On Jul 19, 2005, at 7:34 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
[Yep, spoilers]
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
Jim Sharkey wrote:
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
P
A
C
E
Snape is revealed.
Is he? I think Ms. Rowling *still* left enough wiggle room for
>>Severus not to be the bad guy. Yes, he did kill Dumbledore, but
there are signs both in that scene and in Harry's pursuit of him
that suggest there's more to it than "Snape is on the Dark Side."
This isn't a Lucasian world where a single act of good can redeem a
murder (a la Vader at the end of RotJ). And Snape, unlike Draco,
*chose* to take on the task should Malfoy prove unable. He elected
to take the oath; he wasn't under anyone's compulsion. I don't
think there's any way to recover from that.
This is true. However, I think it's clear that Snape may have been
told to do whatever it takes to stay in Voldemort's inner circle.
*And* Dumbledore's pleading with Snape could just as easily have been
him pleading for Snape to do what was necessary to save Malfoy and his
family. Not to mention that it was just as possible that even Snape
couldn't take on four Death Eaters, meaning if he tried to save Albus
all that would have happened was that everyone (including Dumbledore)
would have died pointlessly.
I see your point, and it'll be interesting to see if it resolves that
way or not. It could break either direction, really.
Finally, his "parting shot" to Harry: "Blocked again and again and
again, Potter, until you learn to keep your mouth shut and your mind
closed." Sounds like good advice to me. And while Voldemort is
supposed to kill Harry, as Snape points out, why not stun him and
bring him to the Dark Lord rather than let him go? Voldy already
proved he's not above having Harry served up on a platter in GoF.
Might have been a little too inconvenient to be dragging him along for
his disapparition, perhaps, or just one of those things that bad guys
do for plot convenience.
You've got an interesting outlook, and as I was thinking about it
before I remembered Dumbledore's pleading tone as well and got to
wondering what exactly it meant. Did he paralyze Harry to save him from
being torched by the Death Eaters, or to stop him from interfering in
something he knew had to be done?
--
Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books
http://books.nightwares.com/
Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror"
http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
