Why do we love Snape?

[mary_j_59]

This was a question asked over on the whysnape board, and here was my answer. I have expanded it a bit as a result of the bitter word's excellent essay on Dunbledore and the comments that resulted. It is an informal essay/meditation, g-rated and probably about 500 words.

Why love a fictional character? In what sense do we *love* characters in books?

Some people will never understand this love because it has never happened to them. When I was in library school, I learned about the levels of engagement and understanding children - and teenagers, and adults - go through in their reading. First it's just basic comprehension. Then you get lost in the story; you are caught up in the adventure you are reading. Then you come to the stage where you "find yourself in a book". Then, as a young adult, you begin to see layers of meaning in the story and the characters. You begin to read on more than one level. It's my guess that all Snape fans are reading on at least the third level and more probably on the fourth. Many readers never get there. They read for information and amusement, and don't necessarily identify strongly with the characters, never mind analyzing them! That's a perfectly reasonable way to read these books. It's also true that not everyone who "finds him/herself" in the potterverse will find themselves in Snape. Why would any reader identify with him, rather than with more (apparently) likable characters such as Harry or Hermione or Sirius?

Yet many of us identify with Snape more than any other character in these books. I certainly do, and here are some of my reasons. For one thing, Severus Snape is a bullied geek, and, as Jodel remarks, many of Rowling's adult readers self-identify as geeks or nerds. I dare say quite a few of us were bullied by people like James, Sirius and Lily; as a result, we may well have strong fellow feeling for young Severus when we see him in the same situation. He is also, very clearly, a man in mourning. His irritability, poor grooming, choice of clothing, and apparent insomnia all point to clinical depression, and anyone who has ever been even slightly depressed can't help but feel for him. Most of all, I find him fascinating because he is the most morally and emotionally complex character Rowling wrote, and because he (like Neville, and unlike Harry) is truly on a hero's journey. He is the only character she wrote who actually chooses to change. This is compelling. But that's true of characters in other books, isn't it? There are certainly heroes who become better people by their own efforts and who love without being loved in return. Then why is Snape so fascinating?

I think Snape's grip on the reader's imagination is so strong because of the dissonance between what Rowling apparently intended and what she actually did. As I've said so many times before, in Severus, Rowling had the chance to write one of the greatest characters, and greatest heroes, in all of English literature. It's all there on the page - the courage, loyalty, intelligence and capacity for love*. And yet, she makes it clear in the adjectives she uses about him, in the torments and humiliations she puts him through, and in Harry's viewpoint, that she doesn't want him to be seen as a hero. Never mind what she says in interviews, which is even worse!

So, those of us who, for whatever reason, identify with Severus want to see justice for him. We want him to achieve some peace and happiness, and that never happens in the text. This is frustrating, so we can't let go. We keep struggling to affirm his heroism and discover other possibilities for him.

*He's got a great sense of humor, too. That helps.

Comments

[rattlesnakeroot.livejournal.com]

Awesome essay, Mary J.!!! I'll link it over on HP Network.

I think there are readers who thought that there wasn't much going on in Snape's mind except thoughts of anger and revenge. They didn't count on sadness and remorse, or especially grief that would change his life. I think introverts understand Snape's life a little better, too, and extroverts seem drawn to characters such as Sirius, James, and Lily.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Um - thank you. I'm a bit aurprised at your praise because this isn't a formal essay at all, and (especially with regard to the depression, which is *so clear* to me) I'm not sure I made my points as strongly as I could have. But I'm very glad you like it! And thanks for linking-

[rattlesnakeroot.livejournal.com]

Well, I don't think it has to be "formal" to be on the mark. :)

[(Anonymous)]

The dissonance is cognitive dissonance. Snape fans may have wanted a a great romantic hero, but that wasn't the complex character that Rowling wrote. He was never intended to be a great romantic hero; that was never his role. So the dissonance is entirely in the eyes of Snape fans.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Not true. I neither wanted nor expected a great romantic hero, as I have said before. What I wanted, and had good reason to expect, was closure. I expected that the tension between Harry and Snape would actually be dealt with in the course of the story itself, and that Snape's redemption would be made clear, as, for example, Lupin's and Sirius Black's were. Those were eminently reasonable expectations based on what we had seen in the first six books. That they were not fulfilled does point to an artistic failure on Rowling's part.

But you have also missed the point of my post. It was primarily an answer to the question, "Why do we love Snape"? If you don't love this character, fine. Many readers don't. But those of us who do, have good reason for it.

[(Anonymous)]

Those were eminently reasonable expectations based on what we had seen in the first six books. That they were not fulfilled does point to an artistic failure on Rowling's part.

Those were your expectations. That doesn't mean that it was an artistic failure on Rowling's part. The plot wasn't meant to go in that direction and that's why she didn't write it.

It's fine to love the character for whatever reasons you want, but you can't blame her for not writing him or the plot the way you wanted. It wasn't her failing because it went a different way. That was my point.

[sionna-raven.livejournal.com]

No offense meant, but from my professional pov as a linguist, your statement is plainly wrong. A novel is basically a form of communication. If the meaning intended by the author is misinterpreted and misunderstood by a significant amount of readers and the general requirements of communication like speaking the same language, same or similar cultural background, same or similar educational level etc. have been met, then the failure lies with the author. It's as simple as that.
I certainly enjoy the ironic twist of this communication failure that had JKR been able to express her meaning as intended, most of us had never spent more than some nice afternoons reading her books and we had never felt compelled to discuss them.

[(Anonymous)]

This was a seven book mystery. Rowling had several important story lines that she was keeping hidden. Thus she kept many things mysterious and misdirected us on others. It was very easy for readers for be hoodwinked by these deliberate and important deceptions. Also people bring their own emotional and personal backgrounds that influence how they interpret what they read. I would have thought that a linguist would know that comprehension is influenced by personal perception and cognition. That's why I said the dissonance was cognitive dissonance: the inability to reconcile a personal belief with conflicting data.

We still have people who think that Harry and Hermione were destined for each other, yet Rowling didn't write that. She wrote a warm friendship with Hermione as a surrogate sister and the fans misread it.

Snape wasn't meant to be a great figure in literature, but he was a complex and interesting character. Harry wasn't meant to have a big emotional reconciliation with Snape, because Snape was the one at fault. At least Harry did honor his memory.

It's unimportant that Rowling didn't foreshadow all the events in Hallows, like the cloak. Stories can grow and change.

I still see people blaming Rowling for making Snape an unpleasant person or not vindicating his behavior in the end. Why? He would have been a boring character.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

This was a seven book mystery. Rowling had several important story lines that she was keeping hidden.

Exactly. If, in a 300 page mystery, the mcguffin that explained all a major character's actions were introduced in the last 30 pages, without any foreshadowing at all, I know how I would feel. The Deathly Hallows were completely unnecessary to the plot, as far as I could see, and should have been left out.

Also, what I have been saying, and what you don't seem to understand, is that the conflicting data you speak of are in the text itself, and several conflicts remain unresolved at the end of the story. This is unsatisfying. Among these unresolved conflicts is, of course, the one between Severus and Harry.

Snape wasn't meant to be a great figure in literature, but he was a complex and interesting character. Harry wasn't meant to have a big emotional reconciliation with Snape, because Snape was the one at fault.

Here again, I disagree. Snape had been both a great figure in literature and a complex and interesting character through the first 6 books. In DH, Rowling tried (and failed, IMHO) to write him as a cut-rate Heathcliff. He remained complex and interesting in spite of her efforts to diminish him, but that has nothing to do with her intent. As Sionna Raven has correctly said, once a book has been published, the author's intent *does not matter*. This is a hard fact to grasp for those of us who are, or hope to be, authors, but it is a fact nonetheless. I perceive a real dissonance between what Rowling says she intended, and what she actually did in her text. You do not see that dissonance. Well and good. There is room for differing interpretations and we are not going to persuade each other, obviously.

As for reconciliation (emotional and big or otherwise) not being intended in a book loaded with Christian symbolism, when Christianity is all about forgiveness and reconciliation - again, that is dissonant. It's discordant, and it's unsatisfying. But, as I said before, we're clearly not going to persuade each other. You liked the book, and are satisfied with it. I didn't, and am not. Let's just leave it at that.

[(Anonymous)]

You've made several erroneous assumptions about my opinions, not based on anything that I have said. I did not like Hallows. I thought it was a hodge podge with many loose ends and illogical plot diversions. I didn't think that she needed to introduce the Deathly Hallows as a concept. They were an unnecessary distraction. Sure there were loose ends, but all stories have those. On the other hand, I never thought that Snape was a great figure in literature in the previous books. He was always the "stand-in" villain, since the real baddy couldn't be on-page the entire story, and the stories needed some internal conflict to keep them interesting.

I didn't like what she did with Snape in Hallows either, but that was because I thought she made him too romantic, and that didn't mesh with her previous treatment of him. I had always thought he was on the good side, but that he was a nasty jerk. I even thought he loved Lily because that explained the remorse that Dumbledore mentioned.

I thought that Snape plenty of forgiveness by Harry when he named his son Albus Severus. Therefore we didn't need more vindication for Snape than that.

My issue is you or anyone else is blaming Rowling for not writing the book you wanted by claiming she changed her path, and I've also seen that said by various proponents of ships. Even though I didn't like Hallows all that much, I will never be so arrogant as to claim she made a mistake not writing the book I wanted. She wrote the book she wanted. I could see it was always the book she wanted. Snape was never intended to be a great literary figure. He was never someone to like. It's very hard to understand anyone finding such a nasty person appealing. He was an interesting and complex character, but never one to admire.

[sionna-raven.livejournal.com]

The erroneous assumptions are on both sides. Since your very first post you have been making assumptions about our expectations for DH which are probably based on other Snapefan's opinions you've seen elsewhere. Some of the examples you've given irritate me as much as they irritate you, so you're barking at the wrong tree. Snape as a character in DH did not disappoint me; I love him as much as I always did, perhaps even a bit more. I don't like the way he was treated, but that's a completely different matter.
My expectations, and afaik Mary agrees, were for a 'highly moral book' based on commonly accepted 'Christian values' . And I expected Lily Evans and James Potter to justify the praise they were given in previous books and interviews and call me a hopeless optimist, I expected Harry to grow up. I don't think that was asking too much.
This was the original question from WhySnape forum on which Mary ellaborated: 'Does anybody understand the phenomenon that a "normal",adult,female human being,provided with a partner,friends and a profession ,gets so much impressed,beguiled,bewitched by a FICTIONAL character?'
I know a good number of people who still passionately love Snape and like the last book; OTOH there are many people who never liked him and think the book's a complete failure. One has nothing to do with the other.

[(Anonymous)]

A highly moral book based on Christian values? Why would anyone go into that book with that expectation? Rowling has always used morality lessons within her message, but that wasn't her main goal. Although if you wanted forgiveness and redemption, most of the characters did have that in one degree or another. Even Dudley and Draco had turnarounds.

Harry did grow up. He maturely accepted that he had to die to save the school. He even managed to forgive Snape, which was far more magnanimous than he needed to be. As for Lily and James we, we saw what we needed. We had a nice glimpse off their happy domestic life. The book was never focused on them. Only people who questioned the positive information already given to us about them by other characters in the books or by Rowling, seemed to want more confirmation.

Why would anyone be attracted to Snape? It all seems to be a sublimated sexual attraction that is entirely safe since he isn't real. He was very controlled and constrained, so it would be easy to imagine his repressed passion. He was one of the few adult characters available for romantic imaginings who had any significant page time. Sirius and Lupin are two others with similar followings. I used to be attracted to Mr. Spock on Star Trek. It was the same attraction to a cold unavailable mysterious character like Snape. Except Spock wasn't also a nasty jerk who was cruel to children. I have higher standards for my fantasy lovers.

My point is still that it is folly to blame an author for not writing the book you wanted or not taking a character into the direction you wanted. And if you feel you were misled by previous books, then maybe you misread the indications.

[arethinn]

Only people who questioned the positive information already given to us about them by other characters in the books or by Rowling, seemed to want more confirmation.

Why shouldn't we question it? We might do in real life as well. Everyone has their own POVs, which can make any information they give more or less reliable. Of course Sirius would speak positively of James, for instance -- they were best mates. Doesn't mean it was the whole story. Similarly, Severus hardly loses an opportunity to badmouth Sirius -- they were enemies. Doesn't mean it's the whole story on Sirius either.

He was very controlled and constrained, so it would be easy to imagine his repressed passion.

We needn't imagine it; repressed passions that make him capable of blowing up in rather theatrical ways are right there on the page. We're also directly shown that he was quite passionate about Lily (regardless of whether the reader chooses to think of it as true devotion or as creepy obsession), not to mention non-personal things such as academic subjects.

[(Anonymous)]

You didn't need additional confirmation because it was the only information provided with no revelation later on that it had been incorrect. Other deceptions and misconceptions had been reversed or revealed at some subsequent point as needed--including Snape's true loyalty. Therefore Rowling intended the information provided by Lupin and Sirius to be reliable. It was only the preferred dislike of those characters by Snape fans the deemed their information about James and Lily to be unreliable. Again, a perceptive problem caused by a personal biases.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Wrong. If we doubt Lupin and Sirius, it may be because we don't like them. (But I always liked Lupin, and have some sympathy for Sirius; as I said before, he and Severus are very alike.)
It is also because:
1. By the end of POA, we know Lupin to be a coward and a liar.
2. By the end of OOTP, we know Sirius to have failed to give Harry information he himself knew.
3.Finally, and by far the most important, in a story, what we are shown and can ourselves observe of the characters *always* trumps what are told. There is a reason why hearsay evidence is not admitted in court; it is weak evidence in fiction, also. What we are told by Remus and Sirius is hearsay; it is directly contradicted by what we actually *see* of James' behavior.

But all this arguing has, by this time, nothing to do with my original post. In fact, you have been failing to address my original argument - which is that the dissonance so many of us are perceiving is in the text itself. It is, and it is not resolved. James is a very good example. What we are told of him simply does not match what we see, and there is no attempt to reconcile those two images. Therefore, readers must decide whether to trust what they are shown directly, or what they are told. I prefer to believe what I see - as is also the case with Severus Snape, and with Harry.

That is all I have to say on this subject. Except for one thing. No one has been impolite to you, nor made any generalizations about you. I would appreciate it if you would also refrain from doing those things. And, though I welcome anonymous posters (because I have friends who do not have livejournals, and who read mine and sometimes comment on my posts), I would prefer it if you signed your name, as my non - lj friends do.

re: Harry and Snape

[(Anonymous)]

Hi. I don't think it's a question of "blame." No one lives or dies based on a novelist's choices with the plot of a kid's book. The author is trying to assess the artistic and literary coherence of the work....that's not 'blaming an author for not writing the book you wanted her to write.'

It's true that the conflict between Severus and Harry is a crucial tension in the work, and it's also true that their antagonism is not resolved by the end of the plot. Severus dies protecting Harry/Draco/the school, but Harry does not understand this at the time and has no opportunity to forgive the man before he dies. In that sense, there is little 'closure' to their relationship arc.

Whether this lack of resolution makes the story emotionally unsatisfying is a question of reader perception and interpretation. That said:

Most readers expected the HP series to conform to a set of genre conventions and patterns commonly found in bildungsroman. Beyond that, there is a broader set of expectations which readers bring to bear on a text such as this related to literary theory, theory of the novel etc. If the ending is supposed to be tragic and cathartic, then we need a setup that includes a driving flaw or insecurity, moral and formal pressures, and so forth. If it's comic, then there are other requirements. The whole story seems to drive towards Harry's sacrifice of his life in the forest - a tragic ending. But wait! It then turns out Harry gets to bounce back to life after all, much like a cartoon character that has temporarily suffered a car crash only to reemerge gently smiling. What has he learned? More importantly, what have we?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oh, but she did write it for the first 6 books. That's the problem. She did set up these expectations *in the text itself*, and then she simply dropped them. She also failed to foreshadow the Deathly Hallows in the first 6 books. There was *nothing* special about Harry's cloak, for example; in GOF, Barty Crouch could see right through it. Yes, it was rare and expensive, like all invisibility cloaks, but there was nothing unique about it. That's just one example of her failure to set up her story and to follow through.

Of course, I didn't like the story she ultimately told, either. And yes, that is my problem. But the story she ended up telling in DH is *not* the story she led us to expect in the first five - maybe even the first six - books. That is not my problem as a reader. It's Rowling's failure as a writer. She is quite gifted, and could and should have done better than this at setting up the story she ultimately wanted to tell. Had she done so, as Sionna Raven has said, I would have known what to expect and wouldn't have wasted my time on these books. As it is, I feel as though I've been subjected to a bait and switch, and I'm not alone.

Interesting essay

[pdmcmurry.livejournal.com]

I am unfamiliar with the levels of reading that you refer to and cannot even place myself on that continuum. However, I do think that readers tend to identify with fictional characters if they see enough of themselves reflected on the page.

I have no problem accepting that other readers don't like Snape. Their opinion does not change what I see and identify with in the character. Why my ability to see admirable qualities in Snape is so offensive to other readers is a question I have struggled with. I suppose the fact that so many of them identify with James and Sirius, whom I see as arrogant berks, may be the answer. Don't be offended - read on...

The two personality types (Snape v James/Sirius) are so divergent as to make the commonalities difficult to see. Each person tends to appreciate the good qualities in the characters that are most like themselves. This does not mean that James/Sirius fans are arrogant bullies anymore than it means that Snape fans are petty and selfish.

I see the arrogance and entitlement of James and Sirius as their most compelling attributes. Others choose to focus on their loyalty and bravery. They tend to see Snape's early mistakes and generally blunt (rude?) attitude as more important than the actions he takes to atone for his earlier mistakes. Some even say those actions somehow don't count because, in their view, he did them for the wrong reasons.

Snape's good qualities are in the text. It may be as you say that those qualities are visible only if you are reading the books at one of the deeper levels identified in the essay. I think that it may have as much to do with the personality type of the reader.

Re: Interesting essay

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

The two personality types (Snape v James/Sirius) are so divergent as to make the commonalities difficult to see. Each person tends to appreciate the good qualities in the characters that are most like themselves.

Thanks for your comment. The above quote really interested me, because I, too, have tended to see both James and Sirius as arrogant bullies. But I can also see that, in many ways, Severus and Sirius are very alike (I have an essay about that!;)) And, because I can see those similarities, I can understand where Sirius fans are coming from. James is another matter. I disliked him in OOTP, and, after DH, he fell still further in my opinion. I have a really hard time understanding why Rowling should name him as one of the "heroes of his generation" when she denies Severus that accolade. I really don't think it's a matter of personality type, either. I would hope even a judging extrovert (what I think James is) would be able to see that James is abusive and a bully.

Just my two cents!

Re: Interesting essay

[pdmcmurry.livejournal.com]

I think they cannot make that leap if they are reading at an emotional rather than intellectual level. Anyone, regardless of personality type, can think about something and understand others' rational arguments. If they react emotionally, it is much harder to do so.

The vitriol with which "Snapeophiles" are attacked personally is astounding. I see much less of the reverse, although it can occur. James/Sirius fans frequently react as Gryffindors - they make a quick judgment based on emotion and run with it. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and never the twain shall meet.

Snape fans tend to be less volatile and react more intellectually. This does not mean that Snape fans are not emotionally attached to the character, just that I think they prefer to base their judgments on thought rather than feeling.

Re: Interesting essay

[freggythepod.livejournal.com]

James/Sirius fans frequently react as Gryffindors - they make a quick judgment based on emotion and run with it.

Having seen a lot of this vitriol, I agree. It seems that a lot of people immediately jump to the conclusion that Snape fans agree with Severus on everything for no good reason, only like Snape because of Alan Rickman, or simply choose not to notice James/Sirius' good qualities. (And it isn't just Marauder fans that do this, which points to the rift having to do with personality types.)

I think that the love some people have for Snape is utterly incomprehensible to people who are attracted to totally different characters, and that explains the random conclusions jumped to. Because, after all, if someone doesn't agree with you, they must be thinking illogically. *eyeroll*

But I can also see that, in many ways, Severus and Sirius are very alike (I have an essay about that!;)) And, because I can see those similarities, I can understand where Sirius fans are coming from.

That makes sense. I hate James, but I can't seem to really dislike Sirius as much. In fact, he is my favorite of the Marauders (the lesser of four evils, more like). This could be the reason.

[sunsethill.livejournal.com]

I think Snape's grip on the reader's imagination is so strong because of the dissonance between what Rowling apparently intended and what she actually did.

This expresses exactly the conclusion I have come to. After DH, it became clear to me that Rowling assumed that everyone would see the characters just as she saw them--no matter what she actually wrote. I know this is true of Snape, but DH made it clear that the same thing happened with James and Lily. After Snape's Worst Memory in OotP and then finding out in DH that James died without even lifting a wand, his "hero" status is a little tarnished. And Saint!Lily finds no expression in Snape's DH memories. Rowling doesn't understand the power of what she actually SHOWS us about her characters rather than what she just thinks or says.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Yes. Thank you. Of course, it's hard for any artist to be objective about their work, but Rowling has stated that she doesn't reread nor rewrite. The books might have been improved, both artistically and morally, had she taken those (very necessary) steps.

[anne-arthur.livejournal.com]

She might also have noticed that she explained how the Ministry keep track of underage magic in two completely different ways in two successive books, to choose just one example! I still find it hard to believe that someone who knows she has legions of fans who will over-analyse every comma does not check, re-check, and check again. I would. In fact, I think I would be so thrilled at the books' success that I would be constantly re-reading my favourite bits, just to say 'I wrote that'! I assume that it must be superstitious - that she must feel that she has to put her head down and charge at it, or the ability to do it will dry up?

But to get to the point - great essay! Personally, I think what I identify with in Snape is someone in a very stressful and isolated position with, it now appears, no support whatsoever, struggling to do the right thing for people he does not actually like. Having experienced a very, very mild version of this, I am astonished that he manages to do what he does, 'running on empty', so to speak. And, as I was brought up to believe that the proof of love is action, and that to love those we do not like is the greatest love of all, I thought I could see Snape heading for a lot more recognition than he in fact got. But instead JKR seems to have opted for the prevailing opinion that love is a warm fuzzy glow that unites friends and families (and just ignore all those left outside that glow) - which is disappointing.

However, we should be grateful - her careless writing and lack of interest in her greatest creation :) add to his appeal, in my opinion. Whenever the spotlight falls on him there is something interesting - but there is plenty of room for speculation. What was his relationship with Lucius Malfoy like? How did his parents get together? Why did he want to be in Slytherin? How did he feel about Dumbledore? Why did he live in a Muggle house? Etc. etc. etc. He is midway between the Hero, about whom there is no mystery left, and a minor character like Ernie Macmillan, who has too little story provided.

That's my answer. I'm sorry it's almost as long as the original essay - but it really made me think!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks, Anne! It is true that she has left interesting gaps for us to fill, and I can see some readers being grateful for that. Certainly, I have no interest in either reading or writing fanfic about Harry after DH. Snape's another story.

[bohemianspirit.livejournal.com]

Oh, God, I'm just the opposite: I can't imagine not re-reading and rewriting, especially something as "permanent" as a book! Blog entries, I'll dash off the top of my head, sometimes; but a book, let alone a book series....??? Can't wrap my mind around it.

[arcanetrivia]

I think Snape's grip on the reader's imagination is so strong because of the dissonance between what Rowling apparently intended and what she actually did.

While this is certainly true, I don't think it can be a cause for why Severus compels the minds and hearts of so many. I think the vast majority of us would feel the same way about him if JKR had never uttered a word about what she thought she was doing.

Besides the characteristics you mention that provide "entry points" for us to identify with him (bullied geek, etc.), the figure of Severus Snape seems to touch on a lot of deep "archetypal" patterns. I'm sure you're familiar with those kinds of analyses. Someone remarked above that Snape fans tend to respond more intellectually than emotionally but that this didn't mean they weren't emotionally attached to the character. I agree with that -- he pulls very deep emotional responses from those who resonate with him.

On the word "love", I don't think I can possibly use any other word for what I feel about him. After I read DH it took me a while to realize that I was actually grieving because I have had extremely little experience with that emotion. I was startled to further discover that the genuine grief seemed to have come out of genuine love. (Or, at least, as I say, I can't think of a better word.)

There's two levels or "colours" of that, though. You can love a character even if you wouldn't like them as a person. Take Darth Vader, for instance. I would want to stay well clear of him in real life. As a character, though? Just awesome! Ditto Han Solo. What a jerk! But the character is just so fun.

Not that that's how it is with Severus; just an extreme example to make the point. I think I would like Severus if I met him, although whether he would put up with me is another question. ;) But if I think about Severus as a real person, the reaction is a little less enthusiastic than the wholly positive "yeah! awesome!!" I get if I consider him solely as a character.

I'm quite clear on this distinction. I think people who argue along the lines of "but he did [blah] and acts like [blah]! How can you like that?" may not be.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I think the vast majority of us would feel the same way about him if JKR had never uttered a word about what she thought she was doing.

True! But the dissonance I am talking about is right there in the text! It is in the text itself where we *see* how brave, loyal and loving Severus is; it is in the text itself where he is mocked, demeaned, described as "ugly" "greasy" "malicious" and so on - all in Harry's viewpoint. And we *do not* actually see Harry's viewpoint change. As I've said so often, there is no clear redemption for Severus and no real resolution to the conflict between him and Harry.

So - as I said before, we love Severus because we identify with him and/or admire him. But we (I, at least) find it impossible to let go because of this dissonance. His story is never resolved. That's how it strikes me, anyway.

[bohemianspirit.livejournal.com]

For one thing, Severus Snape is a bullied geek, and, as Jodel remarks, many of Rowling's adult readers self-identify as geeks or nerds. I dare say quite a few of us were bullied by people like James, Sirius and Lily; as a result, we may well have strong fellow feeling for young Severus when we see him in the same situation.

YES. Exactly. Nerds unite!

So, those of us who, for whatever reason, identify with Severus want to see justice for him. We want him to achieve some peace and happiness, and that never happens in the text. This is frustrating, so we can't let go. We keep struggling to affirm his heroism and discover other possibilities for him.

You've nailed it right there. We've been there ourselves, we empathize, and at least in fiction we can do something to right the wrongs. ;-) Good points.

While I agree that Severus was clearly depressed, I think (as I've commented in some of the comments in the_bitter_word's essay) there's quite a bit of room for speculation and interpretation as to the extent, the duration, and the effects and manifestations of that depression in Severus. Did it completely cripple him for life? Or was it something that was present in a more low-key way later in life, something he struggled against and lived with while never completely healing from it? Etc.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks! And I agree with you, as well, in that I don't think Severus's depression was utterly crippling. I don't think he would have been as capable and alert as he was shown to be had that been the case.

[ms-arithmancer.livejournal.com]

I saw the link to this essay at HPN. Interesting!

I'm not very convinced we can determine Rowling's intent in writing Snape from her interviews. They seem open to interpretation nearly as much as Snape's character is in the books, lol.

"And yet, she makes it clear in the adjectives she uses about him, in the torments and humiliations she puts him through, and in Harry's viewpoint, that she doesn't want him to be seen as a hero."

To me personally it seems evident that she certainly did not want Snape to be seen as a hero in the first 6 7/8ths of her series (in fact, by 7, we were not supposed to think he was even on the 'good side' at all, IMO. I think she did hope to spring a big surprise on her readers with "The Prince's Tale", and succeeded with a segment of her readership, though I personally have not met a single instance of such in Real Life). What her intent was in the final bits is less clear to me. To me personally, all the stuff she puts Snape through is what MAKES him a hero. Whether she does or does not think in those terms, I can't tell. I can see her interviews as saying he is, and isn't, on alternate days.

Snape is not unique in choosing to resist Voldemort, he is not unique in dying. He seems to be unique in that he got absolutely nothing at all out of it, ever, that I can see, except more misery.

Snape seems to have had some attachment to three main people in his life: Lily, Albus, and Harry (whether by virtue of his relationship to Lily, or other reasons, I will not digress into here...). Lily died despite his best efforts. And in the course of his efforts to atone for his own role in that death, Snape was required to kill Albus and send Harry to his death. Yet even believing this would be the way it would all end, he persevered, dping his best to protect people who despised him as a traitor and made shampoo jokes about him. Ouch.

I'm afraid, for me, everyone else pales by comparison. :D

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your comment. Though I think you're right that Rowling hoped to spring a big surprise with Severus's heroism and loyalty, I, too, know no one who *was* surprised. The big surprise, to me, was rat bastard!Dumbledore. And that actually worked; she did prepare it well. But, since she insists in interviews that Dumbledore is innately good, I'm not at all sure what she intended by that story, either. These books just puzzle and disturb me, in the end.

As to Snape gaining absolutely nothing from his sacrifices and love - yes. That's absolutely clear. And that's why I cannot understand fans who think his motivations selfish. But that is another essay entirely!

[ms-arithmancer.livejournal.com]

I knew no one *in real life* who was fooled - but that's limited to immediate family, plus online fans I met in person after encountering them on a discussion forum crammed to the gills with Snape fams. :) There were certainly people I "knew" in online fandom who would have bet money they would never read the words "Snape was Dumbledore's" coming out of Harry's mouth, and I presume they had their less obsessed counterparts out there among the readership as well.

But I agree, the big, well-managed surprise of DH was Albus's backstory and the revelation, finally, of his Grand Design for the Greater Good. I do not find the books disturbing, but perhaps this is because I do not take interview soundbites too much to heart. (Though I am not familiar with the interview you mean... I thought the last word on Albus was that he was Machiavellian and a puppetmaster, which I would not deny, but do feel, for myself, is woefully inadequate to the task of capturing the man entirely - he did have a godd side too).

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

Well, I thought she MIGHT pull Evil!Snape, but only because everyone was expecting the opposite. XD It was SO OBVIOUS he was good - the theories didn't even have to have THAT many textual examples! - that he couldn't POSSIBLY be good. It was one of JKR's famous red herrings. *facepalm* I think her subtlety went out the window after GoF. Moody-Crouch was the last WTF utterly-unpredictable-yet-clear-in-retrospect surprise of the series, and the only surprise in OOTP was that Harry was TEH CHOSEN WUN, and I remember that even as a 12-year-old or so, my first instinct after having gone through all those pages of PMS and ugliness to have THAT as a payoff was to consider throwing the book through the window and swear that I wouldn't buy another book from JKR if the next one wasn't better. Well, I found HBP more tolerable than OOTP, mostly because the ugliness wasn't as brutally obvious. As a kid, I found it impossible to deal with the blatant horror of OOTP - James was evil? Snape was a victim? (I read PoA a LONG time after GoF - forgive me, I was a kid, and the HP hype hadn't started up yet -, and I might not even have read it by the time OOTP showed up. Hence why I didn't remember the Werewolf Incident.) Why is everyone acting so HORRIBLE? Sirius got Kissed? (Yes, my mind somehow had Sirius getting Kissed by a swarm of Dementors that had gathered around the Hogwarts lake. I think my mind fused PoA with OOTP to produce that image. I still find it more logical and emotionally powerful than Death by Drapery.) We have a Generic Chosen One Prophecy? Harry's a nasty little snot? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LOVABLE CHARACTERS?

...I now realize that the Harry Potter series that reappeared after the three-year-summer was a far uglier one than the one that had gone on vacation, and that perhaps it would have been better to remember the characters as they were. Oh well. We got Dumbledore backstory, Luna Lovegood, Neville's character arc, and Snape's backstory. Those were valuable things. I'm certain there's something else I could salvage from OOTP, HBP, and DH, but I can't be arsed to remember it. UGH.

The last word on Albus was that he was an innately good person led astray by LUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUV. *pukes* I see what you Snapefen mean when you say she has no comprehension of what she actually WROTE. I thought Dumbledore was, to be polite about it, distorting the truth in King's Cross. She had him instructing Harry to ignore a FLAYED BABY, it wasn't exactly subtle that he and Harry might be In The Wrong. While he maybe did deserve some consolation, he was obviously a Flawed Narrator. Come on, even Snape would present a somewhat distorted view of events if you asked him to narrate his own backstory - it's human nature. But in the interviews, she showed that his version of events and characterizations was actually the party line, in DIRECT contradiction to what she WROTE. *HEADLAPTOP* Good GRIEF. THAT is disturbing.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

...I now realize that the Harry Potter series that reappeared after the three-year-summer was a far uglier one than the one that had gone on vacation, and that perhaps it would have been better to remember the characters as they were.

That's interesting! and thanks for your extensive comments. This may be a bit off track; I was really only explaining why some of us love Snape (we identify with him, for one reason or another). But, in retrospect, the nastiness you point to was there from the very beginning. And I do mean the beginning; in a double murder and then the way the Dursleys are treated.

Coming at these books from the pov of an adult librarian, I actually liked OOTP better than the others because the characters seemed to be gaining some depth. Harry was at last having a reasonable emotional reaction to all the horrors that had happened to him, and we could see him struggling to behave better and to comprehend that there might be more to the world than his pov. In HBP, Harry took a long step backward. He was, once again, completely self-satisfied and self-absorbed - and he just got worse in DH. But I've had plenty to say about that elsewhere!

Now that the series is finished, I can't help finding a very ugly subtext in these novels as a whole - briefly, I think Raisin gal is on the right track, though we interpret some things differently. (I don't think it all boils down to homophobia, that is, although I think the homophobia is there.)

[(Anonymous)]

Hi I'm Leah.

Yeah, the three-year summer must have really distorted her vision. OOTP just didn't make a lot of sense. I was really expecting Harry to recognize, after Cedric's death, that Snape had a point! Maybe it's because I liked Sirius so much, but his Death by Drapery, as you put it, was incredibly irritating. I didn't even get the sense Harry felt much grief over the man - he just had a tantrum over Dumbledore keeping him in the dark.

I mean, a truly heroic Harry would have been not only grieving Sirius, I think, but much, much more upset that he had led his friends into danger and gotten Tonks badly injured. And you'd think he'd want to know more about the Order, too. Looking back, that was the moment the story got out of control - because D. says his mistake was in trying to keep Harry safe, and then says the next moment he's sending him back to the Dursleys so he can be safe. That doesn't make sense. Do you trust Harry or not, Dumbledore??

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... I enjoy your essays. Sometimes, I think you might overdo the symbolism a bit, but then again, I never enjoyed literary analysis in high school. ;)

I'm not really a FAN of Snape, mostly because I identify him as a sort of worst-case scenario for myself. I mean, no offense, but he does have deep-running flaws. I don't see the poor grooming, irritability, and insomnia as signs of depression - I had a good deal of all of the above as a child and early teenager, and I was hardly depressed THEN. (On the other hand, I do think Snape had an emotionally abusive father. Not physically, just emotionally. Emotionally can do a lot of damage in and of itself.)

I never really appreciated Snape's humor* because I've been on the receiving end of snarky and/or harsh humor, and found it very NOT enjoyable. Then again, some people dislike the Twins due to having been on the receiving end of "practical jokes", and while I'm not QUITE sure what my opinion of them is (I slot them into my 'Slightly... Off-Kilter' archetype and thus like them - note that said archetype says NOTHING about their moral status), I do see them as less ambitious (due to anti-Slytherin conditioning) Grindelwalds. I certainly LOATHE James, though - ugh! I could never stand people like Draco, and no matter WHAT JKR says in interviews, she LITERALLY wrote him as Draco in Gryffindor's clothing! *shudders* How she can STILL call him one of the heroes of his generation... bleurgh. And she makes comments about not equating Draco with Tom Felton (who, personally, I never found attractive in the slightest). She has an entirely valid point, but she's an utter hypocrite.

I don't agree that there IS a dissonance with what she actually did - then again, I'm a tad cynical due to choking down massive amounts of bad fanfiction. I realize there's a strong distinction between the fans who somehow enjoy Draco's personality and want to write him IC and develop him and those who just want to bang a pale pretty boy in leather, so there's a distinction between those who love the book!Snape and those who... well, have a crush on Alan Rickman. :P

To go slightly off-topic, I DO see dissonance in Harry Potter, but not about Snape. (I swear, I think she WAS trying to make him more sympathetic, but overshot and now can't figure out why people love him more than her pwecious gang of "cool" bullies.) For instance, in DH, I was quite intrigued by the Dumbledore backstory. *laughs* Yes, I know I'm one of the few in fandom who doesn't view it as unnecessary fluff, bad storytelling, blah-blah-blah. But it was CLEARLY setting up comparisons to the present! It was one of the few times I've seen a story that has been playing "For the Greater Good" fairly straight to turn around and say "But atrocities HAVE been justified as For the Greater Good, and no, I'm not just mouthing that line, HERE SOME ARE!". I thought we would see Our Heroes reevaluating their means to the end of the Greater Good, and - maybe "maturing" isn't quite the right word, but coming to realize that they've done or were doing wrong.

What do I get?

A ****ING "GALLANT" CRUCIO, in DIRECT contradiction to the canon that you CANNOT power a Cruciatus off of righteous wrath! ...Or perhaps it isn't even a contradiction. What THAT would say about Rowling's mindset - that torture for the sake of seeing someone suffer is "gallant" -, I don't what to think about. *shudder* And, of course, Harry telling poor Aberforth that "sometimes you've GOT to think about the Greater Good!". That moral lesson just rebounded off Harry's forehead, didn't it?

(cont.)

[guardians-song.livejournal.com]

And the setting up of Harry's moral decline and fall regarding the Hallows - well, it wasn't quite the One Ring of Power and its effects, but I was expecting a payoff. Let me be explicit - during DH, I kept seeing brilliant storylines set up, ones that I was stunned JKR would have the balls - excuse the colloquial phrase - to do, particularly in a story that had been playing the Heroic Cliches so STRAIGHT, and do you know what? SHE KEPT DEFAULTING ON THEM! I REALLY thought she was setting up a Dark Lord Harry! What happened? Oh, it's just because he lacked faith in Dumbledore! She killed off the main character! Ooh, no, she brought him back so he could be Jesus! I really thought she was going to have us watch Neville, the new hero of his generation, save the day! It was brilliant, it was an emotional arc all set up, and she had the characters run around IN THE WRONG MOVIE SET!

Gah. So... I suppose I understand what you see. You see a character arc that was set up but never paid off, and in fact was kicked over and stomped on, and I see moral and thematic arcs that were set up, and in fact were kicked over and stomped on. I don't see yours, but I understand how you feel about people just REFUSING to see your point, as I was stunned and horrified to see people defending Harry's use of Cruciatus. GAH. Nonono. So, I sympathize. You may have a valid point. I don't like him (though I understand him and his motivations and his flaws all too well), but I suppose others might. ...Err, sorry for the rant? :D

* Except for the "Your father would never attack me unless it was four-against-one!" line. I'm rather more inclined to believe Snape than any Marauder recollection here, especially since it fits with power levels and talent. And how JKR cannot see that she's setting up a sympathetic situation with a lone talented geek being attacked by the four popular not-so-bright ones, I'll never know.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Um - I'm not sure you have read my earlier responses to DH? Believe me, as far as the moral and thematic arks, I see all the dissonance you see, and possibly more. These books actually disgust me at this point. There are a few things (the goblins and their monetary system, my sister would say, and I would say Severuss, Luna, and Neville) that are worth retaining from them. But otherwise - ugh.

Unless, of course, she really does mean to set up Dark Lord Harry. Because that's certainly what I saw at the end of DH.

To get back to Snape again, do you know what my theory was about his antagonism to Harry? I thought, at least from OOTP and certainly from DH, that he sensed Voldemort in the boy and hated him because he SAW him as a future Dark Lord! Honestly, if you really look at Harry's actions and attitudes and take away his 'innocent, ignorant outsider' pov, he does *not* come across as a particularly nice or generous or loving kid.

That Severus hates Harry because he sees James in him and blames him for being his father's son is, I think, fanon. In canon, I think Severus hates Harry because Harry, from the minute he sees him, hates *him*. Or is there even one instance, anywhere in the books, of Harry offering Severus Snape the most basic courtesy? Of him studying and trying to improve in Snape's classes? And Snape is the one person Harry uses as a scapegoat over and over, and the one person he doesn't even try to rescue when he is hurt or in danger. Honestly - why on earth would Snape like Harry? After DH, I don't like Harry. I don't like him at all.

But this is getting way off track. Honestly, I'm at the point where i don't want to discuss these books any more.

[forsnape.livejournal.com]

IMO,even if Harry was not James' son,Snape would not like him.Because in his opinion(and in mine) Harry was arrogant ,lazy and obtuse.There were many personality conflicts between Snape and Harry.

Snape and James had the same personality conflicts.That was why they disliked each other from the very beginning.

[reg-flint.livejournal.com]

Just a short one. Having read that, I see your point on the depression issue, because I act in the same way in the lower swing of my bipolar/schizoaffective disorder. Including the grooming (blossom. shame. blossom.) I will read one of your fanfics...unfortunately I don't have much time, so it will be the Filius/Severus drabble. I have written a few drabbles myself, on sortinghatdrabs, very recenty (the most recent days ago). I am plotting to get more time on the computer again. Your Easter message (unrelated) was very inclusive. How INFJ of you.