OUR SIDE reaction from Harry which I don't think we ever got. But by that stage of DH I was totally disengaged, there was just so much failure in the pages before it.

But, thinking about it, that corny and horrible 'Albus Severus' thing ... okay, I see how Rowling was trying to make that point. Maybe. I mean, 'bravery' wouldn't have been the sole adjective I would have used to try and make her point, encapsulating the Snape-was-a-hero-of-the-war-after-all case in a single word.

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

Dumbledore doesn't *force* Snape to upgrade their pact, although he puts a bit of (emotional) pressure on the death eater, persuading him to transfer his lust (I don't believe it was true love) for Lily into a desire to protect her son.


I'd have to question that, considering as you feel the need to point out, Even though at that point Severus wasn't a death eater.

Because if it was only lust I don't believe he would ever go to that extreme for lust only. IF it was only lust all he had to do was either kidnap Lily, being that as you point out, He was a death eater. I doubt if that was Severus' only motive in reguards to Lily was lust then he certainly wouldn't have had any hesitation on kidnapping her - IF it was only lust and not some form of love. Plus IF it was only lust he could just make a polyjuice potion, kidnap any female and make her look like Lily. IF it was only lust. I think it had to be more than lust.


You might not think Snape made the correct decision, but at least Rowling connected the dots and wrote of that decision; Snape's continuing allegiance to Dumbledore isn't one of her many errors.

I don't know but you seem to want it both ways, everything was either bad about it or there was some truth in it. You're choosing to say she did XYZ exactly right for your point, but you're deciding not to agree on another point. And again, Dumbledore still failed. Severus even through his greef decided to still follow Dumbledore, and then in the end, He still got burned because Harry had to die. And STILL even after that he still followed through with is duty. At that point I think it was more than Lust or love, clearly my opinion. But I don't think it was only lust and I don't think it was only love at the end.

To me there is way more than just lust that canon is showing us about Snape.

Well, Snape's a nasty bloke and Harry's 'enemy' on all levels but the most important (!). And we don't know that they're on the same side of the big war until one of the last chapters of the entire series. So most readers - being on the side of the protagonist, the eponymous Harry Potter of the series - would therefore share Harry's dislike of Snape.

I was an adult when I got into the series, I never viewed it the way you are describing above, so I think you are speaking for yourself, not everyone who read the series saw it the way you're saying. I didn't see it as you are describing. I believed more would come of it than he was just a nasty bloke; so maybe you bought into Harry's POV, I didn't.

I think I've read the occasional post here and there which tries to make Snape out as a real goodie-goodie where he really wasn't. He was a murdering death eater (although maybe the 'murdering' part is fanon, not canon?). A pureblood bigot. A bad teacher (oh God, not another 200 comments off that observation!?!). He wanted Sirius kissed. Probably other stuff. Actually I'm not convinced right now that he did all he could to stop the Ministry invasion by the kids at the end of OotP.


I've never described snape as a goodie-goodie but I've seen pleanty of objective people get jumped on for no reason. All of your arguments against Snape can be true but there is pleanty of evidence to argue against all the points you make. Clearly they've been done to death and you should probably know by now what all the arguments are.

As far as the ministry goes, You seem to be taking Harry's line. Harry was fine with blaming everyone else but himself. I haven't seen many Harry fans really say, yep that was all Harry fault. There is always an excuse there for him that it was someone else who needed to be blamed. Or someone else who didn't do enough for Harry.

IF it's okay to excuse Harry's flaws in the Ministry battle not why not an excuse for Severus as well since it really wasn't his doing to go off to the ministry to try to save the world, which at that point didn't really need saving.

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

Because if it was only lust I don't believe he would ever go to that extreme for lust only.

I don't think Snape's feelings for Lily were lust-based, at least not solely. If they were, his feelings for her would have waned over the years since her death.

He knew her since they were nine years old, too young for him to be "lusting" after her in the sexual context. Obsessed with her, yes. Possessive, yes. Controlling, yes, at least he'd try to be.

But not "lust" per se.

I've never described snape as a goodie-goodie but I've seen pleanty of objective people get jumped on for no reason.

I've never met a Snape fan who ever saw him, or described him as, a "goodie-goodie"...

His character was ascerbic and nasty, he held onto grudges and took those grudges out on the children of the peers he perceived as having wronged him.

But he is also the most intelligent character in the series; and it turned out that he had the strongest moral compass of all the characters.

The reason we Snape fans like him so much is because he is such a flawed man; he is the most complex character in the series, and if Rowling could have created such complexity with the other characters, it would have been a truly great saga.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Dumbledore doesn't *force* Snape to upgrade their pact, although he puts a bit of (emotional) pressure on the death eater, persuading him to transfer his lust (I don't believe it was true love) for Lily into a desire to protect her son.

I'd have to question that, considering as you feel the need to point out, Even though at that point Severus wasn't a death eater.

Because if it was only lust I don't believe he would ever go to that extreme for lust only --

A bad choice of word; I'll retract it. Snape's ... affection ... for Lily may have been more than lust (which I see as purely physical. Like the attraction that comprises Harry/Ginny) but it fell short of sincere fair dinkum 'love'. If Snape had been fully 'in love' with Lily he would have wanted her to be HAPPY; that's one of the purest symptoms of real love, putting the other's happiness ahead of your own. And wanting Lily to be happy would have meant Snape desiring all three Potters to be saved. He goes to Dumbledore only begging for Lily's life.

But okay, bad word, I can accept Snape's affection/infatuation/crush as being more than simple physical attraction/lust.

I don't know but you seem to want it both ways, everything was either bad about it or there was some truth in it. You're choosing to say she did XYZ exactly right for your point, but you're deciding not to agree on another point.

There's no contradiction in what I said/believe at all. The HP series consists of many bits and pieces; some/most Rowling implemented badly. As a whole the series was a disaster. As a whole the last book was a catastrophe.

But you were discussing one specific item; the transition of Snape's reason to be loyal to Dumbledore. Initially a bargain to keep Lily safe, then transformed into an agreement to protect her son. That's something Rowling did actually address, quite clearly. OMG, she got something right!!!!! :-O

As far as the ministry goes, You seem to be taking Harry's line. Harry was fine with blaming everyone else but himself.

OotP is the only HP book I've read twice, but the last perusal was back in 2005. Hmmm. I think Harry has to shoulder most/all of the blame for that fiasco, what blame there is to go around. I mean, in the end he was a dupe of the dark lord, it's not like he *wanted* to put everyone in danger. But he was lazy, he'd deliberately not practised his Occlumency lessons, etc.

He would have dashed off without thought but then Hermione got him to try and contact Sirius. And they tipped off Snape. So - with Hermione's interference - he/they did try to take precautions.

I don't recall the couple of sentences where he tries to tell Snape what's happening - Umbridge is there too, right, they couldn't talk openly? - but I do wonder if Snape couldn't have done something - and done it sooner - to stop them from going. Maybe not.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

I think I've read the occasional post here and there which tries to make Snape out as a real goodie-goodie where he really wasn't. He was a murdering death eater (although maybe the 'murdering' part is fanon, not canon?). A pureblood bigot. A bad teacher (oh God, not another 200 comments off that observation!?!). He wanted Sirius kissed. Probably other stuff. Actually I'm not convinced right now that he did all he could to stop the Ministry invasion by the kids at the end of OotP.

1) We don't know what Snape did in the DEs except for spying. Nothing else is mentioned.

2) Since he was a halfblood, it would be kind of hard for him to be a pureblood bigot, unless you're suggesting his self-hatred extended to his own blood status. Again, we have no canonical indication of that. If you mean he must be pro-pureblood because he was a DE, that doesn't follow. We don't know why he joined them. Voldemort was running a cult, and cult recruiters are notoriously dishonest when they're trying to persuade somebody to join.

3) I agree Snape had no business being a teacher of young kids, or incompetent potioneers of any age. He would probably be a great teacher for older teens and adults who were good at potions and highly motivated to learn.

4) So what if he wanted Sirius Kissed? This was a man who had tried to get him horribly murdered, and still showed no remorse about that act. I'd want revenge on the bastard, too. Not to mention that Snape wanted Sirius Kissed, not for his own sake, but because he thought Sirius had gotten Lily killed.

You're also imposing your own cultural notions on the Potterverse. We may see Kissing as a fate worse than death, but in the Potterverse, it's a government-approved punishment. Sirius was guilty, of many crimes. We're not talking about "honor killing" an innocent woman for getting raped.

5) As for the kids at the Ministry scene--oh, for heaven's sake! You know nobody can tell Harry anything when he wants to go off half-cocked like that. Certainly not somebody he regards as an enemy such as Snape.

Severus' Undoubtible heroism, part 2 :)

[oryx_leucoryx]

I think I've read the occasional post here and there which tries to make Snape out as a real goodie-goodie where he really wasn't. He was a murdering death eater (although maybe the 'murdering' part is fanon, not canon?). A pureblood bigot. A bad teacher (oh God, not another 200 comments off that observation!?!). He wanted Sirius kissed. Probably other stuff. Actually I'm not convinced right now that he did all he could to stop the Ministry invasion by the kids at the end of OotP.

Sorry, disagree. There is no evidence he was a murdering DE, and an implication he actually never murdered anyone before killing Dumbles. It's part of the irony that permeates everything regarding Severus - he never killed for Voldemort as his master, the only known killing he performed was for Dumbles. He wasn't a pureblood bigot or even an Uncle Tom. After all, he was the half-blood Prince. Despite what Harry thinks, he never pretended to be pureblood, he always used his Muggle surname. He was as anti-Muggle as anyone else in the wizarding world, from Stan Shunpike to Albus Dumbledore with everyone else included. For a time he participated in the anti-Muggleborn discrimination (whether intentionally or not), but he put it behind him for good. That's heroic behavior - acknowledging one's sins and changing. How many people in the Potterverse do anything like that? (The only others I can think of are Draco and Percy, probably Horace, though to a lesser degree.) And by no means was he a bad teacher. He was an effective and successful teacher. He was a demanding teacher and a strict disciplinarian, neither of which is a sin. I had one very much like him - kids in my school took a while to adapt to him, but those who had him for more than one year ended up liking him, and we would have liked Severus too. Mind, we were 14 when we first encountered this Severus-impersonator.

Yes, he wanted Sirius kissed. Just like Harry wanted Peter. Based on what Severus knew at the moment it was the right thing to want for a mass murderer and traitor (assuming the legitimacy of dementor kiss as punishment). He does not take vigilantist action like Remus and Sirius were going to - he brings Sirius to the authorities. That the punishment the law offers for Sirius is unacceptable by our standards doesn't make Severus bad. His choices were to let the law be applied, take the law in his own hands or let a believed murderer go free. His choice was the best of the available ones, based on what he knew.

The OOTP stuff is hard to argue one way or the other because the timeline for that night is hopelessly broken. Even if we remove him from the equation altogether, the time it takes the kids to walk into the forest vs the time it takes them to fly to London makes no sense whatsoever so we can't argue if Severus had time to contact the Order a second time earlier or not. We do know he searched the forest for them at a time when the centaurs were in a very bad mood. (My personal fanwank was that when he went to his office he took some Felix - that's the only explanation to how he managed to time his warning to the Order so that the kids would be safe without arousing Tom's suspicions. He later told Tom that well, he had to warn the Order or Albus would suspect him, but he delayed as much as possible. Of course he expected Lucius et al to have completed their mission by then.)
Also hard to know with the broken timeline if he had time to come back to the office after talking to Sirius and before the kids left with Umbridge, but in that case he could have said that though he didn't have any Veritaserum on hand he did have this other Truth Serum - fed it to Harry - and have Harry fall unconscious (or start puking or whatever) - 'Sorry, Headmistress, this other Truth Serum looks exactly like Disabling Draught, got mixed up in the rush. Now I'll need to take him down to my office so I can figure out the antidote.' Maybe. But it doesn't seem like he had the time.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Personally I hate that Harry named his child after Severus, in fact he named all his kids after dead people. I think it's kind of lame honstly.

You might like livvy6's excellent story, Reflection. It contains a scene in which Harry's kids talk about how creepy it is that they were all named after dead people. Lily and James in particular are creeped out by having been named after a husband and wife when they're brother and sister. The story does an outstanding job of satirizing many fandom stereotypes, as well as carrying to a logical conclusion the idiocy of the crapilogue. You have to register to read it, since it contains explicit sex.
http://occlumency.sycophanthex.com/viewuser.php?uid=14915

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

IF Snape had really been evil and a all around bastard shouldn't he have called Dumbledore on that fact. Hay you SOB, we had a deal, so wouldn't Dumbledore in some way owe Severus more since Severus kept his end of the deal to the bitter end?

Gosh, I must be evil then, since I wanted Snape to do just that!

[lynn-waterfall.livejournal.com]

Er, no, that doesn't imply that. If Severus was evil, then he would have called Dumbledore on his utter failure. (p->q)

This isn't equivalent to the statement that someone who calls Dumbledore on his failure must be evil. (q->p) =/= (p->q)

I agree, though, that if Severus had been an all-around bastard, he wouldn't've agreed to protect Harry after Lily's death.

[karentheunicorn.livejournal.com]

Sorry guys, I didn't totally finish my comment, I was trying to cover to many points and didn't go back to reread it before I posted, becasue thats not exactly what I meant in terms of questioning Dumbledore means evil.

What I mean by evil, not that he would question Dumbledore, thats not evil. I was more thinking, IF Snape was a greedy lustful creature like some are describing he should have and would have held Dumbledore's feet to the fire - as in he'd want payment for his services. If that makes sense? He would have held it over DD's head and, you know used it against him to get what he(Severus) wanted. I could just see one of those greedy evil characters from some stories, getting all the goodies for being the spy, etc.

And I was also more thinking, Severus would have gotten even with Dumbledore for not following through on the deal they made. He wouldn't have helped Dumbledore or Harry, etc.. So not the part about him questioning Dumbledore, but I was thinking more if he was a vengful creature as described I would think he would have found a way to get even with Dumbledore for the failue.

sorry, didn't exactly make myself clear their with unfinished thoughts.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

But no, I never saw Snape as a hero, not for an instant. Because he's a nasty son of a gun, I guess,

As I've pointed out elsewhere, Snape is very similar to Sherlock Holmes, another character who is a royal jerk on many occasions, but has nonetheless been an icon of virtue and heroism for 120 years.

I guess this makes you Snape fans more in approval of Rowling's writing than I thought, since she made a point of Harry's calling his son 'Severus' to honour the man's bravery.

Ick. He also named his kid after Scumbledore, the man who abused and brainwashed him and set him up to die. He married Ginny. IOW, I don't think Harry's judgment is very good. ;-)

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

He married Ginny.

'Nuff said.

:-)

Severus' Undoubtible heroism, part 1 :)

[oryx_leucoryx]

OK, to this I must respond:

But no, I never saw Snape as a hero, not for an instant. Because he's a nasty son of a gun, I guess, and also because Rowling puts up the crush on Lily as the sole reason/motivation for his siding with Dumbledore. And that excuse just fails miserably. Mix that in with all the rest of Rowling's stupidity - Dumbledore conveniently keeping the details of Snape's allegiance a secret, thus artificially pumping up the mystery, but making the story a crock in the process, for example - and yeah, any 'heroism' of Snape's got lost with the rest of the bad writing, for me.

So what if Severus is a most unpleasant person? Why does that detract from his heroism? So he insults people (never without cause, BTW) - big deal. But he never tortures anyone, definitely not for petty reasons like Harry with Amycus. Nor does he commit any other crimes for revenge or profit or anything of the like. We don't know what he did as a DE, though Dumbles implies he never killed anyone himself. (There is also the evidence of Bellatrix and Igor who aren't particularly impressed with his record). And from the moment of his return he sticks to not only the anti-Voldemort side but also to looking out for all innocents, especially the children at the school - much better than Dumbles does (or any of the other teachers) - see evidence in POA and GOF. He takes risks beyond anyone else on the anti-Tom side for longer than anyone else.

The reasons I see Severus as the most heroic character in the series is not just because he is brave but because he does the right thing in face of not only physical danger but also in face of knowledge that everyone on the 'good' side will despise him for it, even in face of possibly irrevocably damaging his soul (I don't think he found Albus' rhetoric convincing). He is willing to take risks on so many levels with no real chance of benefit for a cause he believes in. I notice it more when I compare him to Harry in GOF (the book I am currently sporking, as you might notice), because there are several instances where what Harry fears the most isn't injury or death but ridicule. In fact Harry can be pushed to risk death or serious injury with the threat of potential ridicule - which is just the lesson we *don't* want kids to learn. Severus (and Draco) faces *hard* choices, where no option is good or desirable and does well. That's something Harry never has to deal with. Severus grows and learns, Harry never has to rethink anything. If Severus isn't heroic then nobody in the Potterverse is.

(And to bring up Severus' love for Lily - I have no idea if he expected to be able to have Lily if somehow she lived and James died. Of course he presented that as his case to Voldemort, but this does not mean he wanted Lily to live for himself. This is not known, whatever Dumbles says in his manipulative speech. He had to talk to Voldemort in terms that made sense in Voldemort's context and didn't paint Severus as disloyal or regretful in any way. The only way he could have asked Voldemort for anyone besides Lily was if he said he wanted James to know that he had taken Lily or something along those lines. As Lynn said, when he went to Dumbles he must have realized that if Lily were to be protected chances were James would be too. Severus was in no state to contradict Dumbles anyway, and such argument would have been counterproductive. As usual, Severus had his priorities right - get the old man to understand the danger to his own soldiers, don't contradict him about anything no matter how humiliating to oneself. As for the rest of his life from that moment on - I say his actions in all books speak to him having moved well beyond 'saving Harry for Lily's sake' by the time of Harry's arrival at the school, whatever he says to Dumbles. Because several times he acts to save people when he doesn't know Harry is involved at all or shows frustration at inability to save unknown people.)

Re: Severus' Undoubtible heroism, part 1 :)

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Snape might have been a hero but it wasn't for a very lengthy period of time. He was a (murdering? Can you tell me where his NOT being a killer is 'implied'?) death eater for a lot longer.

He fronts up to Dumbledore, asks to have Lily protected - well, okay, then, all the Potters, if you insist, then - remains a death eater, Voldemort gets zapped. Snape's then let off the hook, he's not sent to Azkaban, he's protected by Dumbledore, he spends the next 14 years being nasty to children, no dark lord to worry about.

Then Riddle returns and Snape starts the spying.

he does the right thing in face of not only physical danger but also in face of knowledge that everyone on the 'good' side will despise him for it

Artificially exaggerated by Rowling's contrived plot - where no-one knew of Snape's true allegiance other than Dumbledore - to a ridiculous degree even - but true enough.

In fact Harry can be pushed to risk death or serious injury with the threat of potential ridicule

Harry's an idiot many times, but (a) that doesn't make Snape a hero, and (b) Harry *does* do some heroic things too, you know.

As Lynn said, when he went to Dumbles he must have realized that if Lily were to be protected chances were James would be too.

No. Your "he must have realised" is just waving your hands over the sentences in that scene and wishing very very hard for an alternative, more favourable interpretation. I've just replied to Lynn; while I wish Dumbledore hadn't kept interrupting the death eater I think it's clear enough that Snape didn't care at all about the male Potters. Which puts him a couple of notches south of fully caring for dear Lily.

I say his actions in all books speak to him having moved well beyond 'saving Harry for Lily's sake' by the time of Harry's arrival at the school, whatever he says to Dumbles.

For me, the 'whatever he says to Dumbles' is much clearer than these actions you speak of (perhaps because I don't have your masterful memory of the canon). His wanting to exact murderous revenge on Sirius is clear in my mind though. :-)

He was an effective and successful teacher.

No way. His treatment of Harry and Neville, his bias against the Gryffindors, etc, all damn him as a teacher. What was the scene were he deliberately drops Harry's potion on the floor, then giving him zero marks? Teacher, Bad, meet Severus Snape.

Re: Severus' Undoubtible heroism, part 1 :)

[oryx_leucoryx]

Snape might have been a hero but it wasn't for a very lengthy period of time. He was a (murdering? Can you tell me where his NOT being a killer is 'implied'?) death eater for a lot longer.

I consider his heroism to have lasted the entire 7 years of book!canon. The time between his leaving of school and his turning to Albus, which includes all time he had available to be a full-time DE was probably 2.5 years. Questioning Quirrellmort about where his loyalties lied, running to the Shack to face a werewolf about to transform in order to save hundreds of innocent children, rushing to save an unknown other from probable torture in the middle of the night (The Egg and the Eye) are all heroic acts.

The not being a killer is implied by: a) his concern for his own soul b) Albus' response to said concern c) Albus asking him about people he had *seen* die. Albus implied he agrees Severus' soul is yet intact at the time of their conversation, and the choice of asking Severus about people he saw die implies that's as close as he got to acts of murder.

His wanting to exact murderous revenge on Sirius is clear in my mind though. :-)

No, he wanted safety for the kids and justice for himself. If he'd been after revenge Sirius wouldn't have arrived alive and with his soul intact to the castle.

What was the scene were he deliberately drops Harry's potion on the floor, then giving him zero marks?

Ahem, we don't know why that potion fell. And as I'm learning now that my daughter is in middle-school, zero marks for work that isn't in at the right time may be a matter of policy. I find no (or very little) unfairness to Harry, nor bias against Gryffindors in general. I read the situation with Neville as a tragic misunderstanding due to Severus not being aware of Neville's great-uncle Algie and other 'helpful' relatives.

Re: Severus' Undoubtible heroism, part 1 :)

[majorjune.livejournal.com]

He was a (murdering? Can you tell me where his NOT being a killer is 'implied'?) death eater for a lot longer.

Can you show us where Snape actually committing murder is shown/stated?

Snape says something to Dumbledore along the lines of not being able to save people that Voldemort or other DEs have killed, and Bellatrix is quite strident about Snape always seeming to get out of doing any of the "dirty work"...

Snape's services for Voldemort seem to have been more organizational, political, undercover, and probably inventive (new spells and potions), than as an in-the-trenches grunt.

he spends the next 14 years being nasty to children

And was quite obviously the most effective Hogwarts staff member or OotP member in actually protecting the children entrusted to his care.

His wanting to exact murderous revenge on Sirius is clear in my mind though. :-)

A quite understandable emotion, considering that Black tried to kill Snape (or at least get him severely maimed and potentially turned into a werewolf) when they were students, and Black was seen as the Potters' betrayer and the immediate cause of Voldemort's being able to find them, and Black had not done anything during his long years in Azkaban to try to prove his innocence.

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

My friend Sionna_Raven and also Rexluscus have argued persuasively about what Snape's dedication to Lily really shows.

Can you provide a link, please? I'd love to read those essays.

I really like this discussion, btw. You are all so clear on exactly why Harry isn't a hero. Personally, I find it disgusting that the boy gets away with torture and compulsion/brainwashing, yet will not kill his enemy.

Thank you. I respect your opinion, so I'm flattered by to have your approval. What do you mean by compulsion/brainwashing? I don't remember that.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Hi! I'm pretty sure that what Sionna_Raven said was in a comment to an essay of mine - it might be on Snapedom somewhere. But, basically, to paraphrase her, she said that Snape's "obsessive love" for Lily was not stalkerish; he wasn't holding a torch for her; he was REPENTANT. And Lily was his guiding star morally. That's what the silver doe really shows.

Rexluscus says something rather similar here:

http://rexluscus.livejournal.com/254445.html

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

Oh dear, I hope I didn't come across as big-headed or anything when I said that, I'm just a HP fan like anyone else here. It's just that I'm delighted when I come across new ideas, insights I never saw, even after all these years in the fandom. (That's why I like this community.) I love it when I can add a good meaty point to my arsenal of arguments. :-) Because I've been in the fandom for 7 years (which makes me a novice compared to many here) the pace of oh-my-gosh-I-never-saw-that epiphanies has slowed down a lot. I got excited when I read your post. :-)

No, I was referring to the fact I come from an emotionally abusive family, so I'm used to being told I'm stupid and/or crazy. Having someone tell me my ideas are great is still a rare pleasure.

BTW, I only entered the fandom 2 years ago.