![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Why do we love Snape?
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.
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.
no subject
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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-03-29 10:27 am (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-03-31 07:06 am (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-03-31 06:31 pm (UTC)(link)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.
no subject
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.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2008-04-01 05:08 am (UTC)(link)no subject
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) 2016-11-15 03:45 am (UTC)(link)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?