but why do you say that I am mad?

[cahn]

Had a number of heated Potter-centric conversations in RL this weekend, which is kind of weird for me. I found out that of the 5 people I talked to,

2 think the text says Snape is clearly evil
2 think there is no good textual evidence either way (although one of these two agrees with me that the first four books were written assuming Snape was good, and meta-textually she thinks it would be very unsatisfying if Snape were evil).
1 thinks Snape must be good, although mostly because she really likes Snape

I think the text clearly supports Snape being good, though I will valiantly try to resist spending too much bandwidth on it. I think I am fairly unbiased here, as I'm going to be unhappy either way, as it basically means assuming either Voldemort is a complete idiot (if Snape is good), or that Dumbledore and Snape are both complete idiots (if Snape is evil). (Why, after all, would Snape do an idiotic thing like show Fudge his Dark Mark in Book 4, or give Harry Occlumency advice (instead of, say, throwing Sectusempra) at the end of Book 6?) However, given Voldemort's previous idiotic actions, I suppose I'm more inclined to believe that he's the idiot here.

I realize this LJ is becoming increasingly Potter-centric... I do read/think about/do other things, really! ...I promise, sometime in the next month or so, a post on Sarah Waters (perhaps a couple), St. Paul, and The Magic Flute. Hm. Perhaps not all at the same time :) Also, someday I will read the new Bujold and rant about it.

Comments

[joyce.livejournal.com]

I want Snape to be good, because I want to believe in Dumbledore (Dear D. - if you'd just TOLD PEOPLE why you keep believing in Snape... when the fate of the world is at hand, why would you keep that a secret? Ahem.) Lately I've been mentally entertaining the idea that Snap is simply chaotic neutral, and is doing whatever benefits himself, regardless of whether it also benefits good or evil.

[ase.livejournal.com]

I think Darth Snape will prove to be on the side of the angels and die in the process. Also, I expect the internet to be increasingly overrun with HP content this month, so your journal is par for the course.

Also, someday I will read the new Bujold and rant about it.

Oh, please do. I'm interested to see how other readers react to a book I didn't like that much. (This is may be the start of a painful breakup with my HC Bujold habit.)

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Dumbledore is basically Driving Me Nuts, what with his annoying habit of never actually telling ANYONE anything they need to know. The list I could make of people and things he should have informed (maybe McGonagall should have know something? Maybe Harry should know a heck of a lot more than he does about oh, just about everything??) is very, very long.

I would love it if Snape is, as you say, chaotic neutral. This, to me, would be the most consistent explanation for all his actions. However, I suspect this is not going to be the case.

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

I'm with you mostly, although I am betting on Darth Pettigrew rather than Darth Snape. (Hmm, that's a really weird mental picture.)

Yeah, based on you and others I'm convinced enough I won't love Legacy that I've been kind of dragging my feet about it... but I will get to it. Probably right after this current round of RL madness, which is scheduled to end at the end of July (I'm a bit worried about Book 7 interfering with this...:) )

I feel like Bujold keeps trying to experiment with her writing, which I thoroughly approve of, but with really, really mixed results. Curse of Chalion was an experiment that played to her strengths and was a resounding success, at least with me. Hallowed Hunt was not. The Sharing Knife books are, I feel like, her experimenting with the romance genre, to which my response is all, "okay, you've done it, now please don't do it again, you are so not playing to your strengths."

[nolly.livejournal.com]

I am in agreement with the person in parentheses -- the textual evidence is ambiguous overall, but he did not appear evil in the first several books.

Also, the quote in my last post is All Your Fault because I found it in the Johnson US history tome you recommended. I think something else recently was also your fault, but I can't remember what right now. :)

[julianyap.livejournal.com]

I tend to agree with you that although the text itself is, (deliberately, I think) unclear, the meta-textual evidence is that Snape is good.

I think it is difficult to make any judgments on either Dumbledore or Voldemort being idiots because, well, honestly they are, at least in terms of their decision making process.

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

Yeah, although I am betting he will turn out to be good, I definitely think Rowling thought he was good in books 1-4, whatever the actual outcome may be.

hee! Always happy to be at fault when it involves books :)

[charlie-ego.livejournal.com]

(Hi!)

Yeah, to me the very unclearness of the text indicates to me that he must be good, otherwise why mince words at this point? Especially since all the characters think Snape is evil.

One of these conversations (one of the Snape-is-evil ones, if you care) pointed out to me that Voldemort is an egomaniac, which explains a lot of his poor decision-making processes. Dumbledore... has no excuse. He's just a poor pawn of the author's, I think.