Re: Pearlette to Duj
(Anonymous)
"And saying that a passage could have been written better doesn't cancel out author intent."
Author intent is what text allows, suggest and indicates. Authorial comment is irrelevant to the reader's textual experience. Authors own their intellectual property; they don't own the reader's interpretation.
"Which makes your interpretation of the text just as subjective as mine."
Mine is based on the text. You have just stated that yours isn't always.
"Are no shades of shades of grey?"
Not in HP-world, no. JK isn't much of a one for shades of grey or subtleties.
" If Severus could change from being a paid-up DE to a reformed man, then why is a different standard held for an admittedly more minor character – James?"
There is no different standard. There is merely presence or absence of textual evidence. There is plenty for Snape having reformed, and none for James; the little we have shows him unchanged. He's still hexing Snape in year 7, though he's Head Boy and clearly has other ways to control Snape's behaviour. By "returning" hexes (if we can trust his friends about it only being returning and not starting), he is abusing his authority. As an Order member, he and his friends withhold important information (Animagi status) from their leader and act as loose canons. As a parent, he lets a one-year-old ride a broomstick without removing hazards or the pet, and he sulks over his inability to sneak out from hiding.
"became a dedicated Order fighter and family man"
See above.
"If that was payback for James"
It wasn't payback It's quite explicit in canon that Snape had no idea the Potters were affected.
"Since Severus never shows any remorse in canon for James’s death"
"And you don’t think Petunia’s POV on Lily is somewhat … jaundiced?"
No more than Lupin's and Sirius's and Dumbledore's and Hagrid's, and for that matter Snape's. But the point is that we have no counterpoint to it. We are never shown any action of James's that is praiseworthy, unless you count the supposed rescue. I don't however, because when Lupin's account is weighed against Snape's, I find the latter fits the circumstances better. I can't understand how James could trust his family's safety to someone who had wilfully betrayed Lupin's to an enemy, nor how Lupin can be so blase about it as to call Snape's reaction "a schoolboy grudge". But if the whole thing was a group set-up to remove the only person likely to catch them in criminal behaviour it all makes sense.
"The real threat of sexual assault happens after Lily walks away"
Any forcible disrobing of another is a sexual assault, and doing it in public increases the severity of the offence.
"the reason she isn’t is that Severus called her a racial insult, which is no small potatoes."
That would be sufficient reason for her to leave. OTOH, her actions previous to this insult show that she had already stopped being his friend, she just hadn't admitted it, and therefore the insult functioned as an excuse for her to take action she intended anyway.
"Negligent? How? You mean because she was letting a one year old Harry zoom about on a broomstick and she made a humorous remark about him nearly killing the cat?"
Yes. Exactly that. I have almost as many kids as the Weasleys and my ethnic community tends to even larger families, so believe me when I tell you that even the most agile one-year-old shouldn't be rinding a broom. I don't find child negligence funny, and I'm sorry that you apparently do.
"Severus also went along with the plan for Harry to die."
Unwillingly, and because he had no better options. He certainly didn't *encourage* as shade-Lily did. What else could he realistically have done? *Tell* Harry - Harry would still follow Dumbledore. (he'd been "groomed" to do so.) Kidnap Harry? Obliviate him?
"only has doubts about Dumbledore (which he then resolves)"
Of course he resolves them. Dumbledore has groomed him just as pedophiles do their victims.
duj
Author intent is what text allows, suggest and indicates. Authorial comment is irrelevant to the reader's textual experience. Authors own their intellectual property; they don't own the reader's interpretation.
"Which makes your interpretation of the text just as subjective as mine."
Mine is based on the text. You have just stated that yours isn't always.
"Are no shades of shades of grey?"
Not in HP-world, no. JK isn't much of a one for shades of grey or subtleties.
" If Severus could change from being a paid-up DE to a reformed man, then why is a different standard held for an admittedly more minor character – James?"
There is no different standard. There is merely presence or absence of textual evidence. There is plenty for Snape having reformed, and none for James; the little we have shows him unchanged. He's still hexing Snape in year 7, though he's Head Boy and clearly has other ways to control Snape's behaviour. By "returning" hexes (if we can trust his friends about it only being returning and not starting), he is abusing his authority. As an Order member, he and his friends withhold important information (Animagi status) from their leader and act as loose canons. As a parent, he lets a one-year-old ride a broomstick without removing hazards or the pet, and he sulks over his inability to sneak out from hiding.
"became a dedicated Order fighter and family man"
See above.
"If that was payback for James"
It wasn't payback It's quite explicit in canon that Snape had no idea the Potters were affected.
"Since Severus never shows any remorse in canon for James’s death"
"And you don’t think Petunia’s POV on Lily is somewhat … jaundiced?"
No more than Lupin's and Sirius's and Dumbledore's and Hagrid's, and for that matter Snape's. But the point is that we have no counterpoint to it. We are never shown any action of James's that is praiseworthy, unless you count the supposed rescue. I don't however, because when Lupin's account is weighed against Snape's, I find the latter fits the circumstances better. I can't understand how James could trust his family's safety to someone who had wilfully betrayed Lupin's to an enemy, nor how Lupin can be so blase about it as to call Snape's reaction "a schoolboy grudge". But if the whole thing was a group set-up to remove the only person likely to catch them in criminal behaviour it all makes sense.
"The real threat of sexual assault happens after Lily walks away"
Any forcible disrobing of another is a sexual assault, and doing it in public increases the severity of the offence.
"the reason she isn’t is that Severus called her a racial insult, which is no small potatoes."
That would be sufficient reason for her to leave. OTOH, her actions previous to this insult show that she had already stopped being his friend, she just hadn't admitted it, and therefore the insult functioned as an excuse for her to take action she intended anyway.
"Negligent? How? You mean because she was letting a one year old Harry zoom about on a broomstick and she made a humorous remark about him nearly killing the cat?"
Yes. Exactly that. I have almost as many kids as the Weasleys and my ethnic community tends to even larger families, so believe me when I tell you that even the most agile one-year-old shouldn't be rinding a broom. I don't find child negligence funny, and I'm sorry that you apparently do.
"Severus also went along with the plan for Harry to die."
Unwillingly, and because he had no better options. He certainly didn't *encourage* as shade-Lily did. What else could he realistically have done? *Tell* Harry - Harry would still follow Dumbledore. (he'd been "groomed" to do so.) Kidnap Harry? Obliviate him?
"only has doubts about Dumbledore (which he then resolves)"
Of course he resolves them. Dumbledore has groomed him just as pedophiles do their victims.
duj