Shades of Evil

Travis, if you’re exploring the idea of shades of evil, also check out another essay on the Leaky Cauldron at Scribbulus: Machiavelli’s Half-Blood Prince, by Andrew Cooper. He discusses Machiavelli’s beliefs that it’s not rational to be moral in every situation and that you can’t be good when others are evil. He shows how Snape’s actions fit this case for fighting evil with evil. He describes Snape as the “virtuous and rapacious Half-Blood Prince”.

So far, interesting but nothing revolutionary. But he then brings up an example Machiavelli used: the Roman Emperor Severus who fought off two of the Empire’s enemies (Niger and Albinius) by falsely allying himself with one to destroy the other, and then turning upon the victor.

His final point is that ultimately Harry might have to defeat a far more cunning enemy than the one-dimensionally evil Voldemort,

It’s good stuff, and regardless of whether you accept it, more compelling than the one by caltheous, whose argument has been tossed around already on this site although not in an as well-organized manner.

To clarify, I meant the essay I briefly mentioned in a previous post that Travis is referencing. My comment about Snape’s seemingly Machiavellian attitude was coincidental, looking at Rehan’s post afterwards. I have read Machiavelli’s Half Blood Prince too, however.

I’ll admit, I only read the first section. The main thing that I see as a problem with this premise is that caltheous brings out and then dismisses–we don’t know what Snape’s inner thoughts are. So that means that any morality or lack of it that we attribute to Snape is speculation. Caltheous makes a lot of assumptions, based on the same things that I use to show Snape’s loyalty to Dumbledore. Caltheous chooses to see Snape’s actions in one way, and I see them in quite the opposite way.

No, Snape is not nice. But not every person who does the right thing has to be nice. Conversely, there are some very nice people who choose to do very bad things. Mundungus seems nice, but I wouldn’t trust him as far as I can throw a kneazle.

The only person’s thoughts that we have access to are Harry’s. And that’s another place where I disagree with the assumptions that caltheous makes; that in itself renders any interpretation of Snape’s motives or his morality as just a hunch or a feeling that each reader has.

Caltheous brings up the fact that Snape is not forgiving–that, I’ll go along with. He certainly was never able to forgive Sirius, and didn’t seem to forgive James. He hasn’t even forgiven Remus, though Remus does seem to have tried to forgive Severus.

I don’t think Harry is forgiving either. He hasn’t forgiven Quirrell, who was duped by Voldemort, he hasn’t forgiven the Dursleys, he hasn’t forgiven Pettigrew. Harry pardoned Peter to save Remus and Sirius from commiting murder and to give Sirius the means of having his name cleared. That’s not forgiveness.

The Occlumency lessons didn’t work, in part, because Snape and Harry could not get past their hatred of one another–it’s a two way street. And the idea was Dumbledore’s in the first place, not Snape’s. If Dumbledore had realized that it was Harry’s love that was going to protect him the most, why would he have insisted on Harry having the Occlumency lessons at all? It wouldn’t have been necessary–and Dumbledore tells Harry that after it’s evident that Voldemort could not possess him because he was filled with love.

The other thing that caltheous didn’t address at all is that for Harry to use love to defeat Voldemort, he’s going to have to do something about all that hatred that gets in his way whenever he thinks about Snape; it blinds him to whatever else is going on and keeps him from seeing things objectively–that’s where the forgiveness is going to be crucial, but we haven’t seen any evidence so far that Harry has even realized it’s something with which he must deal–and soon.

I’ve always liked that quote from Snape about fools who wear their hearts on their sleeves (probably because it describes me and I’m OK with that), but my interpretation is more subtle. I think it is entirely possible that Snape is talking from experience–that at some time in his past, he let his emotions show, and was deeply hurt. It is the kind of thing that someone who is bitter from a negative memory in their past would say; someone who has never been in that position of being hurt or cruelly misused wouldn’t even think of that as a problem. I think it’s especially telling that Snape tells Harry that showing his emotions will make him even more vulnerable to Voldemort. How does Snape know that? Well, my answer would be that that’s exactly what happened to him–either because Voldemort could see that Snape was loved by or loved someone–either his mother, a girl, his own child (there’s that pesky answer that Rowling gave that Snape didn’t have a daughter that opens the door to his having had a son). Voldemort, who I agree is amoral, wouldn’t be beyond using anyone to gain the control he desired over someone that he deemed useful.

But again, that is just as speculative as the essay by caltheous, because as s/he points out–we don’t see Snape’s thoughts–what caltheous doesn’t acknowledge is that it’s only Harry’s thoughts that we see, for that matter. We don’t even know what Dumbledore or Hagrid or Ron or Hermione are really thinking, except what they say to Harry.

For all his deeply horrible behaviour toward the students, I don’t see Snape as immoral. He has the reputation of being horrible before Harry ever comes to school. Fred and George have had points taken from them by Snape and have told Ron that Snape can turn nasty. I see Snape as deeply flawed, but loyal and acting for the good in a way that he understands, guided by the one person who showed faith and trust in him, Dumbledore. I don’t, because of that, think that Dumbledore would have continued to nurture someone who was so obviously immoral. Nor do I think that that sort of mind-set is something that Dumbledore would have failed to notice, given the amount of time that he and Snape spent together.

Snape’s understanding of what is right and wrong is skewed by his unhappy past, most of which we don’t know. Harry’s actions are also skewed by his past. When Harry makes that very rude intrusion into Snape’s memory, first in the Occlumency lesson and later via the Pensieve, what he sees is that he and Snape have much in common with having had an unhappy childhood. Had Snape been less angry, that might have been the point that they could have come to some common ground. Harry was ready to apologize, but Snape, who realized that Harry saw him teased and humiliated, couldn’t risk letting Harry see what was really in his heart and his thoughts, and lashed out by throwing something–as someone in my Reading Group at Leaky pointed out–in a very muggle way, rather than blasting Harry with some jinx or other.

Harry and Snape are more alike than different–another place where I differ with caltheous, who sees them at odds. Harry seems to have a lot of friends, but actually he really only has two who are consistenly his close friends, with Neville, Giny and Luna close by. Snape may have had one or two close friends (possibly Lily?), but we don’t know. But Harry doesn’t confide in his friends any more readily than we think Snape does. We do learn that Snape does confide in Dumbledore fairly quickly though–as Dumbledore is already aware of all the things which make Harry mistrust Snape, especially in HBP.

Both Harry and Snape are loners–they are just following different paths. Snape came to school alone, and became the target of bullying at the hands of the popular boys. Harry came alone, made friends with Ron, and is the target of attempted bullying by Draco and his gang. The difference is something that we see in real life–what makes one person able to deal with bullying in a positive, socially acceptable way while another deals with it negatively? Answer that, and we’ll keep a lot of kids from threatening their tormentors with the violence we see in the schools. And you can throw the young Tom Riddle into that discussion–what was it that made him so amoral? The other kids in the orphanage didn’t choose to act the way he did, so his circumstances aren’t really to blame for his horrid behaviour.

Snape, to me, seems more like the kind of person who is teaching because he was forced into the job. In his case, it seems that he has to be at Hogwarts because he left the Death Eaters and if he were out and about, he’d be dead. By remaining at Hogwarts, he was saved from being sent to prison, but he was also saved from a vengeful Death Eater, out to kill the ones who didn’t remain loyal. Look at Barty Jr, who wanted to go after any of the DEs who didn’t show the loyalty to LV that he thought appropriate. And so Snape finds himself at Hogwarts, teaching students who don’t appreciate his subject–if he didn’t like Potions, he wouldn’t care that they didn’t care. And in comes Harry Potter, son of Lily, who was excellent at Potions–and Snape is appalled that Harry doesn’t have her same talent or love for the subject. Of course, he would see Harry as being more like his father, the Quidditch hero–and there’s the fuel for the old feud, flaring up and raging away.

I just think that caltheous, in trying to make a specific point about Snape missed the whole point that I think Rowling is really trying to make; we can’t rely on our judgement of someone else’s character if we are unwilling to try to see things from their point of view, nor can we expect that every person we meet will fall neatly into one category or another.

(Oh, just one more aside–the quote from Sirius about seeing how someone treats their inferiors being an indication of what they are really like–I’ve always found that to be more damning of Sirius himself, and the way he treated Kreacher, than anything to do with Snape. Dumbledore is the only one who comes out with a clean slate on treating others fairly.)

Pat

Eeyore, your post would be littered with astonishing revelations if only your points were convincing. You propose some truly astounding things.

An adequate rebuttal is not something I hope to attempt, as it would be longer, even, than your post is. But by way of example I offer a couple of points. You Say:

“I don’t think Harry is forgiving either. He hasn’t forgiven Quirrell, who was duped by Voldemort, he hasn’t forgiven the Dursleys, he hasn’t forgiven Pettigrew.”

What an extraordinary assertion! What makes it even *more* mystifying is its glaring inconsistency – ie you overlook to mention the most obvious thing of all – that Harry hasn’t forgiven *Voldemort* either. As if he should.

And there’s the point. To forgive evil while it is active and ongoing is to excuse and embrace it. That’s why Harry has not and should not forgive Voldemort. It does not take much reflection to realize that the same reason applies to the others you mention – each of whom has remained immersed and actively engaged in the evil for which Harry has yet to forgive them.

At the risk of stating the obvious: If someone is standing on your toe, it is in fact your *responsibility* to get them off your toe before even contemplating forgiving them for their oafish carelessness. Otherwise you yourself become implicated and culpable in the fact that you now have mashed bones in your foot. It’s a simple moral principle.

Harry cannot morally forgive the Dursleys, Pettigrew or Snape, since they are, like Voldemort, actively engaged in ongoing evil. Quirrell is a slightly more complex example, since he is deceased – however he was not merely “duped” as you put it, but embraced evil – ie he made choices – and as far as we saw, he at no point repented. He went to his death still trying to murder Harry in the service of pure evil.

On reading that you regard Harry’s inability to forgive those engaged in ongoing and palpable evil as a flaw on his part, I scarcely know whether to laugh or cry. But of course the “surprises” don’t stop there.

“For all his deeply horrible behavior toward the students, I don’t see Snape as immoral.”

Talk about sophistry. What a complicated, subtle and convoluted moral compass you must have, Eeyore!

Now you’d have us believe that:
• sadism is not immoral
• misuse of power is not immoral
• abuse of minors in one’s charge is not immoral
• vindictiveness and vengefulness are not immoral either

Then of course we have seen (whether we choose to acknowledge it or not) Snape involved in such other things as cheating, malevolent deception, betrayal and even murder. But still you feel able to pronounce Snape “…loyal and acting for the good…”.

I think Travis is quite correct when he suggests that Rowling has some deeper insights to impart about the nature of evil – and the different faces it presents. Elsewhere on this site I’ve referred to the passage in which Rowling states that Snape is “in some ways…more culpable even than Voldemort” and I see no reason to suppose she was kidding.

A central point of the series, IMO, is to challenge simplistic and convenient notions of evil as “the other” – as Travis says, the place people want to point their finger. There seems little doubt that Rowling has set out to show us that the deepest evil may lurk a lot closer to home.

To characterize a malevolent sadist such as Snape as “loyal and acting for good” merely because he *may* be opposing Voldemort (if that is indeed the case – and for reasons other than a desire to supplant Voldemort) is to reduce Rowling’s insights on evil to meaningless black and white. “He may not be serving voldy so he must be flawed-but-basically-good” qualifies as a special Hogwarts variety of whitewash (ie Hogwash). ;?

If Rowling were writing a story in which Voldemort is the sole quintessence of evil and anyone who opposes him (in any way) is thereby wholly sanctified, then some of your points may have some merit. But I don’t believe she is.

I’m with you, SB.

Matthew

I can sort of understand Eeyore’s insistence that Harry needs to forgive people and stop hating people. Dumbledore insists that it’s Harry’s capacity to love which is the power that Voldemort does not have, and which will vanquish him. And perhaps lack of forgiveness and relentless hatred might get in the way of love – if they’re allowed to continue unchecked.

Interestingly, her points can be used to make the argument that there are shades of good – not just evil. Hatred and lack of forgiveness make Harry less than spotlessly pure.

I don’t think, however, that the person who will be Voldemort’s bane needs to be spotless, just that his anger and hatred shouldn’t get in the way of his capacity to love.

BTW, I agree with S_B: there is no moral imperative to forgive the person who is standing on your foot, at least not until after you’ve gotten him off your foot – and everybody else’s feet as well. If Harry does every forgive Snape, it will be based on the realization that Snape was not as evil as he seems at this moment, that there was some good in him.

Interesting reading of Snape I had not thought of before. I agree with Pat (Eyeore) that we don’t really have a solid enough read on Snape’s inner life in , the only place we have not seen him interpreted through Harry’s eyes is in the Spinner’s End chapter of HBP and there he is positively inscrutable.

But there is precedence for such character motivations in mythopoeic literature. Particularly I am thinking of Saurman and Denethor in the Lord of the Rings who do not see their modes as “evil” and do see themselves as an “answer to Sauron” eventually. The use of the distinctions line by Snape is not conclusive, but I say that not to be down on it but just in the vein of the fact that if it were, she would not be nearly so good a writer for giving such large spoilers in text. Things being that way, when I read your recounting of the Snape distinctions line I thought “hey, that’s pretty good … can’t be conclusive with as good of a writer as she is, but it is still a really insightful observation on Snape’s character nuances” … potions is a very cunning and calculating discipline (I posted somehwere on Muggle Matters, a while ago though and I have no idea where, about a differences in approaches to number and quantification, between the minute calculations of potions and the numerological symbolism of arithmancy)

In the end I still come down where I came down before the whole “Dumbledore is not dead” thing, which is that, while I count myself in the “thoroughly good Snape” camp (meaning there simply both anti-voldy and on the same page with DD, not that he really is just a nice guy who has to act nasty to Harry as part of the show … I think he and Harry have some genuinely big issues to work out, maybe after it is all said and done Lockheart can recommend a good therapist at St Mungos for them) … I still leave both options open but definitely think that, either way, the end of the story will involve Harry and Snape reconciling one way or the other. Either Snape was in on a plan with DD and Harry will have to come to grips with that, and Snape will also to make peace with Harry, or Snape was in some form of bad camp (either the free-wheeler being discussed here, fighting evil with evil under the thought of fighting fire with fire [which would make a nice foreshadowing of his potions riddle with flames behind and before in book 1], or just all out all bad all the time), in which case he will have to pull a Darth Vader Death Star conversion at the end and what will do it is finally remembering DD as willing sacrificing himself in order to give Snape the benefit of the doubt of his trust by making himself truly vulnerable to Snape and then Harry having a change of heart.

Oh yeah, I also think Pat’s comment on the comment by Sirius about how a man treats his inferiors versus how he treats his equals is definitely meant as mainly heavily ironic, once you get to Book 5 … at the time the line is spoken, in book 4, you have a much humbler Sirius simply by the fact of his living in a cave and eating rats and such in order to see Harry. In that state he is more capable of such wise insights. Once he gets cooped up in his familial home he hates and gets bad-tempered and the prejudices of the place start to seep back in through his skin and drench him, then he begins to revert to those ways a little and take it out in the most fitting way, on Kreacher. I don’t think the irony means it was hypocritcal of him to say what he did in book 4, just that the message is how truly difficult it sometimes is to follow through on wisdom that we sometimes genuinely agree with (as bad as the cave was, I think a pretty strong argument can be made that for a free-spirited type like Sirius – good grief, the guy bewitched a motocycle to fly, not even just a car – the cave and the rats were nowhere near as demoralizing as being trapped with his family’s history in that house) … when the heat turns up it is definitely not a walk in the park to be taken lightly, it is a fight that can often mean all out war on our “dark sides.”

just my thoughts and ramblings, though. Good post

Merlin the Meandering
(“My father was a wandering Aremean; he went down to Egypt and sojourned there”)

In response to Seriously Black’s comments on Pat, pardon a bit of “pulling out the guns” from somebody who is actually qualified to do so (believe me, I didn’t get into a PhD program on my looks) … but seriously black is, in my book, a wee bit over the line when making comments on somebody’s moral compass. So I will take it as throwing the proverbial hat in the proverbial ring.
(I hope you let this stand Travis, it’s a question of consistent principle: if you allow comments to stand like black’s, if you allow them to throw their hat in your particular ring, you should let them take their lumps in your ring)

It is not quite so obviously a “basic moral principle.” I’ll spell it out in nice big simple letters below so you can understand but, by way of intro, character disposition, and particularly with regard to charity/love and treatment of the “other” (commonly refered to as the “problem of alterity” in contemporary continental philosophical studies), is a key component not only of the stated matters in the books, but of the phenomenological and existentialist traditions Rowling is most likely familiar with, she being most likely to be most familiar with the latter in the form of the French existentialist school of the 20th century … and it is not a mere matter that conflating polar opposites resolves (note Rowling’s comments on her website that Harry and Voldy will not be doing any “merging” … Harry and Voldy are not simply two sides of the same coin that will combine in the end, thank you Mr or Miss Jim Henson’s “Dark Crystal”)

If you want the type of world with those “simple moral principles” you should read Saurez and the other neo-scholastics (I wouldn’t recommend actually reading Aquinas himself, I think it would be way too frustrating how often you would get slapped even by qualified Thomists, Transcendental Thomasts and the like for your reading of him) … but you’ll have to do so sitting in your own corner because the rest of us who have to live in the real world of post-modernity, and to work through what has happened since the world realized how useless neo-scholasticism is for understanding even original scholastic thought, simply do not have time to sit around and wait for you to draw out your little map of checklists with “okay, now these factors have been met as far as the evil being neutralized, so here is the point where I forgive” (either that or you can do it sitting in your zen hangout, with all that gnostic yin-yang stuff you were spouting … “The higher the leap the harder the ground” does not mean that the height and the depth are simply the same thing – there is a common element and the height is the good use of it and the depth is the bad use it, and if that is what you meant you should study more and learn how to communicate more clearly, but in any case the good use and the bad use are not just yin and yang)

Read the New Testament! (c’mon if Wim Wenders as an out there Berliner film maker can admit the validity of it certainly you can. Cf the 1987 movie “wings of Desire” and the 1993 movie “Far Away So Close”, in case that aint the realm you move in and you don’t know Wim Wenders from Wimpy or Wendy’s) The obligation to forgive has no conditions on it … Christ fought evil by getting the crap kicked out of him and then nailed and hung out to die and a spear shoved in his side … and he defeated evil most pointedly in that, while the agony was so intense that he cried out, in the words of the Psalmist (Ps 22) accusing God the Father of abandoning him (in form studies this is know as the “accusatory question” formulary that begins most of the “Psalms of Lament”, preceding the hinge to the praise section … although, interestingly, Ps 30 actually has no formal hinge phrase)even while the agony is that bad, he fights evil precisely in saying “Father Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” To be sure, he made a wip of chords and kicked people out of the temple … such action and forgiveness do not have to be mutually exclusive, but when you start to lose your focus on forgiveness by formally closing it off in some end section, THAT is when you begin to lose your moral compass and action that is legitimate in itself on objective grounds begins to become, for you, a subjective evil and you win the battle but lose the war.

I don’t know what you were smoking when you read the books, but I think Pat’s observations hold a lot more water than your own, in fact it may be a bit insulting to her even to compare her to you … Harry is not some golden boy or poster boy for “Rowling’s way of thinking,” he is an everyman character (read a book on medeival drama if you are unfamiliar with the “everyman plays”) with an internal journey to make that we the reader are to make along with him cathartically (read Aristotle’s Poetics if you don’t know what it means), an internal journey he must make in order to overcome the external threat.

In short your comments on a “simple moral principle” bespeak being trapped in this false dichotomy binary thinking of “hawks” vs “doves” much more than it does any real thought on your part, so, as one who is busting my hump in the real world of this kind of study, I’m a wee bit offended by somebody who writes like you do acting like you’re qualifed to read Pat or anybody the riot act.

(Sorry Dude, or Dudette, or whatever, but real life is like Hockey … you go after our goalie and you’re gonna get hit hard … that is to say, um, you have to be “neutralized” … I happen to like Pat alot, not saying I would necessarily agree with everything she thinks on Potter, but I would say I respect her thinking on it as credible enough to process it and interact with it without your snark factor, which I don’t think, from reading your comments, that you have the ammo to back up anyway, and hence I must dub you a serious poser and blowhard, by the power vested in me by the league of “First Year Phd Students Who HAVE to be Scrappers just to survive in the real game”)

Merlin the Mongering

Can someone interpret, or at the least summarize Merlin’s second (#15) post?

All I got was that Christ forgave even in agony so it is possible to forgive the person who’s standing on your foot (and by extension for Harry to forgive Snape even if Snape is a bad dude), because we don’t want to exclude that possibility because otherwise we’d be thinking in black and white, which is no longer cool?????

And that Pat is goalie for team Good Snape????

Black,
Bring the goods … not the rhetorical BS (the technical term is “ad hominem argument” … are you going to handle my arguments or just keep blowing hole? you were out of bounds on the comments on Pat and backed it with nothing but a bunch of “yada yada yada”).

I’ve gone up against seriously blowhard profs with the letter PhD after their name before (one friend who works in our Assistant Deans office told me a funny story recently of a lady who called up after having completed a PhD and asked “um, it says on my certificate that I got a doctorate in philosophy, but I did my PhD in history). If you’re going to toss the talk then back it with something, climb down out of the ivory tower, take off your tweed jacket with the patches on the sleeves, and scrap with the people who really know how to think and read a text (or are you so brilliant that you have no need whatsoever to have your own work in dialogue with either the tradition nor the current field of debate).

Just out of curiosity … have you been published recently? In any stanard peer-reviewed journals?

Merlin the Mongering
(“I don’t take snark from anyone, Potter, not even the PhDs”)

PS (oh sorry for the commoners’ lingo, in addition to getting into a PhD program, I used to work on the types of construction crews that built the homes you live in and have no idea how to fix anything on, and I live in the Bronx now … your kind are the ones who make Marxism so appealing)

1. Pat is simply goalie for the people who first put forth their ideas civilly and thoughtfully and try to have a simple dialogue, rather than in thinly veiled pejorative and condescending “academic speak” as a cheap substiute for actual argumentation (the goalie thing is a combative metaphor, in hockey the surest way to get yourself chucked into the boards hard enough to break a few bones and shatter a few teeth is to go after one of the players on the other team in a way that is underhanded and akin to a “sucker punch” [a punch thrown to the back of the head once the person's back is turned] this is most flagrant when it is the goalie you accost, who is encumbered with pads that, while well designed for protection from a flying puck or ball, hinder defensive movement against strategically aimed blows from a human and also leave a fair number of openings for damaging blows – “roughing the goalie” is the surest way to make sure you leave a hockey game early and with at least some pretty good bruises … which I will thoroughly cop to being “shool-yard” terms … believe it or not I actually had some fun playing aggressive sports in school, I’m not sure what SB was doing … I’d hate to see SB try to play Quidditch)

2. The point of the Christ on the cross argument is that a number of people have demonstrated that Rowling is drawing on medeival Christ imagery (She has stated in interview as well that the books bear strongly on her own grappling with the Christian faith … she is also drawing on post-modern and post-structuralist conceptions, but contrary to some popular belief the two are ultimately reconcilable to some degree).
The point being that within that (Christian) tradition of imagery and themes forgiveness as a decisive element plays a decently large role, which in some aspects makes for what St Paul refers to as the “foolishness of the Cross” (much as Harry sometimes says “I know, I know, I can love” and feels like adding “big deal” because Dumbledore’s emphasis on the power of love in the face of an enemy as powerful as Voldy seems a bit like David’s little stones against Goliath).

Sometimes decisive action and even excessive force are necessary (as per DD’s comments to Harry that, yes he will indeed actually have to kill Voldy), and that would get into a whole world of “just war theory” and the rest that isn’t really necessary to go into.

My point was that if you forget about forgiveness as a theme, in the vein of the type of story Rowling is creating (at least on the evidence of the first 6 books) you begin, in terms of her themes, to lose the war even if you win the battle (you defeat Voldy only to take no movement towards a society that is not as likely to create another one, maybe you even become another one yourself, on tyrant replaced by another)

As far as other things: allow me to point out a few flaws in SB’s original argument (what I refer to as the “Yada Yada Yada”:

SB writes:
Similarly we cannot have the capacity to love deeply or to truly forgive unless we also have the capacity for hurt and revulsion and hate.

The supposed relation of this argument to what Pat was saying rests in a confusing of the terms “capacity for” and “actualization of.” To have the capacity to lov freely, by nature, entails the capacity to hate freely, just as the capability to be holy entails the capability to sin. But this speaks nothing to the actualization of those capabilities. Of course the place to look for those is in the details of the text(of which there was very little, if any, in all of that wisdom SB had to bestow on us … unless you count that nice little radical recontructionist reading of Harry sitting down and having some nice little philosophical debate within himself in which he drew everything out in nice clear lines and packed up in nice little packages with tidy little bows that would make Delores Umbridge practically giddy, all in the heat surrounding a Quidditch match)

Whoever else it was that made the point (Rena?) was a good one (and drawn from the Medieval tradition Rowling is drawing)… beginning with Augustine especially, and heavily in Aquinas, “evil” is thought of as a “privation of the good.” There is a lot of debate sometimes on this, on how you can speak of evil simply as something “not being” when in fact there is such a thing as a positively evil act. Generally speaking the accepted answer by those who try to work out this definition is that “evil” is where a matter or situation has a naturally good end designed into it (eating is good for the body because without nutrition you die) but it is then perverted (the traditional sin of gluttony … by gorging you become unhealthy and, from the moral, or even just psychological side, habituate yourself in an unhealthy attachment to the pleasure of eating, which is a naturally good pleasure in itself but when it “takes over” other things it can yield positive evil, say stealing food from somebody who really needs it, and it can even end in a compulsive over-eating in the midst of revulsion at the very act itself in something like extrem eating disorders)

Again SB Writes:

To put it another way, unless you are deeply moved with horror and disgust, forgiveness is cheap or meaningless. I can’t genuinely forgive you for something if I didn’t really care about it in the first place. I could *say* that I forgive you for wearing orange socks, but it would be entirely fatuous because I don’t give a toss what socks you wear. Do something that really gets me fuming – that I really hate – and I’ll have something to forgive and that forgiveness will be a loving act.

AA would love you … flush their “fake it till you make it” method down the u-bend in favor of your rigorist “absolute purity of intention” that does not reflect real life anywhere but looking pretty on a printed page (I’m sure you have achieved that nirvana of purity of intention in your own life and all that, but for the rest of us hoi polloi and Joe sixpacks in the pew, we need some help sometimes). I might be verbally giving forgiveness as a path for myself, in a situation where I am having difficulty feeling like actually forgiving you but realize the truth that I should forgive you and thus my motivation in verbally giving it might be to try to work towards a more forgiving and loving attitude in my whole person (in OT studies of canonical liturgical literature such as the Psalms we would call this something like the “transformative” goal of participation in reciting the Psalms, as opposed to the purely “expressive” goal of the same)

Oh, my. Where do I even start? Travis–I am so sorry that I ever posted my thoughts on Snape. I had no idea that it would escalate into something like this. Seriously Black and I don’t usually agree, if memory serves, but it’s never been anything like this. My apologies, Travis–I am so sorry.

SB–I don’t mind that you completely disagree with what I said. I was not aware of the posts that followed until Travis emailed me. However, the personal attacks were so very far out of line–very far. I would be offended if we actually knew each other personally, but it’s clear you were making assumptions based on my opinions, and since I know that you are so far from understanding who I am or what my ‘moral compass’ is, I’m going to let it go.

Merlin–thank you for your kind words and for coming to my defense, but please–it’s gone too far. Let it go–I have.

And with that being said, I would like to clarify my position on why I think Harry has to forgive–and, IN MY OPINION (ahem), that means forgiving those who really have done horrible things to him–not someone like Ginny, whose wrong-doing in COS were explained by what happened to her. (I didn’t include Voldemort in the list, but I should have; and then people like Fudge, Scrimgeour, and all the others who have treated Harry so badly–it’s a long list.)

Back to forgiveness. I think the best explanation of what it takes for us to forgive and to be forgiven is from C.S. Lewis, from “The Weight of Glory” and his words from “On Forgiveness”. I won’t quote all of it here–it’s too long, and that’s probably a copyright infringement problem, but it’s the part where Lewis talks about what forgiveness is. (If you want to read the full text of what I’m referencing, you can find it in “A Year with C.S. Lewis”, the August 28 through August 31 entries, pages 262-265–and yes, I’ve also read the whole book, but finding the passages in this daily devotional book was much easier.)

Lewis talks about what it means when we ask God to forgive us for our sins, and how we make excuses for things we have done. The things that were excusable, where there was some extentuating circumstance surrounding our sin are, he says, not the things that need to be forgiven, however.

To quote Lewis:

“Real forgiveness means looking steadily at the sin, the sin that is left over without any excuse, after all allowances have been made, and seeing it in all its horror, dirt, meanness, and malice, and nevertheless being wholly reconciled to the man who has done it. That, and only that, is forgiveness, and that we can always have from God if we ask for it.”

That addresses what Merlin brought up–Christ forgave those who had done horrible things to him, even though they had not all repented of their acts. But to take it to one person forgiving another, Lewis goes on to say:

“When it comes to a question of our forgiving other people, it is partly the same and partly different. It is the same because, here also, forgiving does not mean excusing. Many people seem to think it does. They think that if you ask them to forgive someone who has cheated or bullied them you are tring to make out that there was really no cheating or no bullying. But if that were so, there would be nothing to forgive. They keep on replying, “But I tell you the man broke a most solemn promise.” Exactly: that is precisely what you have to forgive. (This doesn’t mean that you must necessarily believe his next promise. It does mean that you must make every effort to kill every taste of resentment in your own heart–every wish to humiliate or hurt him or to pay him out.) The difference between this situation and the one in which you are asking God’s forgiveness is this. In our own case we accept excuses too easily; in other people’s we do not accept them easily enough.”

That is what I see as Harry’s need to forgive–and as Lewis points out, it doesn’t mean that Harry is going to forget what was done to him. But to move forward, with that pure heart that Dumbledore often refers to, means that Harry can’t keep letting himself be consumed by hatred and bitterness. I think the same applies to Snape–if he is going to do the good things that I think he intends, he has to quit letting resentment and hatred rule his actions towards Harry, based on James and Sirius.

So Lewis goes on to talk about one man forgiving another (the Sept 1 entry, p. 269, also from “The Weight of Glory”):

“. . . But even if he is absolutely fully to blame we still have to forgive him; and even if ninety-nine per cent of his apparent guilt can be explained away by really good excuses, the problem of forgiveness begins with the one per cent of guilt which is left over. To excuse what can really produce good excuses is not Christian charity; it is only fairness. To be a Christian means to forgive the inexcusable, because God has forgiven the inexcusable in you.”

I see that as a very good place to start in trying to understand how Harry could possibly forgive Snape or even Voldemort. We don’t, of course, know how much or even if, Rowling is going to go that far in letting her Christian beliefs come into the story. But for what we have at this point, that is how the story and the characters make sense to me.

Lewis goes on to say:

“. . . It is perhaps not so hard to forgive a single great injury. But to forgive the incessant provocations of daily life–to keep on forgiving the bossy mother-in-law, the bullying husband, the nagging wife, the selfish daughter, the deceitful son–how can we do it? Only, I think, by remembering where we stand, by meaning our words when we say in our prayers each night “forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those that trespass against us.” We are offered forgiveness on no other terms. To refuse it is to refuse God’s mercy for ourselves. There is not hint of exceptions and God means what He says.”

My view of Snape, which was the original topic, is a complicated one. I began by seeing him as a two-dimensional baddie, and by the end of book 5, I saw him in a completely different light. HBP is just a confusing view of Snape, and I think Rowling means it to be–not a final view of him. If he were meant to be as evil as he seemed at the moment of Dumbledore’s death (and I think there was something very different going on that what Harry saw and interpreted), then I think Rowling would have killed Snape off before the end of HBP, but instead she has said that he and Harry will meet again. I really think that that will be the time when Harry has to come to terms with Snape and to find a way of forgiving him–and Snape has to do the same with his memory of James and Sirius which he so unjustly transfers to Harry.

But how that’s going to happen? No idea, really. But the attitude that Harry had at the end of HBP was not at all consistent with someone who is filled with love and a pure heart. It was that problem with Harry that led me to start thinking about the need for Harry to forgive so that he can move forward to being able to defeat Voldemort.

Pat

Just want to be sure everyone’s aware – Pat, in my opinion, has absolutely need to whatsoever to apologize. And I’d certainly hate for people to hesitate to comment because this little debacle occurred.

That SB post really put me off. One can disagree without being rude – it can be done. This is one of the reasons why I hate ‘debate’, as it almost never is a debate, but ends up being a pissing contest and he who pisses the loudest (i.e. yells loudest, brings forth the most insults, etc.) ‘wins’. It’s depressing …

Remember – these books are supposed to be fun, light entertainment. Yes, I said light. They are not deep books – she ain’t that great a writer – lighten up! They’re page turners – to be read to find out ‘whodunnit’ and forgotten on the morrow!

To Reyhan – ok ok be obsessed – I also like to re-read the books – they’re like milk chocolate! It’s just the stroppiness I object to – that’s all. That’s what I mean by ‘lighten up’ – we can all enjoy each other’s points of view w/o the nastiness and the “you must be a right git to think that,” mode of expression.

I personally really love reading theories and counter-theories – it’s all very interesting (and more creative than the actual books sometimes)!

Keep on with the cool theories and let’s hope the 7th is a real shocker!

Although I would say Harry’s ability to forgive this person or that is probably the most important to the story, if I’m betting on Snape becoming a hero in the end than it is probably Snape who has to make the most changes in his perception of the world, not Harry. I’ve always felt that at this point Harry is, although a “dynamic” character (as my English teacher would say), less of a dynamic character than Snape must be if we assume Snape will redeem himself. Harry is nearly there, and Snape is still trying to sort his life out.

I’m not sure whether Snape will ever put aside his dislike for James, but I think before he can even try to do that he has to stop allowing his hate to dictate all of his behavior in the present. For some reason I feel that Snape needs to forgive more than Harry does at this point. Let me clarify, because that sounds really bad.

Obviously the importance of forgiveness is equal all around, but I mean that Snape’s lack of forgiveness is weighing him down more than Harry. Harry’s current hate is directed at only two people, where as Snape’s is basically directed at the world and most intensely at a few particular individuals. At this point, one could argue Snape is furious at James, Lily, Harry, Dumbledore, Voldemort, Bellatrix, etc… I’m surprised he hasn’t curled up in a corner and died from all that resentment!

I suppose that if Snape hadn’t buried his positive emotions so effectively he’d be suffering so much more from his overwhelming hate, but maybe as long as he keeps his sarcasm and fury at the forefront and his mercy and forgiveness behind them, he doesn’t feel as guilty as he would if he admitted (to himself) that he still can feel positive emotions.

Oh, boy. Looking back on that paragraph it sounds like I’m speaking Troll. (Point…grunt…point…grunt) I can’t phrase it any other way at the moment, though. Does some of it sound somewhat near the mark, at least? Basically, my overall feeling is that Snape has more forgiving to do than Harry, but both must eventually do so before the end. Or, of course, Snape could just avoid the whole issue all together and die protecting Harry and leave us all to wonder how far he’d gotten on his personal issues.

I like korg20000bc’s explanation about forgivness a lot. I think it is about the forgiver relinquishing all ill feelings towards the one who hurt them. Harry could forgive Snape after much soul searching, and Snape could still not care in the least. That’s always so hard. I’d love to think that once one person forgives the other, everything is happily-ever-after, but it isn’t always, is it? I’d say its hardest to forgive someone who doesn’t care if you forgive them or not. It’s nice when the wrong-doer ask for forgiveness, because then the issue can be resolved between the two. Maybe we’ll have an uncharacteristic Snape and Harry moment where that actually happens? Lets just hope it isn’t with Snape’s dying breath… *sniff!*

Travis,
Your comments have drawn forth some excellent and pertinent observations from both korg20000bc and shadowquill. I agree with much of what both have said.

Nevertheless, you addressed a fair question, so I will comment. But first let me say that it was not my intent to “dismiss Christ’s forgiveness of his enemies”, as you put it, but rather, to consider its context and meaning before proclaiming its implications (or otherwise) for the actions of Harry or others.

The cross is not merely a defining moment, but a transitional moment in human spiritual terms. A moment near death exists, at a point when the individual recognizes that s/he is past acting in “the causes of life”, when a shift of perspective becomes possible and even necessary. As I’m sure you’re aware, this is recognized by a number of religions (including some Christian faiths – eg I understand it provides the origins of the Catholic sacrament which is referred to as Extreme Unction). It has also provided a basis for (flawed) justification of the actions of inquisitors at various times, but that is another matter.

The words uttered at a transitional moment (by Christ or anyone else, for that matter) are characterised by an abstraction of perspective and a form of objectivity that removes them temporal concerns – from the exigencies of life and the moral imperatives for action. The rather simplified example I used earlier (someone standing on your foot) does not apply at the point when the imminence of death becomes clear – at which point the individual is absolved of any further need to act in the causes of life. Consequently the moral imperative for action is supplanted by the imperative for acceptance and reconciliation (with both death/mortality and with life extant). Reconciliation with life, in this context *requires* unconditional forgiveness – one cannot otherwise let go. This is a necessary precondition for the individual to die in a state of grace – for the transition to occur.

Our ability to reach a peaceful acceptance of our own death – and to gracefully relinquish life when our time comes – will be a defining moment for all of us, in fact. The story of Christ’s death and subsequent resurrection provide an exemplar for this in our culture and within Christian faith.

It is this which explains what otherwise appears as a dichotomy in the story of the defining moment on the cross and the vigorous and passionate life of action that preceded it. We are shown that Christ spoke and acted when called upon by circumstances and his own moral imperatives, to do so. Yet we are shown that that did not prevent him attaining a state of grace and unconditional* forgiveness at the ultimate (transitional) moment, despite the egregious provocations of that attended that moment.

During life, it falls to one to act in the service of good. During death (transition), it falls to one to let go, to reconcile, to forgive and to embrace mortality. These are the twin tests of humanity, religion aside – so the discussion is existential as much as it is ontyonogical or even theological. It is no more appropriate to face and embrace death during ongoing life than it is to cling obdurately to life at the point of death.

Thus to characterize Harry’s anger and determination to act against those he understands to be engaged in ongoing evil as a flaw on his part – an obstacle to his ability to love or to forgive makes no more sense than it would to contend that Christ erred in failing to offer mercy, understanding and latitude to the merchants in the House of his Father.

Should there be a transitional moment for Harry, where it falls to him to find a way to embrace his own mortality and accept death, *then* it will be fall to him to reconcile in peace with the world from which he is departing. As we have seen at the end of OotP, Harry *is* likely to reconcile to death if it becomes clear his time is at hand. Until then he remains bound by imperatives of life and love, to act in the service of good and against dire evil where he perceives it.

It’s therefore perfectly reasonable, as I see it, to consider whether Harry’s perceptions are flawed and therefore his emotions, intentions and actions mis-directed. However it is quite a different thing to suggest that he should offer mercy, sympathy or understanding to the perpetrators of deepest and ongoing evil.

Which brings us to the thorny question as to whether it is possible to forgive without condoning. To which the answer is that clearly there is – as Lewis points out, actions which can be condoned do not in fact *require* forgiveness – they are already excused. It is incumbent on us to be prepared to let go of hurts that are *real*, perhaps even intolerable – to forgive, to heal and to move on.

However there are two caveats – either the evil to be forgiven must be venial (a natural consequence of our flawed humanity – we err and sometimes we keep erring) or there must be a reasonable prospect that it is spent. Otherwise the moral imperative to stand against advancing evil overrides any dictates of mercy. Ongoing catastrophic damage must be stopped before strategies for repair become viable, before any realistic prospect of healing comes into view.

PhD’s–check your egos at the door, please. These readings are terribly insulting and elitist. I want to enjoy this site, not read your self-congratulating ‘pats on the back’. Please, gentlemen and ladies, don’t tear down, just critique. Your points are fascinating and have fed my imagination. I am eagerly awaiting JKR’s final book so we can see which of you will criticize her ‘failings’.

Yes, I got the gist =) And I’m with you. The whole process of seeking to find all the flaws in Harry while justifying Snape doesn’t sit right with me. Harry’s got his flaws, but book by book the purpose has been the purification of Harry, creating a philosopher’s stone out of him. There’ll be a defining moment in DH, I’m sure, that will be a huge part of Harry’s transformation.

But you can’t call one person “pure of heart,” the other a “sadist,” and a comitter of “the worst kind of abuse” and really mean that the pure in heart guy is awful, and the sadistic abuser is really a nice man after all.

Whatever the outcome for Snape, “Dumbledore’s man” or not, he’s not a “good” guy.

I’d like to return to the startling theory put forth by A. Cooper in “Machiavelli’s Half-Blood Prince”. He argues that Snape is committed to bringing down Voldemort by means fair and foul, but that his ultimate objective is to supplant him as top Dark Wizard.

He quotes JKR for support:

“He is not a – he is not a particularly pleasant person at all. However, everyone should keep their eye on Snape, I’ll just say that, because there’s more to him than meets the eye, and you will find out part of what I’m talking about if you read book four.”

Cooper also implies that Snape might have taken out Dumbledore to get him out of the way for his own plans of ultimate power.

Which would put him at the same end of the shades of evil spectrum as Voldemort himself.

Is it possible?

Mia, you’ve hit the key reason that I, and a lot of others, still have reservations about Snape being Evil. An “emotional mistake” to trust Snape is one thing. Subjecting the children that Dumbledore cares about more than anything in the world to abuse is another.

I’m beginning to fear Rowling’s painted herself into a corner on this one, though I’m sure she has a sufficient explanation coming in Book 7. I’m going to post on this in the near future.

And yet, Travis, Dumbledore did indeed make such mistakes (Rowling has confirmed this) – and the children he cared about were indeed subjected to sadistic abuse. Rowling has said this also – but in any case, we have seen evidence enough of it.

If we are to keep in mind Dumbledore acknowledges his own flaws, then I think we have to ask a basic question. Given the evidence in the books, is Dumbledore really right about Harry’s fundamental nature (“pure of heart”)? In books 1-5, Snape does emotionally abuse Harry rather brutally. But he also saves Harry’s butt on several occasions. And despite the fact that Harry is nearly always wrong about what Snape is doing (or not doing), Harry almost never finds it within himself to regard Snape with much more than hatred. Even after witnessing Snape’s cruel embarassment at the hands of James and Sirius, Harry’s empathy with Snape is never more than fleeting.

Harry is not a forgiving soul. And even though the books are about a symbolic and ontological “purification” of Harry’s character to create love, did not anyone else read the end of HBP wondering what the hell Harry’s been learning for six years? The constant themes over and over are love, dependence on family/friends, and choices. Yet Harry’s final actions after Dumbledore’s death (something that is traditionally a revelatory moment in heroic literature) are to attempt unforgiveable curses (understandable in one sense, given the circumstances); to go Lonewolf McQuade and break off his newfound love with Ginny, and attempt to isolate both Ron and Hermione from what needs to be done; and believe he has to confront Voldemort, despite Dumbledore’s interpretation of the Prophecy as “Voldemort creating his own worst enemy.” In other words, has Harry’s nature really changed all that much? for the good?

I’m sure there are many more options to explain all of this (John Granger’s new book is a veritable encyclopedia of Harry Potter Conspiracy Theories), but I’m stuck wondering if Dumbledore has hugely miscalculated Harry’s nature. My English degrees (just an MA…sorry, no PhD yet…am I worthy?) tell me that Harry is obviously the major character/hero of the tale. But how dynamic is he for a central character? And how angry would we be if Rowling pulls the ultimate postmodern narratological coup-d’etat: Harry as nothing more than a plot-device through which the real heroes/villains seek an end to their warfare.

I don’t think this will happen, but some of Granger’s read(s) on Snape left me wondering if the possibility hadn’t crossed Rowling’s mind.

I agree it would make the ending deem quite shallow if Snape turned out evil, it would just make Rowling’s work seem one-dimensional. On a different note, Voldemort as you all make it seem, didn’t set out to cause and inflict pain. His ultimate goal was to have total control of the wizarding world, but in his eyes, there is only so much suffering because no decent wizard would allow that, in his eyes he is not truly evil. In his eyes the end always justifies the means and he did all he had to, on his quest for power.

Reyhan,
It’s error to equate qualifications with insight, so don’t be too sure of advantages and disadvantages.

Anyway, I think forgiveness will be important in book seven only as it relates to repentance and redemption, which I’m sure will be far more important themes.

Also, I notice you consistantly us the phrase “Christian Myth” in this and other threads. This suggests to me that you would not describe yourself as a Christian (I may be completely wrong. I’m sorry if I am). This also suggest why “…all this solemn discussion about the role and importance of forgiveness leaves me unmoved.”. I feel that for the Christian there are fewer themes more important in their “Myth”.

Matthew

Rehyan, I do have an academic degree, but it has nothing to do with this discussion–mine was a Bachelor’s in Elementary Education. So don’t ever feel that you should apologize for your opinions based on not having a degree. We each read HP with our own history and insights, and that is always worth sharing.

For me, also, as Matthew and Mia pointed out, the whole idea of forgiveness, which has been brought up in the books, and of love and trust are some of the most central issues in the books. If it turns out that Dumbledore’s huge mistake was in trusting Snape, then somehow it diminishes everything else that Dumbledore ever told Harry. I’m more inclined to think that his huge mistake was in not sharing what he saw in the young Tom Riddle, to at least alert someone else that there might be some problems, and also that Dumbledore did not trust Harry enough to tell him sooner about the reason Voldemort killed Harry’s parents.

At the end of OotP, one of the things that Dumbledore told Harry was that:

“Youth cannot know how age thinks and feels. But old men are guilty if they forget what it was to be young. . . and I seem to have forgotten lately. . .” (OP, US version, p. 826)

Dumbledore’s failing was that he didn’t respect Harry’s intellect, emotions, or desire to understand enough to confide in him something that directly pertained to Harry’s ability to comprehend all that was happening. But that decision on Dumbledore’s part was done out of love for Harry, his desire to protect him, and his knowledge of his character. I have a hard time believing that Dumbledore would be such a bad judge of character with Severus Snape that he would trust him, even when challenged by everyone else, especially when he knew him as a student and has worked with him as a teacher at Hogwarts for all these years.

That view is so discrediting to everything else that Dumbledore has done.

Pat

Reyhan writes:

it was a plot requirement. If he had said: “Look, boy…”, then there wouldn’t have been a story to tell, would there?

Yes, there would. It would just have been a *different* story!

Me, for one.

All that thrashing around in the dark, only to find out at the end of the book that Harry has spent the whole school year up a blind alley, is all very well, but I think the story of his life and struggle would be pretty interesting anyway – without all the plot contrivances to keep us in suspenders.

Speaking of plot contrivances, I’m pretty sure that JKR has something major up her sleeve with regards to Snape. Not just his true allegiance, but why Dumbledore had so much faith in him. I’m hoping it’s not going to be one of those things the timely revelation of which would have made large parts of the subsequent story pointless.

I comfort myself by thinking that if Cordelia had just told her Dad that she loved him “lots”, and if Desdemona had just told her husband that she lost the damn handkerchief, and if the witches had just told Macbeth that MacDuff’s mother had a Caesarean section, then the world would have missed out on some great drama.

I believe that if we could decipher Dumbledore’s enigmatic words as he was force fed the green potion of awfullness, we would have the key to what actually happened – to Regulus Black, to Dumbledore’s shrivelled hand, and subsequently up on the Astronomy Tower.

It wouldn’t hurt either to know what he meant when he said: “Severus . . . please.”

Dumbledore’s “Rosebud”.