[DWJ] Dumbledore vs. Snape

Mark Allums mark at allums.com
Mon May 14 16:30:11 EDT 2007

minnow at belfry.org.uk wrote:
> Well, you didn't bring HP up, Ika did, so you can't have *all* the
> credit or blame for that!  You were replying to her throwaway comment
> about "bad guys wear black", as far as I could make out.

Well, yes, but that's the point, it was a throwaway comment, and I made 
it a topic.  My mistake.

> As someone who hasn't read Potter, I wasn't able to follow the argument
> you made, but was it in effect "Dumbledore is fair and Snape isn't"?  If
> so, I think people have been addressing it, mostly in terms of
> disagreement.  If it was "we don't yet know what Snape's motivation is",
> there's not a lot to say about that if it may or may not be going to
> appear in a book that hasn't come out yet, so the most anyone might have
> said about it would have been "True".

My point was [it appears to me] that Dumbledore is working from data no 
one else has, and Snape assumes knowledge that he doesn't really have. 
This is implicit several times, and the plot hinges on it in Book Three.

I can't imagine that there is anyone left alive who hasn't read at least 
Book One, or seen the movie, which was a fair, if imperfect, rendition. 
  I can't really recommend the book in terms of being literally* worth 
the time, but it is mostly well done, and, taken as a whole, a lot of 
fun.  (Don't ever forget, though, it's a children's book.)  All 
"implementations" of archtypes e.g., Gandalf, or the myths about them 
are going to be imperfect.  It's no reason to avoid the story 
altogether.  Start reading now, and be ready for when Book Seven 
appears.  :)

(I'm one of *those* people.  Ones who try to end the argument, but can't 
resist adding one more comment themselves.)

--Mark A.

*literarily?  Let us coin a word, meaning, "of or about something 
literary".  It's a bit of a tongue twister.

More information about the Dwj mailing list