![[info]](http://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Excellent post! I hope you don't mind a long-winded answer. ;-)
It seemed like JKR was deliberately setting up parallels between these two characters
Agreed, but I think that was done to demonstrate how special Harry was. And similarly, the fact that he had friends who stuck by him while Snape did not was intended to show how special Gryffindors were and how terrible Slytherins were---that Slytherins could not even manage to develop lasting friendships. The one "friendship" Severus had, many insist, was destroyed solely by Snape's ambition and greed; in contrast, Lily's ambition was pure, wholesome, and just, we are told. Throughout the series, thought and ambition are considered bad, unless it's pedestrian or negative ambition. So Lily's ambition for a prosperous, sexy husband is good, as is Sirius Black's purely negative ambition to reject his family and the Dark.
We are meant to see the difference in Lily's, Harry's and Snape's paths as an indication of something lacking in Snape, and that deficit means that Harry is not required to attempt any reconciliation. Snape has, after all, demonstrated with Lily that he is not capable of reconciliation, but merely supplication and abasement -- yet another of his choices that elicit disdain and condemnation.
As you say, Harry never needs to apologize to Snape for doubting his loyalties or thank Snape for protecting him, and he doesn't have to work at attempting a reconciliation etc. Again, I agree, but I think that in the view of many, Harry takes the position of Lily and no apology or thanks (to Snape) are necessary. Snape's actions are not praiseworthy in any way, they insist, because while Snape repeatedly saved Harry and sacrificed his existence for Harry, that is only as it should be and, in fact, Snape should be chastised for not "liking Harry" and being "nice" while he did it. It is a remarkably juvenile, harsh and -- dare I say it -- un-Christian attitude, but it does seem prevelant outside Snape World. I say juvenile because it sticks to a black and white view of the world, which requires heroes to be "pure" and all "good" (sound like any post-DH interviews about Harry's goodness)?
That attitude is, IMO, strongly demonstrated in interviews with the author, in which her readers dragged her almost literally kicking and screaming into grudgingly acknowledging that Snape might have some positive attributes and an important role in the story. The emotional turmoil and struggle you describe for Harry was, I think, played out for all of us across two continents and several months after DH, as the audiences (at least in one location) not only challenged the relentlessly negative comments about Snape with questions, but audibly groaned at their repetition. ;-)
But to (try to) be fair, much of the emphasis on Snape's role comes from a very detailed book analysis and fandom. Going back through the books, one is struck by just how little "page time" Snape has. Which is a rather remarkable demonstration, really, of what a vivid character Rowling created. And while at least some corners of fandom have firmly established Snape as a pivotal character, it is not all that clear that he was in the mind of his creator. IOW, we never see in the books that Snape's spying had any positive contribution to the war effort, and all of Voldy's defeats are directly attributable to Gryffindor "pluck" and "nerve". Even the first defeat, that many attribute that Voldy's agreement to spare Lily if possible (and what an irony that is --g--), does not redound to Snape's credit according to many. In fact, the mere necessity of the agreement was due to Snape's action in repeating the prophecy, so once again, Harry certainly should not need to apologize for that.
And so, Harry's actions in getting the portrait (if we are going to adopt interviews as canon) are simply more demonstrations of how wonderful Harry is, in "forgiving" a horrible person, rather than any indication that the horrible person might have any redeeming qualities (well, except for the one of bravery, which apparently only Gryffindors are allowed credit for and which Harry grudgingly acknowledges).
It seemed like JKR was deliberately setting up parallels between these two characters
Agreed, but I think that was done to demonstrate how special Harry was. And similarly, the fact that he had friends who stuck by him while Snape did not was intended to show how special Gryffindors were and how terrible Slytherins were---that Slytherins could not even manage to develop lasting friendships. The one "friendship" Severus had, many insist, was destroyed solely by Snape's ambition and greed; in contrast, Lily's ambition was pure, wholesome, and just, we are told. Throughout the series, thought and ambition are considered bad, unless it's pedestrian or negative ambition. So Lily's ambition for a prosperous, sexy husband is good, as is Sirius Black's purely negative ambition to reject his family and the Dark.
We are meant to see the difference in Lily's, Harry's and Snape's paths as an indication of something lacking in Snape, and that deficit means that Harry is not required to attempt any reconciliation. Snape has, after all, demonstrated with Lily that he is not capable of reconciliation, but merely supplication and abasement -- yet another of his choices that elicit disdain and condemnation.
As you say, Harry never needs to apologize to Snape for doubting his loyalties or thank Snape for protecting him, and he doesn't have to work at attempting a reconciliation etc. Again, I agree, but I think that in the view of many, Harry takes the position of Lily and no apology or thanks (to Snape) are necessary. Snape's actions are not praiseworthy in any way, they insist, because while Snape repeatedly saved Harry and sacrificed his existence for Harry, that is only as it should be and, in fact, Snape should be chastised for not "liking Harry" and being "nice" while he did it. It is a remarkably juvenile, harsh and -- dare I say it -- un-Christian attitude, but it does seem prevelant outside Snape World. I say juvenile because it sticks to a black and white view of the world, which requires heroes to be "pure" and all "good" (sound like any post-DH interviews about Harry's goodness)?
That attitude is, IMO, strongly demonstrated in interviews with the author, in which her readers dragged her almost literally kicking and screaming into grudgingly acknowledging that Snape might have some positive attributes and an important role in the story. The emotional turmoil and struggle you describe for Harry was, I think, played out for all of us across two continents and several months after DH, as the audiences (at least in one location) not only challenged the relentlessly negative comments about Snape with questions, but audibly groaned at their repetition. ;-)
But to (try to) be fair, much of the emphasis on Snape's role comes from a very detailed book analysis and fandom. Going back through the books, one is struck by just how little "page time" Snape has. Which is a rather remarkable demonstration, really, of what a vivid character Rowling created. And while at least some corners of fandom have firmly established Snape as a pivotal character, it is not all that clear that he was in the mind of his creator. IOW, we never see in the books that Snape's spying had any positive contribution to the war effort, and all of Voldy's defeats are directly attributable to Gryffindor "pluck" and "nerve". Even the first defeat, that many attribute that Voldy's agreement to spare Lily if possible (and what an irony that is --g--), does not redound to Snape's credit according to many. In fact, the mere necessity of the agreement was due to Snape's action in repeating the prophecy, so once again, Harry certainly should not need to apologize for that.
And so, Harry's actions in getting the portrait (if we are going to adopt interviews as canon) are simply more demonstrations of how wonderful Harry is, in "forgiving" a horrible person, rather than any indication that the horrible person might have any redeeming qualities (well, except for the one of bravery, which apparently only Gryffindors are allowed credit for and which Harry grudgingly acknowledges).