"Auf welcher Seite steht Severus Snape?" |
mandragora
Schülerin
Dabei seit: 29.12.2006
Themenstarter
|
|
@Bernhard: Möglich ist buchstäblich alles mögliche, was nicht von Jo explizit ausgeschlossen worden ist. Möglich ist auch, dass Harry Hermine heiratet und mit ihr zum neuen Dark Lord Ehepaar avanciert. Es ist auch möglich, dass Voldemort seinen Irrtum einsieht, von Nagini stranguliert wird oder eventuell am Ende auf einer Bananenschale ausrutscht und sich dabei aus Versehen selber ersticht.
Sorry, wenn ich etwas ungehalten klinge - aber solange eine Variante einfach nur aus der Luft gegriffen wird, nicht einmal halbwegs plausibel begründet wird, und sämtliche literarischen Überlegungen mißachtet, ist sie einfach nicht anführenswert für mich.
__________________ "Wir leben in einem Zeitalter der Massenverblödung, besonders der medialen Massenverblödung." (Peter Scholl-Latour)
Dieser Beitrag wurde 4 mal editiert, zum letzten Mal von mandragora: 17.02.2007 20:02.
|
|
17.02.2007 19:11 |
|
|
Bernhard Nowak
Schüler
Dabei seit: 26.08.2004
Alter: 60
Herkunft: Rödermark
|
|
@mandragora: Die von mir genannten Varianten sind aus meiner Sicht sehr sehr unwahrscheinlich und ich teile sie auch nicht. Da gebe ich Dir recht. Sie sind aber m.E. im Kern alle plausibel zu begründen und stellen m.E. infolgedessen eine Möglichkeit da, eine "evil" Snape-Theorie zu begründen. Und ich denke nicht, dass wir es einfach ausschließen können, dass sich JKR möglicherweise für eine solche Theorie entscheiden könnte, auch wenn ich das selber nicht glaube.
Und ich finde die Argumentation von Oliver Twist im "Werdegang"-Thread durchaus plausibel begründet, auch wenn ich sie selber nicht teile und ja auch entsprechende Gegenargumente geliefert habe.
__________________ King: You're a monster, Urquhart.
Urquhart:You might very well think that, Sir, but your opinion doesn't count for very much now, does it? Good day, Sir.
Ian Richardson in: "House of cards, Teil 2: To play the King"
Dieser Beitrag wurde 1 mal editiert, zum letzten Mal von Bernhard Nowak: 17.02.2007 19:22.
|
|
17.02.2007 19:20 |
|
|
mandragora
Schülerin
Dabei seit: 29.12.2006
Themenstarter
|
|
@Bernhard: Du willst vermutlich darauf hinaus: "Dennoch kann JKR den Tod Dumbledores ja nicht damit begünden, dass der Held immer alleine die Auseinandersetzung mit dem "bösen" Protagonisten suchen muss, sie muss schon eine darüber hinausgehende plausible Begründung für Dumbledores Tod geben. "
Hier wird In-Universe und Out-Of-Universe-Kontext durcheinandergebracht. Out of Universe gilt: Nein, eine plausible Erklärung für DD's Tod geben muss sie in Heldenreise-Geschichte eben NICHT. Die Mentoren-Figuren müssen in diesen Geschichten zwingend sterben, das ist so, war immer so und wird immer so bleiben.
In-Universe muss sie sehen, wie sie den Tod DD's glaubhaft hinbekommt. Begründen, dass er sterben muss, muss sie nicht. Egal wie sie das anstellt, die alleinige Tatsache dass DD stirb, ist keinerlei Beweis dafür, dass der Verursacher dieses Todes "evil" ist.
__________________ "Wir leben in einem Zeitalter der Massenverblödung, besonders der medialen Massenverblödung." (Peter Scholl-Latour)
Dieser Beitrag wurde 2 mal editiert, zum letzten Mal von mandragora: 17.02.2007 20:18.
|
|
17.02.2007 19:27 |
|
|
Bernhard Nowak
Schüler
Dabei seit: 26.08.2004
Alter: 60
Herkunft: Rödermark
|
|
@mandragora: So meinte ich es. So ist es glänzend ausgedrückt
JKR wird aber mit Sicherheit eine plausible Begründung für Dumbledores Tod (In-Universe) liefern, und wenn es eine Variante der "Stoppered Death"-Theorie sein wird, die sie uns möglicher- bzw. wahrscheinlicherweise präsentieren wird.
Ich bin noch immer sehr erstaunt über dieses doch recht eindeutige Umfrageergebnis. Vor allem, dass sich beide "Dumbledore"-Theorien ein "Kopf-an-Kopf"-Rennen liefern. Hoffentlich "beeinflussen" wir hier nicht zu sehr. Die meisten ausführlicheren Begründungen stammen von Vertretern der "Snape-ist-gut"-Theorien. Vielleicht sollte auch einmal ein überzeugter Anhänger der "evil"-Snape-Theorien seine Ansicht begründen oder auf entsprechende Thread-Begründungen verweisen. Möglicherweise verändert sich dann (noch) das Abstimmungsergebnis.
__________________ King: You're a monster, Urquhart.
Urquhart:You might very well think that, Sir, but your opinion doesn't count for very much now, does it? Good day, Sir.
Ian Richardson in: "House of cards, Teil 2: To play the King"
Dieser Beitrag wurde 5 mal editiert, zum letzten Mal von Bernhard Nowak: 17.02.2007 19:52.
|
|
17.02.2007 19:33 |
|
|
Bernhard Nowak
Schüler
Dabei seit: 26.08.2004
Alter: 60
Herkunft: Rödermark
|
|
Ich werde jetzt nochmals Argumente zur Entscheidungshilfe bei der Abstimmung für die Theorien hier hineinposten, die ich bei www.mugglenet.com, Buch 7, Popular Theories, gefunden habe. Dies ist einfacher, als wenn man selber Anhänger einer bestimmten Theorie ist und dann alternative Theorien darstellen muss.
Ich bitte jemanden, nach dieser Theorie einen "Zwischenpost" zu setzen, um dann die anderen Theorien zu posten.
Also zunächst die Theorie einer von Dan McAllister für einen "guten" Snape als "Dumbledores Man".
Dumbledore's Man Through and Through
An original editorial by Dan McAllister
I’m sure we can all agree that the actions of Severus Snape in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince are very surprising. It is my belief that Snape’s behavior throughout the book (including the murder of Dumbledore!) makes sense only if Snape is a good guy, not a bad guy. Please hear me out before you dismiss this theory out of hand.
Let’s examine selected scenes from HBP in which Snape appears or is mentioned. I will show you how each scene supports my theory that Snape is Dumbledore’s man.
Spinner’s End (Chapter 2)
Assume for a moment that you are Severus Snape and that you are loyal to Dumbledore. Your mission for the Order of the Phoenix is to spy on Voldemort by pretending to be a faithful Death Eater. Narcissa Malfoy and Bellatrix Lestrange have just shown up at your door, and Narcissa wants you to swear an Unbreakable Vow to protect Draco and to kill Dumbledore if Draco can’t. How can you refuse without showing your true loyalty, especially with Bellatrix Lestrange questioning your loyalty to Voldemort? You can’t.
I contend that, whether good or evil, Severus Snape had no choice but to make the Unbreakable Vow, to show his loyalty to the Death Eaters. If you read carefully, there is a clue that Snape is reluctant to make the vow:
"And, should it prove necessary, if it seems Draco will fail," whispered Narcissa (Snape’s hand twitched within hers, but he did not draw away), "will you carry out the deed that the Dark Lord has ordered Draco to perform?"
There was a moment’s silence, Bellatrix watched, her wand upon their clasped hands, her eyes wide.
"I will," said Snape.
Snape’s hand twitched. This is certainly not ironclad proof of anything, but I believe it shows Snape’s hesitance to make the vow.
The Unbreakable Vow (Chapter 15)
In Chapter 15, Snape drags Malfoy away from Slughorn’s party and the two argue about Draco’s mission. Harry overhears the tail-end of the argument.
"Listen to me," said Snape, his voice so low now that Harry had to push his ear very hard against the keyhole to hear. "I am trying to help you. I swore to your mother I would protect you. I made the Unbreakable Vow, Draco-"
"Looks like you’ll have to break it, then, because I don’t need your protection! It’s my job, he gave it to me and I’m doing it. I’ve got a plan and it’s going to work, it’s just taking a bit longer than I thought it would!"
"What is your plan?"
"It’s none of your business!"
"If you tell me what you are trying to do, I can assist you-"
It is Ron who explains what Snape is trying to do in this scene.
"Course, you know what they’ll all say? Dad and Dumbledore and all of them? They’ll say Snape isn’t really trying to help Malfoy, he was just trying to find out what Malfoy’s up to."
I believe Ron’s got it half right here -- Snape is trying to find out what Malfoy’s up to so that he can inform Dumbledore and the Order, but also so that he can better protect Malfoy, as the Unbreakable Vow requires. Snape was forced to make the vow, but he’s trying to use it to help him spy on Malfoy for the Order. There is evidence that Snape has told Dumbledore about Malfoy’s mission and the Unbreakable Vow in Harry’s next lesson with Dumbledore.
Dumbledore listened to Harry’s story with an impassive face. When Harry had finished he did not speak for a few moments, then said, "Thank you for telling me this, Harry, but I suggest that you put it out of your mind. I do not think it is of great importance."
"Not of great importance?" repeated Harry incredulously. "Professor, did you understand-?"
"Yes, Harry, blessed as I am with extraordinary brainpower, I understood everything you told me," said Dumbledore, a little sharply. "I think you might even consider the possibility that I understood more than you did. Again, I am glad that you have confided in me, but let me reassure you that you have not told me anything that causes me disquiet."
Harry sat in seething silence, glaring at Dumbledore. What was going on? Did this mean that Dumbledore had indeed ordered Snape to find out what Malfoy was doing, in which case he had already heard everything Harry had just told him from Snape? Or was he really worried by what he had heard, but pretending not to be?
We can’t be positive of what is going on here, but I believe that Snape had indeed informed Dumbledore of everything. I hope you will too by the end of this editorial.
Dumbledore’s Murder (Chapter 27)
In the moment when Snape murders Dumbledore, we are meant to believe that Snape has betrayed Dumbledore. Dumbledore pleads with Snape, but Snape kills him with a quick Avada Kedavra.
If you accept that Snape has told Dumbledore about the Unbreakable Vow and Malfoy’s assignment, Dumbledore’s actions in the scene do not make much sense. He knows that Snape made an Unbreakable Vow to kill him! Why would he plead for his life when there is no way that Snape could break the vow? The answer may surprise you. Here’s the relevant text:
"We’ve got a problem, Snape," said the lumpy Amycus, whose eyes and wand were fixed alike upon Dumbledore, "the boy doesn’t seem able-"
But somebody else had spoken Snape’s name, quite softly.
"Severus…"
The sound frightened Harry beyond anything he had experienced all evening. For the first time, Dumbledore was pleading. Snape said nothing, but walked forwards and pushed Malfoy roughly out of the way. Three Death Eaters fell back without a word. Even the werewolf seemed cowed. Snape gazed for a moment at Dumbledore, and there was revulsion and hatred etched in the harsh lines of his face.
"Severus… please…"
Snape raised his wand and pointed it directly at Dumbledore.
"Avada Kedavra!"
Snape is not a stupid man. On the contrary, he has proven himself to be very bright over the course of the series. He arrived on the rooftop, saw Dumbledore defenseless, and he saw two broomsticks, just as Draco Malfoy did.
Malfoy stepped forwards, glancing around quickly to check that he and Dumbledore were alone. His eyes fell upon the second broom.
"Who else is here?"
Snape is a smarter guy than Malfoy -- two broomsticks and only one rider? I contend that Snape knew or suspected right away that Harry Potter was somewhere nearby concealed by his Invisibility Cloak. With this information, Dumbledore’s pleading makes more sense. He is not pleading for his own life. He is pleading for Snape to save Harry’s life! And Snape does exactly that. He hurries the Death Eaters off the rooftop immediately.
Harry felt as though he, too, were hurtling through space; it had not happened...it could not have happened...
"Out of here, quickly," said Snape.
He seized Malfoy by the scruff of the neck and forced him through the door ahead of the rest..."
In fact, Snape saves Harry’s life again near Hagrid’s house. A Death Eater has apparently used the Cruciatus Curse on Harry.
But before he could finish this jinx, excruciating pain hit Harry; he keeled over in the grass, someone was screaming, he would surely die of this agony, Snape was going to torture him to death or madness-
"No!" roared Snape’s voice and the pain stopped as suddenly as it had started; Harry lay curled on the dark grass, clutching his wand and panting; somewhere above him Snape was shouting, "Have you forgotten our orders? Potter belongs to the Dark Lord -- we are to leave him! Go! Go!"
Just after Snape reveals that he is the Half-Blood Prince, it appears that he is going to kill Harry, but I do not think that was his intention in this scene:
"Kill me, then," panted Harry, who felt no fear at all, but only rage and contempt. "Kill me like you killed him, you coward-"
"DON’T-" screamed Snape, and his face was suddenly demented, inhuman, as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them, "-CALL ME COWARD!"
And he slashed at the air: Harry felt a white-hot, whiplike something hit him across the face and was slammed backwards into the ground. Spots of light burst in front of his eyes and for a moment all the breath seemed to have gone from his body, then he heard a rush of wings above him and something enormous obscured the stars: Buckbeak had flown at Snape...
Snape loses control of his emotions and hits Harry with a nasty spell, but he did not use Avada Kedavra on Harry, as he could easily have done. I believe that Snape would’ve run away even if Buckbeak had not flown in to save the day. If Snape wanted Harry dead, he had the opportunity just a moment before, when Harry was being tortured.
There is one final clue that makes me believe Snape is still Dumbledore’s man. When Flitwick arrives at Snape’s office to tell Snape about the Death Eaters' attack, Snape stupefies Flitwick and encounters Hermione and Luna outside his office and tells them to help Flitwick. Here is Remus Lupin’s comment in Chapter 29:
"It’s not your fault," said Lupin firmly. "Hermione, had you not obeyed Snape and got out of the way, he would have killed you and Luna."
This begs the question: If Snape is a Death Eater through and through, why didn’t he kill Hermione? For Snape, it was a perfect opportunity to dispatch the annoying, know-it-all Mudblood, whom he has hated since Book 1, with a quick Avada Kedavra. Hermione, believing Snape to be an ally, would’ve been caught completely off her guard.
In conclusion, I believe Hagrid was exactly right when he explained his initial reaction to Snape’s behavior:
"What musta happened was, Dumbledore musta told Snape ter go with them Death Eaters," Hagrid said confidently. "I suppose he’s gotta keep his cover. Look, let’s get yeh back up ter the school. Come on Harry…"
Hagrid is right on the money. Snape, having made the Unbreakable Vow (remember, he had no choice -- he had to make it), was going to have to kill Dumbledore. Dumbledore knew it, so he used it to his advantage. Snape is now ideally positioned to betray Voldemort and help Harry in Book 7.
Snape is not the vicious murderer that we are supposed to take him for. He was forced into making the Unbreakable Vow, and, once he made it, he used it to his advantage to try to spy on Malfoy and to gain the trust of the Death Eaters, the better to help Harry in Book 7. Severus Snape is Dumbledore’s man, through and through.
And let’s not forget the most important thing in Snape’s favor: Albus Dumbledore trusted Severus Snape. And, as Lupin says:
"It comes down to whether or not you trust Dumbledore’s judgement. I do; therefore, I trust Severus."
7/21/05
Posted by: Sara
Quelle: http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/edit...llister01.shtml
Ich bitte nun jemanden, einen Zwischenpost zu setzen.
__________________ King: You're a monster, Urquhart.
Urquhart:You might very well think that, Sir, but your opinion doesn't count for very much now, does it? Good day, Sir.
Ian Richardson in: "House of cards, Teil 2: To play the King"
Dieser Beitrag wurde 4 mal editiert, zum letzten Mal von Bernhard Nowak: 17.02.2007 20:30.
|
|
17.02.2007 20:18 |
|
|
clever&smart
Schülerin
Dabei seit: 18.07.2005
Alter: 47
Herkunft: aus der winkelgasse...
|
|
|
17.02.2007 20:34 |
|
|
Bernhard Nowak
Schüler
Dabei seit: 26.08.2004
Alter: 60
Herkunft: Rödermark
|
|
Clever&Smart: Vielen Dank! Hier die zweite Theorie für einen "evil" Snape von Tracie Rubeck.
Quelle: http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/edit...trubeck01.shtml
Snape is Evil
An original editorial by Tracie Rubeck
I am a frequent reader of MuggleNet’s editorials and columns. I'm often amused by the exhaustive probing of the books, especially when in support of theories as creative as they are sometimes dubious. While often in disagreement, I've never felt prompted to respond because I respect the love of the books (and characters) that prompts such close analysis. However, the recent attempts to cling to Snape's innocence have upset me so profoundly that I feel obligated to reply.
In short, and I say this with no intent of hyperbole, I think that the need to prove Snape's innocence insults the ethos of the books and the various characters, including Dumbledore, who have died within them. As evidence, I have two points.
Murder is Not Noble
Dumbledore mentions that to commit murder is to destroy one's own soul. We have ample evidence within canon that this is a basic, if not the basic, understanding of the difference between which choices are "good" and which are "evil." Those who are evil disregard this cost. For example, another testament of Harry's ability to love is that he is as frightened by the prospect of committing murder as he is by the prospect of his own death.
Another example of this: Harry stops Sirius and Lupin from killing Pettigrew, not because Pettigrew didn't deserve such punishment, but because he didn't want his father's best friends to become killers.
So, I must, especially in light of the real political context in which these books reside, vehemently oppose any claim that Dumbledore wanted Snape to kill him to protect either Malfoy or Harry. Yes, Dumbledore would sacrifice his own life to save Malfoy or Harry, but he also would have done the same for Snape. Just as he went to great lengths to protect Malfoy (which includes not only concealing his awareness of Malfoy's plans but also preventing him from becoming a killer), he would not choose for Snape to become a murderer. Murder is not, nor will it ever be, a noble act.
Again, I will point to Rowling's hero: Harry. His uniqueness, and it is most unfortunate in current times that it should be unique, is that despite the wrongs done to him, he never chooses to learn the Dark Arts. He does not allow himself to become consumed by bitterness and hatred.
Self Preservation
We have been told repeatedly that a characteristic of Slytherin members is their self preservation. When faced with difficult decisions, especially those concerning life and death, they will almost always choose to save their own necks. I think Slughorn's character serves as a reminder of this. He is a less harmful version of the self promotion and self preservation common to those of Slytherin house. Slughorn negotiates among and for the famous and the talented -- for material luxury. Snape does the same by ingratiating himself with the two most powerful wizards, but he's after power, and it's a need for power routed in vengeance.
So, yes, Snape "twitches" when Narcissa adds the clause to the Unbreakable Vow requiring him to finish Malfoy's task should Malfoy fail. But, it seems to me far more likely that this twitch resulted from Snape's acknowledgment that his relatively safe position as a double agent was in jeopardy -- that he would be forced to declare his loyalty to Voldemort rather than sacrifice himself. Unlike Lily and James, who gave their lives to save Harry's, Snape would not give his life to protect Malfoy. He KILLED to protect Malfoy, yes, but I believe his primary concern was his own life.
I think Rowling has given us enough information to understand this. The Half-Blood Prince book is key. For it is through this book that we come to understand Snape. He has spent years honing his magical skills in secret -- skills that include humiliating and harming others and in learning others' secrets as he hides his own. Unlike Voldemort, who wants his power (as evidenced by the diary) to be both known and feared, Snape thrives through and by concealment. The "twitch" in front of Narcissa and Bellatrix was, again, his deep fear of exposure.
Choices
To end, consider that Snape had a number of choices in front of him besides killing Dumbledore. He could have: 1. Broken the barrier to allow the Phoenix members to assist him; 2. Helped revive Dumbledore or retrieved his wand ("Accio Dumbledore's wand"); 3. Stunned or directly challenged the Death Eaters around Dumbledore; or 4. Released Harry (if, as one editorial suggested, he deduced he was there).
While we cannot know if any of these choices would have saved Dumbledore, we do know for certain that all of them would have resulted in Snape's death for breaking the Unbreakable Vow. His choice -- murder -- even if made at precisely that moment (I doubt it, though: see stunning Flitwick) illustrates that his primary concern is his own life, and that he would openly ally with Voldemort rather than sacrifice himself.
Honor Dumbledore
I am still stunned by the toll this story, and, in particular, Snape's betrayal, has taken on me. I keep saying to myself, "My God, it's just a book!" But, I think that it is very unsettling to acknowledge that choosing to have faith in people is not easy nor simple, but that we do so in honor of ourselves and those whom we love. As Rowling repeatedly foreshadowed, Dumbledore made a tragic mistake in his refusal to hear ill word of Snape.
But rather than search frantically for any shred of evidence that proves Dumbledore was right, I'd rather honor what he stood for. Even though he turned out to be wrong about Snape, he was undoubtedly right in many other instances in which he challenged people to become more honest, loving, and decent. Come to think of it, he has challenged Malfoy thus. Like the above discussion about the toll of committing murder, I think that the benefits of choosing to maintain such a faith far outweigh the possible consequences should one be wrong.
Just as Dumbledore wouldn't want Snape to become a killer, he would want each of us to thrive from the security that comes with faith in others. As Dumbledore repeatedly reminds Harry, there are much worse fates than death.
I wouldn't dishonor him further by trying to find honor in Snape's choices.
7/24/05
Posted by: Sara
Bitte setzt für die beiden letzten Theorien noch einen Zwischenpost!
Danke!
__________________ King: You're a monster, Urquhart.
Urquhart:You might very well think that, Sir, but your opinion doesn't count for very much now, does it? Good day, Sir.
Ian Richardson in: "House of cards, Teil 2: To play the King"
Dieser Beitrag wurde 2 mal editiert, zum letzten Mal von Bernhard Nowak: 17.02.2007 21:02.
|
|
17.02.2007 20:39 |
|
|
clever&smart
Schülerin
Dabei seit: 18.07.2005
Alter: 47
Herkunft: aus der winkelgasse...
|
|
okee
__________________ Das Leben is scho manchmal ein ScheiÃźspiel..
aber die Grafikauflösung ist dafür geniaaaal!
|
|
17.02.2007 20:45 |
|
|
Bernhard Nowak
Schüler
Dabei seit: 26.08.2004
Alter: 60
Herkunft: Rödermark
|
|
@Clever&Smart: Vielen Dank!
Jetzt der vorletzte Aufsatz.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Antagonist
An original editorial by Melissa Walker
Having recently read and been fascinated by B.J. Texan’s excellent article Machiavelli’s Half-Blood Prince [der Aufsatz von Texan befindet sich als nächster Aufsatz in diesem Thread, B.N.] my mind started wandering down Snape’s road: the road that he is on to achieve not Dumbledore’s ends, not Voldemort’s ends, but only his own ends (Spinner’s End?). I really started considering Snape in Machiavellian terms, as the “Severus” of the Romans.
After considering the Machiavelli information, I also began pondering another line of inquiry that is fascinating in terms of Snape. All of the books have at least one major red herring (e.g. Snape/Quirrel, Draco/Riddle, Sirius/Pettigrew, Bagman/Crouch Jr./Mad Eye, Zacharias Smith/Marietta Edgecombe, Slughorn/Snape), and usually several minor ones as well (Harry as the possible heir of Slytherin in CoS, Crookshanks as a possible culprit in PoA, etc.), and it was our greasy-haired Potions professor who set the precedent. (Was there anyone who wasn’t totally convinced on their first reading of SS/PS that Snape was the villain?) Rowling has said on more than one occasion that she regards the series as one big, long novel. Considering her love of red herrings, it follows that the series itself contains one big, major red herring.
I propose that, based on the Machiavelli information provided by Texan and Rowling’s consistent and abundant use of red herrings, that she has intentionally set us up to believe that Voldemort is the main antagonist in the story, while all the time brilliantly laying a foundation for Snape to emerge as the primary antagonist, just as Quirrel did in opposite fashion is SS/PS.
Let’s look at this objectively: Assume Voldemort is the primary antagonist. I mean, of course he is! We’ve known that since day one! He’s the one who went to Godric’s Hollow to kill the Potters and gave Harry his scar, and set the whole story in motion, right? Oh, wait. What happened before that? Trelawney gave the prophecy to Dumbledore, which was conveniently overheard by Snape. Snape gave pieces of this information to Voldemort, sending Voldemort to Godric’s Hollow, leading to Voldemort’s downfall. Hmm. Snape now, not Voldemort, is the catalyst for the action. Snape is equally to blame for the death of Harry’s parents (from Harry’s perspective, if not Dumbledore’s). And Snape has now, in a sense, been responsible for the (albeit unforeseen and temporary) downfall of Voldemort and the murder of Dumbledore, the two most powerful wizards of the age!
So moving into the present (books 1-6), we see -- or rather see the effects of -- Snape playing Dumbledore and Harry against Voldemort (most noticeably of course in 5 and 6), like so many pawns on a wizard’s chess board. And he will continue to play Harry against Voldemort in 7, using each to his advantage as much as possible (to find Horcruxes, etc.), until he can move out into the open. (For illustration, think of that brilliant episode of "Lost" where Sawyer plays Jack and Locke against each other and steals all the guns. Sawyer is Snape’s handsome-Southern-Muggle twin brother.)
While it’s clear that Harry fears Voldemort and each book so far has culminated in a showdown with Voldy or his followers, the tension between Harry and Snape is built up even more consistently, subtly, and on a more intimate level. The relationship between Harry and Snape is extremely personal. They see and converse with each other nearly every day. The animosity between them grows so steadily and persistently that it is like a cancer. So while Harry and Voldemort are certainly locked in their own battle by means of the prophecy, Godric’s Hollow, and the terrible incidents that occur almost annually, I maintain that the most primal and vicious grudge that Harry feels is for Snape: Snape who “sicked” Voldy on his parents, Snape who murdered Dumbledore, Snape who never really stopped being a Death Eater, Snape who goaded Sirius out of hiding to his death, Snape who betrayed him as friend in the form of the “Half-Blood Prince,” Snape who has taunted, belittled, humiliated and insulted Harry since he first laid eyes on him at Hogwarts, Snape who represents everything Harry despises. The “big things” are often easier to get over than the innumerable small abuses.
But here’s the clincher: Jo herself stated:
Harry-Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry-Voldemort.”
(July 16, 2005 TLC/Mugglenet Interview; emphasis added)
Structurally, it makes no sense to have a greater conflict between the protagonist and a supporting character than the antagonist. It detracts from the impact of the story and distracts the reader. I contend that Jo, usually very protective of her secrets, let a major clue slip here. She is a master storyteller and does not make amateur mistakes in story structure. Therefore, if the conflict between Harry and Snape is greatest (“most personal”), then the only logical conclusion is that Harry and Snape must be the protagonist and antagonist, respectively.
I know that this theory is likely to be controversial because it conflicts with all of our previous assumptions. So I have tried to predict what some of the reactions might be, and respond to them now.
I think most will react emotionally: No! You’re wrong! It has to be Voldemort! It’s so obvious that there’s no use even arguing about it!
Well, if you have considered my evidence fairly and still believe that logically Voldy is the primary antagonist, then it is your right to do so, and I’m sure you will find many others in your camp. However, if you feel this way just because it is a new and different way of thinking about things, then I would ask you to open-mindedly reconsider the evidence. If you are still screaming “No! It can’t be!” just because you can’t handle a different paradigm, no amount of reason or logic will change your mind, and I will not waste my time trying.
The prophecy makes it clear that Voldemort and Harry are fated that “either must die at the hand of the other.”
I don’t think that this necessarily contradicts my theory. There can be any number of ways that the story can unravel that will fulfill the terms of the prophecy, get Voldemort out of the way, and leave Harry and Snape both alive and ready to battle it out in the final chapters. I would draw your attention to Rowling’s pattern of double or extremely long climaxes. For example, in PoA, there are two climaxes, the first in the Shrieking Shack, the second going back in time. HBP also has two climaxes, the first in the cave, the second on the tower. In OotP the climax is 150 pages long, and goes all the way from Umbridge’s office to the Ministry of Magic. So a double climax -- first a showdown with Voldemort, then another showdown with Snape -- is not unforeseeable.
While I’m not willing to bet a sack of galleons on anything yet, this is how I see the end of book 7 playing out: Harry has his big battle with Voldy, wherein Voldy is vanquished (I will make no speculation as to how that will happen, if Harry will kill him, if Tom Riddle will be redeemed, etc.), and I can even foresee Snape helping Harry to do this. (Remember, Snape isn’t on Voldemort’s side or Harry’s side, so he can play either side, so long as it’s to his own advantage.)
After Voldemort’s gone, Harry thinks he can start to breathe easily again, and then -- POW! -- a new battle begins with Snape. Second climax and adrenaline rush for Harry and the reader.
...and...
I have no idea how he’s going to win that battle because you saw how Snape practically ate him for breakfast at the end of HBP. But, since Harry is our hero, and he’s got lots of smart, talented, and loyal friends, I’m sure he’ll prevail, and at least some of the characters will live to move into a better tomorrow.
4/30/06
Posted by: Sara
Discuss this editorial.
Quelle: http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/edit...mwalker01.shtml
Der von Melissa Walker erwähnte Aufsatz von B.J. Texan wird noch hier hineingepostet.
__________________ King: You're a monster, Urquhart.
Urquhart:You might very well think that, Sir, but your opinion doesn't count for very much now, does it? Good day, Sir.
Ian Richardson in: "House of cards, Teil 2: To play the King"
Dieser Beitrag wurde 8 mal editiert, zum letzten Mal von Bernhard Nowak: 17.02.2007 21:54.
|
|
17.02.2007 20:46 |
|
|
Bernhard Nowak
Schüler
Dabei seit: 26.08.2004
Alter: 60
Herkunft: Rödermark
|
|
Ich poste jetzt doch auch den "Machiavelli"-Aufsatz von Texan hier hinein, dann stehen alle Aufsätze in einem Thread.
Mandragora hat recht: eigentlich gehören die Aufsätze in den Thread: "Großtheorien", aber dies hier ist der häufiger frequentierte Thread. Die Aufsätze sollen ja zur eigenen Entscheidungsfindung beitragen.
Machiavelli's Half-Blood Prince
An original editorial by B.J. Texan
Throughout all of Book 6, Harry, Ron and Hermione refer to the Half-Blood Prince by the simple nickname "the Prince."
"...and stop talking about 'the Prince' as if it's his title, I bet it's just a stupid nickname, and it doesn't seem as though he was a very nice person to me!"
-Hermione (pg.241)
"You know I wouldn't have used a spell like that, not even on Malfoy, but you can't blame the Prince, he hadn't written 'try this out, it's really good' -- he was just making notes for himself, wasn't he, not for anyone else..."
-Harry (pg. 530)
"He was a genius, the Prince. Anyway... without his bezoar tip..."
-Ron (pg. 539)
"The Prince" was firmly ensconced as the Half-Blood Prince's (and thus Snape's) nickname. We know the degree to which J.K. Rowling has studied classical, medieval, and Renaissance literature and loves to reference them in her books, so I think it is quite easy to see that she is drawing a distinct parallel between Snape and the ideas put forth in Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince.
Now most people have heard of The Prince and know what it is generally about, but for the younger readers I'm going to give some general background on the book. All you older readers feel free to let your attention wander for a paragraph.
Niccolo Machiavelli wrote The Prince to the prince Lorenzo de' Medici, who employed him as a minister/scribe. The whole basis of this book was to layout advice on what a prince should and should not do in order to either gain power or to keep the power he already had. It is most well known for its blasé treatment of morality. Basically, Machiavelli says that a prince should do whatever it takes, lie, cheat, steal, plunder, murder, or act piously, honestly, and with honor, in order to maintain his power and keep stability for his people.
It is this willingness to do whatever it takes to gain power, good or evil, that relates Machiavelli's ideal prince to our Half-Blood Prince, Severus Snape.
"And let it here be noted that men are either to be kindly treated, or utterly crushed, since they can revenge lighter injuries, but not graver. Wherefore the injury we do to a man should be of a sort to leave no fear of reprisals."
(Machiavelli pg. 4)
"He who is the cause of another's greatness is himself undone."
(Machiavelli pg. 8)
These two quotations relate to how Snape has handled his role as a double agent for both Dumbledore and the Dark Lord.
First, Snape never gives greatness to either of his masters. Snape keeps them constantly striving against each other and never gives either of them the upper hand. In this fashion, Snape ensures that neither of them can achieve total victory and thus they both still need him more than he needs them.
Next, Snape does not act against either of his masters until he can ensure total destruction. To begin with, the Dark Lord begins to hunt down the Potters on Snape's information and, possibly at Snape's request, gives Lily a chance to live and then "dies" because of it. Now many people have suggested that Snape might have requested the Dark Lord to spare Lily because of a secret love for her; however, I suggest a scenario that fits right in with Machiavelli's ideal prince. What if Snape asked LV to spare Lily because Snape respects the power of Love, that the Dark Lord knows not, and knew it would rebound and incapacitate LV? This would allow Snape's other master, Dumbledore, to train the one that would finally defeat LV for good and clear the road for Snape's rise to power. Next, Snape never shows any aggression towards Dumbledore until he has fulfilled his purpose of training and preparing Harry, and then after years of treating him nicely, Snape automatically kills Dumbledore when he has the chance, leaving no fear of reprisals. In this way, Snape kills Dumbledore but does not give LV the upper hand, because instead of having to worry about Dumbledore, LV must now worry about a fully trained and prepared Harry that is on a mission to kill him. Thus, Snape removes one major obstacle on his path to power, Dumbledore, but manages to maintain the status quo through Harry which makes sure he is not the cause for LV's greatness which would undo his own greatness.
By using the two pieces of advice above, Snape has played the two most powerful wizards in the world like they were pawns, and advanced his path closer to absolute power. What makes Snape more powerful than these two wizards that are obviously more powerful, magically, than him? The answer is given in this next quotation from Machiavelli:
"It is essential, therefore, for a prince who desires to maintain his position, to have learned how to be other than good, and to use or not to use his goodness as necessity requires."
(Machiavelli pg. 40)
This is what sets Snape apart from both Dumbledore and the Dark Lord. Dumbledore is not willing to be other than good and devotes himself entirely to love and justice. LV is not willing to ever be good and devotes himself entirely to hatred and fear. Snape, however, is completely willing to be good when it is necessary, like being a teacher for 16 years, and completely willing to be evil when it is necessary, like murdering Dumbledore.
Now this willingness to do good or bad is what most people have been referring to when they call Snape a "gray" character. However, I would say this "gray" characteristic makes him more dangerous than Voldemort and more evil, since he knows the powers of love and has rejected them, unlike Voldemort who has never known them.
Even though I say Snape is willing to do both good and evil, we see throughout all six books that Snape definitely seems to be leaning towards a more evil and angry disposition than a lovable one. Machiavelli touches on this characteristic in his book also:
"It is far safer to be feared than loved... Returning to the question of being loved or feared, I sum up by saying, that since his being loved depends upon his subjects, while his being feared depends upon himself, a wise prince should build on what is his own, and not on what rests with others."
(Machiavelli pgs. 43, 45)
It is Snape's streak as a loner, of only depending on himself and his own cunning, that sways him into choosing a path based more on LV's fear than on Dumbledore's love. However, his ability to use both when necessary sets him apart from both his masters, no matter what leanings he might have in either direction.
So far, all of my evidence that links Snape and Machiavelli's prince together has been based on similar personality characteristics between the two characters. However, there is a much stronger connection between Snape and The Prince. In The Prince, Machiavelli gives an example from history of the perfect use of fear and cunning in order to rise to power. The example was a Roman general who made himself emperor. His name was Severus. This story was mentioned a few editorials ago as the struggle between Severus, Albinus and Niger, but the story was not explained very well. So I am going to give my last round of Machiavelli quotations and try and summarize this story afterwards.
"But since a prince should know how to use the beast's nature wisely, he ought of beasts to choose both the lion and the fox... he who was best known to play the fox has had the best success."
(Machiavelli pg. 46)
"When we turn to consider the characters of Commodus, Severus, and Caracalla, we find them all to have been most cruel and rapacious princes... And all of them, except Severus, came to a bad end. But in Severus there was such strength of character... he was able... to reign on prosperously to the last."
(Machiavelli pgs. 51-52)
"Whoever, therefore, examines carefully the actions of this emperor, will find in him all the fierceness of the lion and all the craft of the fox."
(Machiavelli pg. 52)
Thus, through these quotations we learn that Severus was cruel, fierce (like a lion), but most of all cunning (like a fox). In between all these quotations, Machiavelli gives the story of Severus' rise to power, but since I didn't want to quote an entire page of the book, I will summarize it for you here.
The current emperor of the Roman empire is Julianus, whose three main generals were Albinus, Severus, and Niger. Severus senses the weakness of the emperor and secretly marches his army from their post to Rome. By the time anyone realizes that Severus has left his post, he is already in Rome where he immediately forces the Senate to elect him Emperor and execute Julianus. Now that he is emperor, Severus knows that he has two main rivals to contend with, Albinus and Niger, his fellow generals. He also knows that he cannot possibly defeat both of them at once. To fix this situation, he immediately sends a letter to Albinus saying he would love to have a joint emperorship with him. After Albinus agrees, Severus sets out and defeats Niger's army and executes Niger. After this is done, however, he immediately turns around and attacks Albinus and kills him. This leaves Severus the sole emperor of the Roman Empire.
From this story, we see all of Severus' ferocity and cunning. Additionally, the way this situation mirrors the situation of Severus Snape is quite eerie. Snape also has two main rivals, Albus (=Albinus) and LV (=Niger or black/evil). Also, we know Snape offered Albus friendship by turning to the Order and then sent LV to his "death" on his information on the prophecy. Then, just like the historical Severus, Snape betrays the trust of Albus/Albinus and murders him.
By comparing these two stories, I believe it can be deduced that Snape had no secret agreements with Dumbledore and murdered him for his own personal gain. I believe Snape is a selfish, power-hungry character that is more evil than Voldemort and that Snape has no thoughts of redemption in Book 7.
For more support of this theory, I present the symbol of the fox. Machiavelli tells us that Severus had "all the craft of the fox" and J.K. Rowling puts us constantly in awe of the amount of cunning and cleverness in which Severus Snape operates, even as a teenager with his potions book full of clever spells. With this in mind, I am 100% sure that Snape's patronus is the fox. I believe we haven't learned this information yet because it would give too much away, because it is Machiavelli's symbol of the cunning fox that would clue us in to Snape's true cunning nature. And remember the animal that Bellatrix and Narcissa meet just outside of Snape's house in "Spinner's End": "'Just a fox,' said a woman's voice dismissively from under the hood. 'I thought perhaps an Auror -- Cissy, wait!'" (HBP pg. 20)
I don't think this random episode of meeting a fox just outside Snape's house can serve any other purpose other than to point us in the direction of Snape's true nature as an ideal Machiavellian prince with the cunning of a fox.
All this evidence points to Snape having a huge role in Book 7 as an extremely evil antagonist to Harry. With all of the Machiavellian references in mind, I predict that the climax of Book 7 will not be the showdown between Harry and LV, but the showdown between Harry and Snape. After Harry defeats LV, Snape will immediately rise to power as a new Dark Lord that is at once cleverer and more dangerous than the previous one, since Snape can respect and understand, and thus protect against, the powers of love. I do not know if Harry or Snape will prevail in this fight, but we saw what Snape could deal with Harry at the end of HBP.
In conclusion, through truly Machiavellian measures of deceit, using the advantages of both good and evil characteristics, and immeasurable cunning, Snape will rise to an all powerful Machiavellian prince in the form of the new Dark Lord in Book 7.
4/9/06
Posted by: Rachael
Quelle: http://www.mugglenet.com/editorials/edit...t-texan01.shtml
__________________ King: You're a monster, Urquhart.
Urquhart:You might very well think that, Sir, but your opinion doesn't count for very much now, does it? Good day, Sir.
Ian Richardson in: "House of cards, Teil 2: To play the King"
Dieser Beitrag wurde 3 mal editiert, zum letzten Mal von Bernhard Nowak: 17.02.2007 21:13.
|
|
17.02.2007 21:04 |
|
|
aleyna unregistriert
|
|
Meiner Meinung nach, ist Snape ein Mann für sich, was er denkt und wie er fühlt kann man nicht erahnen. Er kann genauso böse wie auch gut sein. Man darf natürlich nicht vergessen, dass er trotz seinem Hass gegenüber Harrys Vater und seinem Paten, auch Harry desöfteren geholfen hat, auch wenn er Harry gerne in seinem Unterricht bloßgestellt hat.
Er kann und wird bestimmt im letzten Buch eine große Rolle spielen, vielleicht wird er sogar Harry helfen den Dunklen Lord zu besiegen. Ich weiß es nicht, aber ich sehr gespannt darauf welchen Weg er einschlagen wird.
|
|
17.02.2007 21:14 |
|
|
mandragora
Schülerin
Dabei seit: 29.12.2006
Themenstarter
|
|
Zwischenstand nach gut 48 Stunden:
- gut 78 Prozent für 1a, 1b, 2 (Snape is Good)
- knapp 22 Prozent für 3, 4 (Snape is Evil)
Immerhin haben wir inzwischen 4 Stimmen =6,25 Prozent, die in Snape den nächsten Dark Lord sehen.
Addiert man 1b, 2, und 3 auf, so kommt man auf 51,6 Prozent, die glauben, dass Snape auf die eine oder andere Art seine eigenen Ziele verfolgt. Deutlich zu niedrig dieser Anteil für meinen persönlichen Geschmack
- aber vielleicht bin das auch nur ich.
Aber wenigstens wurde jetzt 1a von 1b überholt und auch 3 holt gegenüber 4 auf. Somit sollte ich vllt. erfreut feststellen, dass Snape mit eigenem Kopf gegenüber Snape als Herdentier an Boden gewinnt
__________________ "Wir leben in einem Zeitalter der Massenverblödung, besonders der medialen Massenverblödung." (Peter Scholl-Latour)
Dieser Beitrag wurde 5 mal editiert, zum letzten Mal von mandragora: 17.02.2007 22:23.
|
|
17.02.2007 22:07 |
|
|
Bernhard Nowak
Schüler
Dabei seit: 26.08.2004
Alter: 60
Herkunft: Rödermark
|
|
Deswegen war es mir wichtig, die verschiedenen Sichtweisen der Vertreter der Theorien hier hinein zu posten, damit es eine etwas "ausgewogenere" Sichtweise in diesem Umfragenthread gibt und nicht nur die Vertreter einer Theorie (hier: Snape ist "gut") mit ihren Begründungen vertreten sind. Dann haben wir die verfügbaren Sichtweisen dargestellt und damit hoffentlich eine objektivere Entscheidungsfindung für jeden Einzelnen sichergestellt.
__________________ King: You're a monster, Urquhart.
Urquhart:You might very well think that, Sir, but your opinion doesn't count for very much now, does it? Good day, Sir.
Ian Richardson in: "House of cards, Teil 2: To play the King"
|
|
17.02.2007 22:34 |
|
|
|