It's very interesting! HP_essays? It's a shame that all that happened happened, otherwise this would be more than fine and should be discussed. Eh, just post it if you want to!
Anyway, my concrit on the essay:
Although it may be easier for Harry fans to love DH than it is for Snape fans, it's hard for me to imagine any fan who thought about the book at length being satisfied with it.
While you are talking about yourself and what you can imagine, some people might understand that as an insult to readers who liked it and fancy themselves to have thought about it. This might get you more replies, but also more animosity. If you don't want that effect keep it about your opinion: None of the important character arcs were treated satifactory, but you have the most problem with Snape's or ... whatever.
In these conversations, Rowling has an opportunity to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Severus Snape himself is a bully, a sadist, a criminal and a murderer. But she proves no such thing.
I wonder why you are wording that this way. Your wording almost implies that she should have done that and you are holding it against her that she didn't. It's pretty much “she had the opportunity to show this and that, but we see no such thing“ with added but unexplained resentment.
Your point with this is that Snape is a good guy and she treats him as if he was a bad guy? So why not bring the evidence of him being good objectively. If you criticize both it gets confusing and seems as if you'd want him to be evil but treated as good and that way lies headache.
Miscellaneous comments:
Given what we discover about both James and Albus in DH, I can't imagine why Harry should name any child of his after either of them.
What did we discover about James? That he was a bit of a spoiled brat at 11? Or do you mean SWM after the prank? I don't think Harry ever realized/thought about the latter... Is it really enough to reject your own father, though?
And, although Unforgivable Curses are supposed to damage the soul, Harry's soul apparently remains whole and pure.
Are they really? I thought the only thing we ever learned is specifically damaging your soul is murder. Note: not the Avada Kedavra, but murder. AK is simply one way to murder someone, though it can clearly also be used for other – kinda related - things. Harry does seem to lose his childlike innocence though, interestingly ...
For one thing, as livejournaler lebaleteur points out, the revelation that Severus had loved Lily, and had protected Harry for Lily's sake, would only tend to make Harry hate Severus even more than he already does.
I readily admit that Harry's euphoria about Snape's love for Lily was a bit funny, but to hate him after he saw him die and then learned first hand about the tragedy of Snape's life, seeing him as a little child and seeing him at his most vulnerable and learning what he did, would be outright sociopathic.
To give just one example, based on what we (finally) see in DH, isn't it likely that the reason people throughout the Wizarding World are terrified of speaking Voldemort's name is that doing so once had consequences?
Did it? The taboo was in place last time? I thought that was a brand-new idea. Another piece of stupidity I apparently ignored.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2007-10-02 11:54 pm (UTC)Anyway, my concrit on the essay:
Although it may be easier for Harry fans to love DH than it is for Snape fans, it's hard for me to imagine any fan who thought about the book at length being satisfied with it.
While you are talking about yourself and what you can imagine, some people might understand that as an insult to readers who liked it and fancy themselves to have thought about it. This might get you more replies, but also more animosity. If you don't want that effect keep it about your opinion: None of the important character arcs were treated satifactory, but you have the most problem with Snape's or ... whatever.
In these conversations, Rowling has an opportunity to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that Severus Snape himself is a bully, a sadist, a criminal and a murderer. But she proves no such thing.
I wonder why you are wording that this way. Your wording almost implies that she should have done that and you are holding it against her that she didn't. It's pretty much “she had the opportunity to show this and that, but we see no such thing“ with added but unexplained resentment.
Your point with this is that Snape is a good guy and she treats him as if he was a bad guy? So why not bring the evidence of him being good objectively. If you criticize both it gets confusing and seems as if you'd want him to be evil but treated as good and that way lies headache.
Miscellaneous comments:
Given what we discover about both James and Albus in DH, I can't imagine why Harry should name any child of his after either of them.
What did we discover about James? That he was a bit of a spoiled brat at 11? Or do you mean SWM after the prank? I don't think Harry ever realized/thought about the latter... Is it really enough to reject your own father, though?
And, although Unforgivable Curses are supposed to damage the soul, Harry's soul apparently remains whole and pure.
Are they really? I thought the only thing we ever learned is specifically damaging your soul is murder. Note: not the Avada Kedavra, but murder. AK is simply one way to murder someone, though it can clearly also be used for other – kinda related - things.
Harry does seem to lose his childlike innocence though, interestingly ...
For one thing, as livejournaler lebaleteur points out, the revelation that Severus had loved Lily, and had protected Harry for Lily's sake, would only tend to make Harry hate Severus even more than he already does.
I readily admit that Harry's euphoria about Snape's love for Lily was a bit funny, but to hate him after he saw him die and then learned first hand about the tragedy of Snape's life, seeing him as a little child and seeing him at his most vulnerable and learning what he did, would be outright sociopathic.
To give just one example, based on what we (finally) see in DH, isn't it likely that the reason people throughout the Wizarding World are terrified of speaking Voldemort's name is that doing so once had consequences?
Did it? The taboo was in place last time? I thought that was a brand-new idea. Another piece of stupidity I apparently ignored.