Be sure to read Part 1 for my overall introduction to the book.
“The Case for Snape’s Innocence” is the far better half of the book, in my opinion. Made up of 5 essays that parallel the five from “The Case for Snape’s Guilt,” it presents a fairly thorough examination of the evidence for Good Snape. (The 6th essay, “Who is Snape?” by Orson Scott Card, is really a stand-alone essay, deserving of its own post, which I plan to write subsequent to this one). I cannot possibly cover everything that this part of the book covered. I’ll only address the points of particular interest to me.
Joyce Millman’s essays are particularly strong once again. She links Snape to many other tragic heroes in literature (pp. 33-36), and in one of the stronger sections of this half of the book, argues that Snape fits the “shapeshifter” archetype (pp. 16-18). Millman’s ability to set Snape’s story and “redemptive path” into an overall literary context is the most important part of “The Case for Snape’s Innocence.” Chapter 2, “Snape the Hero,” is brilliant literary analysis, focusing particularly on the consequences of the shame Snape has been forced to bear throughout his life.
Prior to reading “The Case for Snape’s Innocence,” I never gave much attention to Snape-Lily theories. It almost seemed too easy. But aside from the out-of-the-blue Lupin-Tonks subplot, Rowling’s romance has been really easy to guess. And while it’s quite out of the question that Lily ever fell for Snape, I’m not exactly sure how Snape could have not fallen for Lily at some point in their teenage years. (Millman discusses Lily on pp. 22-24).
Millman makes a point (can’t find the page #) that has intrigued me since HBP – that Snape is capable of romantic feelings, even if he doesn’t show it. I agree with the assessment, and have done since I read HBP, that there was something deeper happening in Snape’s kind interaction with Narcissa in “Spinner’s End.” I’m not of the opinion that there’s some sort of “Snape loves Narcissa” thing going on, but I do think that their interaction reveals a capability in Snape to at least care for someone in that way.
In any event, we need to consider just how traumatic an unrequited love for Lily would have been for Snape. Brutally picked on, abused (at least emotionally and verbally, if not physically), and bullied by James, Lily’s defense of him must have been an astounding thing for Snape. Someone finally saw James for the bully he was. Millman makes the point well that, apart from Snape’s “mudblood” comment, which makes sense in the context (Snape trying to save face after being hung upside down and saved by a girl), Snape never insults Lily throughout the entire series. Not once when bullying Harry does he say anything bad about Lily – always about James, but never about Lily. And to have Lily fall for James would have been devastating for a young, teenage Snape. Take all the melodrama you witness from teens about their “love lives,” and put it in the context of someone with as miserable a life as Snape. Trauma. Rejection. One rejection too many, I’d say.
In any event, I’m not going to give the entire argument away. If Good Snape is going to fly, some justification, or at least reasonable explanation, is going to have to be given for Snape’s bullying abuse of students. The essays do a fairly good job of putting Snape’s pedagogy in context, and, while not excusing it, making it seem at least reasonable that Snape could be the bully he is and still wind up on the side of Dumbledore. (I’d argue that “The Case of Snape’s Innocence” is a bad term, as all the authors agree that Snape is not a completely “innocent” person by any stretch.)
They essays also take into account the various nuances and the complexity to Snape’s character, which is exceedingly helpful. Snape doesn’t fit nicely into any camp, and Millman, Berner, and Card all admit to varying possibilities within a Good Snape reading.
As far as weaknesses go, each author pretty much follows the standard “Snape killed Dumbledore on Dumbledore’s orders” argument, which I don’t buy without some serious qualifications. I still have a hard time believing that Dumbledore would command the use of an unforgivable curse. This is why some version of Stoppered Death needs to be added into the theory; otherwise, you get terrible character inconsistency with Dumbledore.
Again, there was the occasional tendency to re-tell the story that we already know, this time from a Good Snape bias. Chapter 3, “The Life of Severus Snape: Maligned and Misunderstood” (Berner) is somewhat guilty of this charge.
You will indeed enjoy, once again, the little vignettes provided by Millman, my favorite of which is a list of songs found on Snape’s iPod (p. 57).
After reading “The Case for Snape’s Guilt,” I did not plan a strong recommendation of the book. The excellent analysis in “The Case for Snape’s Innocence” changes that. I do highly recommend the book, particularly for those who want a good, basic, but nuanced introduction to the Snape debate. I remain disappointed that a more solid case for Evil Snape was not presented. This is the book’s most glaring weakness, and as such, it does fail to some extent in its attempt to present a solid case for either side. I don’t know where each of the authors officially stands on Snape, but I’d be willing to bet (they can correct me in the comments if they read this) that they lean towards Good Snape. The book would have been a better contribution to the debate had each side been written by a true believer of their position (In other words, let an Evil Snape advocate write that half, and a Good Snape advocate the other half) rather than having the same authors contribute to both sides.
It’s a quick read. Millman’s literary analysis and Orson Scott Card’s 20+ page essay are worth the time you’ll spend on it. It’s also a helpful summary to reacquaint yourself with the Snape issue if you’ve gotten to this point in the year and have no idea how you’re going to cram a re-read of the previous 6 books into less than two months.
revgeorge on 
Arabella Figg on 
Fricka on 
Lynn on 
Steve Morrison on 
Ally on 
Joivre on 
Loading ...
{ 64 comments… read them below or add one }
OK, since everyone else is still sleeping, I’ll do it.
Travis, thanks for the review, I can’t buy the book where I live and your summary is very helpful.
I agree that Dumbledore wouldn’t command the use of an unforgivable curse and find it hard to buy all the theories suggesting that the killing was planned all along. This would really diminish Dumbledore’s character and everything that he stands for as the representation of goodness. Yet on the Astronomy Tower he was pleading, he wasn’t giving an order, which makes the scene appear in a different light.
I do believe that Snape did what Dumbledore asked him to do. It’s a difficult issue, of course, but I’m confident that Rowling will give us an explanation that preserves Dumbledore’s, and hopefully Snape’s, moral integrity.
Good review, Travis. I feel that we’ve already thoroughly analyzed most of these topics thoroughly on this site, a million monkeys with a million keyboards kind of thing, although not as comprehesively, although your gentle insistence that people stick to the theme of a thread helps organize us somewhat.
You’re not bad at herding cats, as they say.
The one new thing I hear is about Snape having some kind of feeling for Narcissa. I can see it, especially the touching of the hands – when has Snape ever touched anyone before, except perhaps to hit them?
As Mia pointed out, Dumbledore doesn’t command Snape on the Astronomy Tower, he pleads with him. Assuming that he is pleading with him to AK him – and not to not AK him as it were – then we need to ask ourselves, what emergency could have been dire enough that Dumbledore would plead with someone to perform an Unforgiveable Curse on him? To my mind, Dumbledore knew that he needed to be AK’d asap.
I don’t know why everyone is thinking there is no way, ever, that Lily Evans might have had a thing for Severus Snape. Is it the hygiene thing? Or is the old promiscuity thing, and that as Harry’s mother she’s got to be as pure as Caesar’s wife?
BTW, if this book can make a reasonable case for Snape’s bullying, or putting his pedagogy in context, then they have turned water to wine and deserve what shekels they can earn.
But honestly T., how many people on this site need a good basic intro to this stuff? Look up erudite, articulate and passionate speculation in the dictionary, and you see SoG.
I too remember when reading the “Spinner’s End” chapter, getting the distinct feeling that there was something more to Snape’s interaction with Narcissa than was meeting th eye. I think it was his gentleness with Narcissa juxtaposed with his handling of Bellatrix. I’ll have to read that chapter again to see if I have any further revelations.
Has it been discussed whether there is ANY chance that Narcissa was somehow related (I use that word not solely in the sense of blood relation) to Lily and Petunia…the flower name just throws me, I guess.
Reyhan, I hear you. I kind of chuckled to myself even as I wrote the words, “I recommend this as an intro.” It really is a good intro, at least to the Good Snape side, and there are some well-argued points…but how many people who know anything about the Snape debate really need an intro two months before the release of DH?
Thanks for your kind words.
Margaret, if you check the Black Family Tree, you’ll see that “Dorea Black” married a “Charles Potter,” so there may be something really distant by marriage. I’m not sure that would be significant enough, though. Purebloods wouldn’t have married into a muggle family, so there’s certainly no connection to the Evanses.
Could it be that part of our reaction involves the fact that Good!Snape is a much more fun argument to work with? Evil!Snape seems so easy and straightforward. Good!Snape variants are a challenge for those of us who like to (over)think about problems!
I, too, fell like I need to reread the first two chapters of HBP. They are the only instances in the whole series where Rowling violates her narrator’s perspective. I can’t help but think they’re leading us to some ideas about both Snape and the Muggle world and their involvement in VoldWar II.
Dave,
Goblet of Fire starts with a different narrative perspective also.
Matthew
Korg, that’s true. I forgot about the murder of the groundskeeper. I guess these stick out because they are so vitally important to the plot of HBP. The opening of GoF is tied into the story in a manner that is wrapped up in the end of the text.
The other two sections just stick out to me.
Travis, when I read your review, which is very helpful, BTW, I thought the same thing as everyone else. We’ve discussed this so much, and I’ve heard the Snape/Narcissa connection before. I am currently re-reading HBP, and read Spinner’s End more carefully than ever; there is a distinct difference in the way Snape treats Narcissa compared to the way he treats anyone else. (And of course, we don’t know how he treated Lily except the brief glimpse we had when he was a humiliated teenager.)
But with Narcissa it could be there was something there–either a love interest, or just the fact that he’s spent so much time cultivating a friendship with Lucius, which would extend to Narcissa and Draco by long association. But when he opens the door and finds her there, his reaction seems to be an honest one–that he is truly glad to see her.
So interesting stuff. I’m probably still going to pass on the book, though. It doesn’t sound like there is really anything new enough to make me want to buy it. I agree that it’s too bad they didn’t find some Snape Is Evil believers to write that side. I’ve read some things that people have written that can be very compelling about Evil Snape. But then I come to my senses, and snap out of it. *wink*
Pat
Yes, Spinner’s End is different, it’s the only chapter where we don’t see Snape through Harry’s eyes. Even his looks are described in a neutral way, without all the greasiness and ugliness that’s normally attributed to him.
I didn’t notice any signs of romance between Narcissa and Snape, I think he felt sorry for her and wanted to help. The woman was really desperate, after all, and had nowhere else to turn.
I do wonder, though – since when does Snape “feel sorry” for anyone?
Maybe Snape feels sorry for people more often than we think. 1) We have the “Harry-filter”, and 2) we only really see him in classroom and ordinary school settings. He has no room for pity towards students that, in his mind, don’t work hard enough or don’t have thick skins. He is a vicious teacher most of the time, but perhaps after all he’s been through he sees no reason to pity children for day to day worries and woes that are so mild in comparrison to his childhood problems. He sees their problems as ten times less than what he ever had and thus doesn’t give them much thought. That’s how I think he justifies his harshness. Sort of like Moody’s brutal honesty about life, but he doesn’t have the care to comfort as well as chastise.
It reminds me of a passage I read in history class a month ago. It was written by some historical king (forgot which) in a letter written to his son’s assigned guardian. The king wrote urging the guardian to beat the son often, and explained that he was concerned that he hadn’t heard of any whipping. Having been soundly beaten frequently as a child himself, the king believed that it was what is best for punishing naughty children since he himself turned out fantastic (in his mind, of course).
As far as sympathy goes, I think one particular instance that stands out for me is how Snape reacts when they hear a woman (later revealed to be Trelawney) scream during Occlumency and he rushes outside to have a look. Vague, and possibly just a reaction of curiosity, but it is still some sort of alarm over a cry.
And, again, I’m not supporting Snape’s verbal abuse, I’m just attempting to see how he percieves it, if at all.
Well, he doesn’t strike me as the most compassionate person, but he isn’t unresponsive of other people’s suffering. He made the potion for Lupin so, that he didn’t have to suffer and he immediately stopped the other DEs from torturing Harry. When someone really is in trouble, I think he does help.
Oh God. No sooner does someone humanize Snape a tad, then we’re all over it with examples of his decency. I say “we” because I nearly wrote what Shadowquill wrote.
We are so ready to welcome him to the Good side with open arms.
Where’s S_B when he need him?
I agree with the observation that Snape treated Narcissa quite differently than we have seen him treat other people in the books. But I did not pick up any romance there – it seemed to me more that he has had a long association (friendship?) with the Malfoys and genuinely likes Draco and Narcissa.
At any rate, he seems to like them much more than he does Pettigrew or Bellatrix. Both get pretty much typical sarcastic abuse from Snape in Spinner’s End.
I have often wondered whether Snape/Narcissa is some kind of foreshadowing of a Snape/Lily conversation that we will learn about. If there was any kind of friendship or love there, it’s hard to believe that Snape wouldn’t have tried to talk to Lily before her death.
Yeah,
S_B hasn’t been raising his head recently. He’s missed for sure! He based on many of his arguements on comments by Rowling in interviews and on another thread it was really hammered that Rowling is too elusive in her comments to be conclusive.
Anyway, when I read HBP the first time I thought we were getting a Harry-Snape reconcilliation during one of the occlumancy lessons. There definately seemed to be a softening from Snape towards Harry.
Also, I don’t think Snape’s occlumancy lessons did anything harsher to Harry than Lupin’s patronus lessons did. Harry was laid out in both a few times. Both encouraged Harry to do better – Snape used negative and Lupin positive encouragement.
I think it interestingly balanced how Harry couldn’t learn fron Snape in person one-to-one but was able to learn from The Half-Blood Prince ie. when he didn’t know it was Snape.
Matthew
Travis and Mia, I agree with you that Dumbledore would not be Dumbledore, if Snape had killed him with the AK on his own orders. Although I like the Stoppered Death theory, because it would explain a lot, I can’t believe that Dumbledore was already dead during Book 6. And if he was alive, as I believe and as he himself says (“Had it not been – forgive me the lack of seemly modesty – for my own prodigious skill, and for Professor Snape’s timely action when I returned to Hogwarts, desperately injured, I might not have lived to tell the tale.â€), the theory doesn’t work anymore, at least for me.
Assuming an essential-good-Snape (as I do) and considering Dumbledore’s character, it is hard work to imagine some satisfying solution for what happened on the Astronomy Tower. Yet, I enjoy this kind of work! My favorite theory for the time being is:
Dumbledore was already dying (from the curse on the ring? from the potion in the cave? from the lake water in the cave?) He wanted to save Snape from death of the Unbreakable Vow and place him in Voldemort’s inner circle to help Harry fulfill his task to vanquish Voldemort. No news, so far. Dumbledore indeed ordered – and in the end pleaded with – Snape to kill him with the AK, because he was sure that Snape would NOT succeed. Like Harry, Snape has not “got the nerve or the ability†for Unforgivables. His soul is probably not “untarnished and whole†as Harry’s is, but he is a “disabled†former Death Eater. Dumbledore knows this – for whatever reason – and therefore trusts him completely. He knows that Snape’s soul will not be harmed by what he asks from him. But Snape doesn’t know. Like everybody else, he is convinced that he really killed Dumbledore, and thus feels “as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning houseâ€.
Well, we all know that Dumbledore is DEFINITELY dead. My ideas are getting quite poor at this point of the story. I think, he still lived when Harry found him at the foot of the tower. I don’t believe Hagrid knew anything about Dumbledore’s plan. But probably one or two others did know (Dobby? Aberforth?) and assisted him. Probably he still had some affairs to order and then voluntarily left his body in the form of the phoenix that flew “joyfully into the blueâ€.
I admit, it is not very likely that things happened like this, but I just love the idea of Harry diving into Dumbledore’s pensieve and discovering Dumbledore’s memory of that moment on the tower when he was supposed to have died.
Reyhan, I like your question about Lily, Snape and “the hygiene thing†so much!
To me ist seems much likelier that Lily had romantic feelings for Snape than Snape had for Narcissa. In Spinner’s End, I always see him as a brilliant and cunning spy at work, who legilimenced Draco’s task out of her eyes when she finally looked at him and “his black eyes were fixed upon Narcissa’s tear-filled blue onesâ€.
Wouldn’t Snape, having made an unbreakable vow to help Draco, have keeled over dead on the tower if Dumbledore wasn’t killed?
Matthew
I’m not convinced that there’s any explanation for the Astronomy Tower needed, beyond the question korg20000bc asks. When Snape arrived on the top of the tower, there were two possible outcomes:
If Snape defends Dumbledore…
- Dumbledore dies anyway from the potion, the Death Eaters, or the werewolf.
- Snape dies from the Vow
- Draco in big trouble with Voldemort.
If Snape kills Dumbledore…
- Dumbledore dies from the AK
- Snape lives
- Draco lives, and can be protected by Snape.
It’s not a very pretty choice, but plainly Dumbledore is dead in both versions. Dumbledore prefers the second set of outcomes, and he pleads with Snape to make the necessary hard choice.
It may also be worth noting that Dumbledore’s final action was to take Harry out of the equation. Harry is frozen and hidden – he will live in either scenario. So he need not factor into the decision Snape needs to make.
Matthew, I think it depends on how the Unbreakable Vow works. Draco had already “failed†on two attempts to kill Dumbledore (necklace, wine) without Snape dropping dead. If the vow requires that all three participants (including Bellatrix as witness) agree that it is fulfilled, then this might work …
I think that Draco had failed finally to kill Dumbledore on the tower top. He realised that he couldn’t murder Dumbledore.
Snape vowed that if Draco failed that he would complete the task.
I don’t think there is any question that Snape needed to act then to fulfill the vow… or die.
Matthew
I think Draco would definitely have “failed” had he not killed Dumbledore on the tower. The necklace and the wine were purposefully riddled with potential failure. Draco was afraid. If those failed, it wouldn’t be a big deal, because each of those failures were only indirect. On the tower, Draco met Dumbledore alone, wandless, and weak. No matter how you look at it, if he couldn’t do it then, he could never do it. Once he had the best opportunity to check-mate the king and failed to take it, it is a true failure. At least, that’s my opinion of the situation. Therefore, Draco definitely failed because he’d reached the most opportune moment imaginable. (can you picture the situation being any easier for him to accomplish his task? Ok, so maybe having Dumbledore bound and gagged would have helped too…)
*oops! What I meant to say is Draco definitely did “fail” to kill Dumbledore on the tower. (Not would have failed…hah!)
You know, sometimes I overlook the simplest points…
Yes, ultimately, there is a loophole in the argument: Snape would have died had he not killed Dumbledore. Hence, it is conceivable that Dumbledore would order Snape to kill him, as Albus would be choosing Snape’s life over his own (which is very consistent with Dumbledore’s character).
If Snape hadn’t done it, then Greyback would, he could hardly restrain himself. And things would really have turned nasty on the Astronomy Tower. I don’t believe Snape could have rescued both Harry and Draco in that case. I’m pretty sure that Snape saw the second broomstick (just like Draco), and knew what it meant and who was there under his Invisibility Cloak. He’s noticed it before (in GoF), and as we all know, Snape can count two and two together like no other.
Whether Snape would have died, had he not killed Dumbledore, depends on what he exactly he swore to Narcissa. And what Dumbledore asked of him, depends on whether he knew about the UV. But he certainly cared for the two boys and would have died any time in order to save his students. I noticed that Dumbledore’s eyes were closed and he looked almost as if he was sleeping, when he was dead.
His expression was peaceful. He must have closed his eyes after his plea, so I assume that he died conscious that the boys would be save at Snape’s hands.
I am tempted by the argument that Snape had to kill DD (and DD wanted him to kill him) because DD was dying anyways and both Draco and Snape would have been in deep trouble if he hadn’t.
Tempted, but not seduced.
It’s a neat analysis of the situation, but I go back to first causes:
How did they all end up in that situation in the first place? Voldemort ordered the hit, Snape took the Unbreakable Vow, and DD drank the potion of awfulness?
No, the first cause, always, is that the author put them in that situation. So my question is, did she put them in that situation with the understanding, as per the analaysis above, that it would give Snape no choice but to AK DD? And this is how it would be explained afterwards, to justify Snape’s actions and absolve him from guilt, while making him look guilty during the deliciously agonizing wait between book 6 and book 7?
If JKR’s intention had been to make Snape do a seemingly unforgivable thing while giving him a secret but unbreakable excuse, does it make sense that she would have done it this way?
I don’t know. The scene at the Astronomy Tower is a very powerful one. If I were writing it, I wouldn’t want it’s justification to be a logical syllogism.
The most interesting version of this theory I’ve read (in several places) is that Snape didn’t really AK Dumbledore. The argument goes that since Snape didn’t really “mean” the AK, all he produced was a meek light, while simultaneously conjuring another spell that lifted Dumbledore over the parapet of the tower. Dumbledore dies from the fall off the tower rather than from the imposition of an unforgiveable curse. Depending on how technically you want to read the way both the UV and the AK work, this allows Snape to fulfill the former without the soul fracturing side effects of the latter.
The evidence cited for this is the “odd” way Dumbledore’s body reacts to the AK curse. Every other instance shown in which an AK is used, the victim simply slumps to the ground, as if the literal substance of their life has been simply removed. To my mind, there are some different possibilities here for the discrepancy: depends on who casts the curse and the intended malice(keep in mind that Voldemort’s version cast at Harry in the graveyard shattered gravestones, while Pettigrew’s simply dropped Cedric to the ground).
But, there’s as much evidence for an alternate spell in the Astronomy Tower as there is for anything else.
I know I’ve said this before, but the best work you could possibly find on the Astronomy Tower scene, especially as it relates to the AK, is Felicity’s The Avada Kedavra on the Astronomy Tower.
Travis, it’s good that you said it again, Felicity’s essay is great. And I agree, it was the AK that killed Dumbledore.
Dave, I believe it’s the killing that fractures the soul, whether it’s done by an AK or otherwise. So even IF Snape had secretly used an alternate spell, that lifted Dumbledore over the ramparts of the tower, he still would have meant to kill him. But Slughorn said that murder was the supreme act of evil, and I’m not sure whether Snape committed a murder, if Dumbledore really asked him to take his life.
In that case, it wouldn’t have been a supreme act of evil, IMO.
But, if you have to “mean it” to pull of an AK, and Snape faked the AK in favor of un-uttered spell, then this might say something about Snape’s character.
I guess this is the question: Can you kill someone without committing a malicious act? Is Snape still “innocent” of Dumbledore’s death, at least in an ethical sense? (assuming of course that Snape is on Dumbledore’s side).
That’s a tough question. Killing a person is never innocent, I’d say, and any conscious act of killing is unforgivable, in principle. You always have to “mean it”, unless it happens by accident. Taking Dumbledore’s live by throwing him off the tower would be no more ethical that doing it with a curse, the result is the same. Snape killed Dumbledore and he meant it, either way.
For me, it is more important why he did it, than how he did it. Was it cold-blooded murder or was it because Dumbledore pleaded with him? Could he have saved Dumbledore’s life and not sacrifice Draco and Harry? If Snape didn’t have a real alternative, his act would perhaps be ethically justifiable, but not innocent.
I’d imagine those questions are going through Snape’s head now, whether he was ordered to do it by Dumbledore or not. I sincerely doubt he’s working for Voldemort. He might potentially be a Machiavelli, out for himself, or out to fight evil with evil, but I doubt it.
I really want to know where Fawkes went after the funeral. Many I’ve talked to think that Dumbledore’s death drove Fawkes off into some unknown land, never to return (Never Never Land!), but I disagree. He’ll return, and I’d love to bet he went straight for Snape.
I’m sure Fawkes will still go to the aid of those loyal to Dumbledore in need of help whether Dumbledore is still alive or not.
Mia, my take on the difference between the AK and a fake one was that “how” could lead to “why”. You could say Snape intended to kill to Dumbledore, but was the intention malicious? That’s my question. Can you do so without being malicious?
Ah, these big questions! This is why I think Snape’s evolution is the central conflict of the books, and not necessarily the looming duel between Harry and Voldemort.
Dave, I hear you. But I think that question could be asked about killing in general. Can it be done without malice? If casting the AK requires malice, so does levitating someone into the air and then let him fall to his death. I don’t believe that necessarily the intention has to be evil to accomplish an AK, at least, not in any case.
Travis, Albus would be choosing Snape’s life over his own, but he would not choose Snape’s life over Snape’s soul.
Matthew and shadowquill, I agree that Draco definitely and finally failed to kill Dumbledore on the tower. You are right.
But I think we will learn more about the Unbreakable Vow in book 7. Narcissa was not very clear with the wording. She said: “should it prove necessary… if it seems Draco will fail… will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?†She didn’t say: “will you kill Dumbledore?†and nobody had spoken out loudly, which deed Draco had to carry out. There is also much room for interpretation of the meanings of “necessary†and “failâ€. From our point of view, it was surely not “necessary†that Dumbledore had to be killed, and Draco did not “failâ€, he succeeded in not becoming a murderer, instead.
Of course, I don’t know how the Unbreakable Vow works. Maybe I’m just “clinging to some desperate hopeâ€, as JKR said.
Mia and Dave, I think the act of killing (AK or not) and its implications is one of the most crucial questions of the whole series, and everything depends on how JKR thinks and feels about it.
Not to jump around and backwards or anything like that, but I was reading an interview and I was wondering if we, the fans, have made any further progress uncovering the “heart of it all”. It is rather odd that she began speaking so seriously about the key to the series after someone asked about unlikely romantic pairings, hmm?
(Note: this is from a 2003 interview)
JP: Unlikely pairings? Not Hermione and Draco Malfoy or anything like that?
JKR: I don’t really want to say as it will ruin all the fan sites. They have such fun with their theories … and it is fun, it is fun. And some of them even get quite close. No-one has ever – I have gone and looked at some of it and no-one’s ever … There is one thing that if anyone guessed I would be really annoyed as it is kind of the heart of it all. And it kind of explains everything and no-one’s quite got there but a couple of people have skirted it. So you know, I would be pretty miffed after thirteen or fourteen years of writing the books if someone just came along and said I think this will happen in book seven. Because it is too late, I couldn’t divert now, everything has been building up to it, and I’ve laid all my clues.
Now, in 2003 she says people “skirted it”, but what is skirting? Ugh, the term is so vague. It could mean, “close”, or “briefly toyed with it but pushed it aside”, etc. etc. etc. This quote is full of indeciferable hints that there is something big coming. I’m torn between getting her “really annoyed” that we guessed it and just letting things unfold… my mind tells me that somebody out in the world must have guessed it, whether she heard of their guess or not, and it can’t be completely impossible to fathom from the evidence we have been given.
Mia,
I disagree with you that any concious act of killing is unforgivable. By that logic no soldier or policeman/policewoman who has killed to protect others can be forgiven.
The “Unforgivable” curses are only that because the MoM calls them that. Also, the Ministry is hippocritical as they have trained “Hit Wizards” who do the killing for them.
Matthew
Shadowquill, I read that quote and thought a bit about it. We need to be absolutely sure the “heart of things” JKR was talking about was on the subject of relationships.
The two lines of dialogue immediately preceding the quote you cited are:
JEREMY PAXMAN: So there will be some pairing up will there in this book?
JK ROWLING: Well in the fullness of time.
JEREMY PAXMAN: Unlikely pairings? etc.
Which to me looks like whatever is at the heart of things is “an unlikely pairing”.
Now my next question is, is she talking about something in the past, or something to come? She says “..if someone came along and said I think this will happen in book 7…” Does that mean it will happen in book 7, or that we will find out about it in book 7?
If it’s “an unlikely pairing” that will happen in book 7, well, there aren’t that many possibilties, are there? Nothing that would be “at the heart of things”.
But if it’s something that happened in the past and will be revealed in book 7, well, we’ve developed a few ideas here, haven’t we?
But I hear what you’re saying. Part of me would love to get it right. That is the game, isn’t it? Another part of me says, she’s been building this for almost half her life. Don’t take away from her golden moment of revelation.
So much of what happened with Dumbledore on the Tower depends on how Rowling views death. If Dumbledore was already dying all year and near death when he pleaded with Snape, then it becomes a mercy killing. And a mercy killing doesn’t need to be malicious, in fact, it’s probably not. However, I really have trouble with this–even though she’s said all along that she is not writing to any specific age group, but writing the story she wants to tell, I doubt seriously that she would venture into the ethics of mercy killing, knowing that so many readers are young.
One other way to see what happened to Dumbledore, was that Snape made it look like AK, but lifted Dumbledore over the edge and Dumbledore actually descended slowly, but was so near death that by the time he landed softly, he was dead. OK, I don’t really believe that much either, but it’s another possibiity. No one ran to the edge and watched him fall like a lead balloon and no one seemed to be at the bottom of the Tower until later. Just a thought.
Jo’s quotes in interviews are so cryptic that it’s sometimes maddening. That’s one of them. It does seem odd that it comes up when she’s asked about pairings. But it also sounds like she’s thinking out loud about different things she’s found on fan sites, and that she really has gone quite off topic.
My guess is that someone out there has guessed exactly what she’s talking about, but that she just hasn’t stumbled on that particular forum. Given the ones that she has given awards to, it’s more the ones that are fan sites, rather than just strictly discussions. And it’s the discussion ones where you find the more in-depth theories and more adults, IMO. Not that there aren’t good discussions on the fan sites where there are more teens, but I know I’ve been in some discussions about things that she has said no one has brought up. Well, yes, actually, those things have been brought up, discussed at length, but because they are on less frequented forums, the theories aren’t as widely circulated.
Nor would she have any access to the things like Barnes and Noble classes after HBP unless she participated. I don’t really want her to say that so and so got it right before the book. That would ruin. But if any of us are right after we read book 7, it will be a nice feeling that, if we didn’t get the exact mechanics of it right, we at least went in the right direction.
Pat
What will really be obnoxious is listening to the one or two people who got it right…
Hey Travis,
How about setting up a post with maybe half a dozen questions, questions which go to the heart of things, like: Who will die in DH? Will anyone be resurrected in DH? Who will kill Voldemort? Is Snape Voldemort’s man, Dumbledore’s man, or Machiavelli’s man? Why did Snape kill Dumbledore? and Why does Snape hate Harry? And asking people to post their answers, so everyone can clearly see everyone else’s position. And on July 22nd, if anyone says they got it right, the rest of us can actually check to see if they did.
We could do prizes for the most number correct – although being right is more than its own reward for many.
You’ve already gone part of the way with this, with the polls, and people’s comments explaining their positions.
It might be fun to ask people to lay out all their important predections in one package. It wouldn’t be a discusion type thread, which maybe takes the fun away a bit, but a “this is my final position” kind of thread. And maybe you could wait until early July, just to give people a chance to finalize their positions.
Just an idea.
Matthew, I think there’s something about the act of killing that’s unforgivable in and by itself. I’m not saying that any person who kills in an attempt to protect themselves, or others, cannot be forgiven. That’s why I find it so important to guess what actually motivated Snape on the Astronomy Tower, to decide whether it can be morally justifiable or not.
shadowquill, I’m also wondering what may be the “heart of it allâ€. My best guess is that the key somehow lies in the events in Godric’s Hollow, at the night the Potter’s died. But Rowling hasn’t given us the key, she’s withheld so much information.
Mia,
I know we’ve talk about it before on other posts but I think there’s a huge difference between killing and murder.
I’m with you all the way if you mean murder when you say “killing”. If you really mean killing it opens a huge and of worms. Where is the line drawn then? Is it just humans killing humans that is unforgivabe or the killing of animals as well? or plants? or animals killing animals or even plants killing animals? What about accidentally killing someone?
Not trying to be silly there.
I agree that killing comes with a cost but it doesn’t ALWAYS mean that it’s wrong or unforgivable.
Matthew
Matthew, there certainly is a huge difference between killing and murder and between killing a human or an animal or plant. I don’t know exactly where to draw the line and as it really does open a can of worms and would probably take us off topic, I’d like to focus on the killing of a human and on how we interpret the scene on the tower.
What it boils down to is, I think, how we esteem human life and what makes the three curses unforgivable. I believe that human life is holy, and therefore any conscious act of killing is inherently guilty. If it’s an accident, no one can be blamed, though the person who caused it might still feel guilty.
The unforgivable curses can’t be done accidentally, they require volition, that’s what makes them so serious. All of them dehumanize another person, bereaving them of their dignity, their integrity, their life.
And by dehumanizing another, one dehumanizes him- or herself.
In regard to what Snape did on the tower, and to what Dumbledore presumably asked him to do, it isn’t innocent by any stretch, I’d say. As far as I understand the scene, the choice wasn’t whether Dumbledore would live or die, but whether he’d be the only casualty. If that is true, Dumbledore and Snape chose the smaller evil and in that sense, did the right thing. But still, there’s something terribly wrong with the killing and the curse is still unforgivable, though Snape may have had a good reason for using it.
The “Unforgivable” curses, like you write, really do seem to be for the destruction and of human life and stripping the dignity of humanity. There seem to be myriad spells to do these things besides the unforgivable curses- wasn’t there a Death Eater firing of reducto indiscriminately? Also the purple whip thing spell that Hermione got struck by. These spells, among many others, seem to have a similar effect as some of the unforgivable curses.
Why aren’t they unforgivable too? Is is because they are for use aginst humans? If so, why did it work against the spider in false Moody’s class.
I really agree that Dumbledore was limiting the destruction on the tower to by pleading with Snape to do him in. The best outcome possible in a horrible situation.
I view human life as sacred, like you Mia. But unfortunately real life doesn’t render it down for simple distinctions- for me.
I, unfortunately, can conceive of situations where in would be a bigger sin not to take a life, considering the possible consequences, than not.
Matthew
Matthew, I do agree that there may be situations where not taking a life would be a bigger sin. That’s exactly what I meant by saying that Dumbledore and Snape might have chosen the smaller evil. There are no simple distinctions in real life, and I believe one has to consider the possible motivations and consequences of somebody’s choices. Yet, even the smaller evil still is an evil, and what’s wrong cannot be made right by any means.
The Unforgivable Curses: I think their sole purpose is to torture, kill or enslave another person and it has to be done willfully and intentionally. Other spells may also have the same effect, but not necessarily with deliberation. Harry for example could have killed Draco with the Sectumsempra spell, but he never meant to seriously injure or even kill him. When he found out what the spell did, he was shocked and immediately regretted his deed.
If anyone used that spell, or another, on purpose, in order to kill someone, it would be just as bad as the AK, imo. What characterizes the Unforgivable Curses is the volition and willful destructiveness behind them, I would say.
We’ve talked about forgiveness at such length on these threads that I’m a little surprised neither of you is asking the question: if a curse is Unforgivable, who is it Unforgivable by? To my mind, there seems to be a reference to some source or authority or ultimate arbiter who makes that distinction: this can be forgiven, this can not.
I’m suspecting that Voldemort is going to meet his Arbiter at the end of DH.
I think a really important point is being made here on the matter of forgiveness and unforgivable curses – it seems that the best answer to Reyhan’s question, “by whom are the unforgivable curses not forgiven?” is, “The Ministry of Magic.” And if that is the best answer, it just might change the whole conversation a bit.
Reyhan, not a bad idea at all about the predictions – remind me about that in early July, and I’ll see about getting a post up about it.
Well, the Ministry of Magic may define what’s legal, but not what’s forgivable, I think. At some point they even legalized the Unforgivable Curses when used against death eaters. Forgiveness isn’t a juristic concept and to classify something as “unforgivable†does reference to an ultimate authority, in a way. According to what you believe, that ultimate authority might be God and as it seems to be presumptuous to declare any action unforgivable by God, it may not be exactly the right term.
I’m also quite sure that Dumbledore forgave Snape the use of the AK, so it depends very much on the person and the situation. I’d say that while killing, torture and enslavement are inherently evil, the perpetrator might be guilty but not absolutely unforgivable or unredeemable.
I think it’s all about the hipocracy of the ministry. They call these curses unforgivable but use them themselves (hit wizards)… or worse. Using Dementors to “administer” their kiss.
Makes me wonder if there’s a point going on here about authorities using powers and employing techniques that they condemn themselves. Or even countries interfereing in other nations then crying “Foul” when they strike back.
Matthew
It’s possible of course, that in the wizardnig world, just like in our world, there are different sources of authority for what is right: the law (i.e. the Ministry), personal standards, or an ultimate authority. For us the directives of the ultimate authority are fairly clearly recorded in the Scriptures, and particularly the Ten Commandments, and the authority is God. We don’t know if JKR is going to explore the source of morality in the wizarding world, and whether the “Unforgivable Curses” go back to that source, or just the Ministry.
It would be interesting if the authority was the Ministry, for the reasons Matthew pointed out. It would be far more satisfying, I think, if JKR showed a link to a less arbitrary source.
Mia, I think that you are quite right to say that the “unforgivable” nature has to depend on the context and on the intent of the caster. I suspect that this applies to the “supreme act of evil” as well.
We know that Moody, for example, has killed in the line of duty – he avoided killing when he could, according to Sirius, which means there were times when he couldn’t avoid it. And Moody almost certainly used an Unforgivable Curse to do it, since we’ve been shown no other killing curse in the books.
But in what sense has Moody not been forgiven? He acted lawfully, and faced no legal penalty. He seems to still be a member of the wizarding society, albeit an eccentric one. His personality doesn’t read as one who has committed acts of supreme evil.
As tempting as it is, though, to redefine “unforgivable” as “curses the Ministry doesn’t like this week”, I have to think JKR chose the name more intentionally than that. I think her point probably is about the cold-blooded, almost casual, use of these curses by the DEs. With horcrux-making – where you kill someone purely for the side effects it will have on your own soul – as the worst example.
Doug, I also believe that Rowling chose the name intentionally. The Ministry is hypocritical in using the curses and in allowing them, but not necessarily in naming them. Rowling hasn’t defined the Unforgivable Curses specifically, but she’s defined “curses†on her homepage as “reserved for the worst kinds of dark magicâ€. The three curses are the most evil of all, so much that they are virtually unforgivable and should never be used.
“Unforgivable by whom†is, of course, a valid question, and there may be situations where someone really, REALLY has no other choice. The Astronomy Tower scene might have been such an example, where Snape was literally trapped.
Another question about Unforgivable Curses, aside from “who does the unforgiving?” – we’ve seen all three of these curses used in the books, yet none of the cursers has been caught (and none seems to worry in the least about being caught). Does the Ministry not know the curses are being cast? (I’m thinking of the Ministry knowing that a Hover Charm was produced on Privet Drive, for example. Or do they only keep track of spells performed at under-age Muggle-born wizards’ houses?).
I believe the Ministry is alerted to the casting of a spell, any spell what-so-ever, only when a particular neighborhood is being monitored for it. Take Harry’s lovely notes from the ministry. He is only being monitored because he is the only registered wizard in his area and he isn’t allowed to do magic. They can determine, in Harry’s case, what spell was cast, but they cannot determine who cast it! Take Dobby in book 2. Dobby cast a “hover charm”, but Harry was blamed for it.
If the individuals who cast the Unforgivable Curses were in areas in which magic is allowed, whether they were under aged or not, their magic would not have been reported to the ministry. The Weasleys have been brought up with the ability to use magic at home, lawful or not, because they have two adults who are permitted to use it and the ministry counts on the parents to enforce the rules about magic. This loophole, I believe, was to set up so the parents could school their children at home if they wished. The use of magic in wizarding households is not restricted and the parents are responsible for the policing of it.
There are so many problems with this that one would hope the ministry could change in time. I doubt it, considering how efficient the ministry has been as of late.
What you say makes a lot of sense, shadowquill. And I agree, there are loopholes big enough to drive a Ford Anglia through.
If Snape did indeed AK Dumbledore at the latter’s behest, even if it was a “fake” AK (i.e., if he were merely Unstoppering Death), only Snape and DD would know that. Snape will have to do an awful lot of good in book 7 to be forgiven for AKing the world’s greatest wizard.
Well, he certainly needs a lot of forgiveness from a lot of people: Lily and James, for abetting their murder; Harry, for depriving him of his parents and making Potions classes a nightmare; and perhaps Lily for betraying their friendship/love by becoming a Death Eater. However, my reading of events at the Astronomy Tower is that the AK was Dumbledore’s call – Snape was just doing his bidding.
I wonder if Snape will forgive himself or accept the forgiveness of others.
What do you think is the significance of his father’s name, Tobias? I’ve read that it’s meaning is “God is good/ mercifulâ€. I believe some of you have a theological background and an understanding of biblical names. What do you make of it?
Mia, I didn’t look up the ethymological meaning of the name or its occurence in the Bible, but it could be read as “to bias Snape”. Coincidence? It is neither a clue for good nor bad Snape (Severus), I think, but rather for “there is more to him than meets the eye”.
I know it has been speculated that Snape had a relationship with a woman and was tossed around that it could be Lily, but what about Narrcissia(SP:(sorry). Reading CHPT: Spinners End, the way the two characters interacted made me believe there may have been feelings in the past. Could it be that in the past they were together, but say maybe her family didnt apporove.
Interesting you should say that, Crystal. Take a look at the latest frenzied conjecture on Hog’s Head PubCast #29.