A few things - (mostly Potter - related)

[mary_j_59]

Just a brief ramble on two subjects:
1. Why Harry Potter is like Titanic, and why both of them annoy me, inspired by a conversation with Darkthirty.

2. Why Snape isn't weak, inspired by reading Mike-Smith, who thinks he is.

3. Finally, my problem with superheroes. Inspired by the conversation above.

I am, of course, starting with the first. Here is a quote from "The Independent". It's by Andrew Gumbel, and dated January, 2002.

The producers of Titanic besmirched the reputation of a Scottish officer called William Murdoch by depicting him shooting at the passengers in panic – an act committed by someone else entirely. After Murdoch's family pointed out that their ancestor was in fact a hero who gave away his own lifejacket, the producers gave $5,000 (£3,500) which went to a fund in Murdoch's name.

To which I said, good for Murdoch's family for complaining! That scene, among other things, annoyed me mightily when I saw Titanic. But it was not just an (eventually corrected) slander on a brave man. It was a part of a larger problem with the movie. Unlike the classic 1958 version, the new Hollywood film emphasizes the cowardice of the crew. We scarcely ever see a crewman simply doing his job, much less acting noble about it. Yet, according to the historic record, most of the men on board did exactly that, and that is why most of them died.

This brings me to my much, much larger problem with the movie. It is dealing with a real-life tragedy in which hundreds of innocent human beings died, and it attempts to make that tragedy more "interesting" by tacking on a contrived love story between a couple of fictional passengers. Then it ramps up the so-called interest by including cliched scenes - the young couple making love in the back seat of a car, the arrogant upper-class fiance pursuing the virtuous working-class youth with a pistol, and then cheating his way onto a lifeboat - that are apparently supposed to add drama to the story. This is offensive in the extreme. Again, we are dealing with a real-life tragedy in which more than 1,500 people died! Any movie about the Titanic should focus on that - not on a fictional love affair, or a necklace lost to the depths, or a painting of questionable value (and, when that so-called work of art was pulled intact from a safe that had been underwater for a couple of generations, any slack I'd been cutting the movie was gone for good.) I thought this film dishonored the dead.

How does this relate to Harry Potter? Quite simply, Rowling makes similar, and deliberate, use of the Nazi Holocaust. One can quibble about numbers, but there is simply no denying that anywhere up to 10 million human beings died in the Nazi camps and ghettos. (Jews, Poles, Russians, Gypsies, dissidents of all kinds - and the handicapped. They are too often forgotten.) And - Rowling uses the Nazi classification of half-bloods, and has it used by her good guys. She has the bad guys talking about blood purity, and giving something uncomfortably like the Nazi salute. She makes her chief villain a half-blood. There is simply no doubt that all of this is deliberate - but, as far as I can see, she doesn't deal with these very serious issues seriously. Instead, like the producers of Titanic she tacks on a non-story about a hero who never grows up. She throws in a lot of cliches from school stories, and, worst of all, by implication and in interviews, she says her bad guys are right! Magic really is genetic; all Muggleborns really do have a Wizarding ancestor somewhere; and Muggles who steal wands can produce bursts of uncontrolled (and therefore dangerous) magic.

Now, it's bad enough that she proves her villains right in her interviews, and that her hero ends up so unlikable. Far worse is that she is making use of a real tragedy to tell her story, and is not dealing seriously with that tragedy. It's highly offensive. What makes it even worse is the number of readers who simply accept her story as it stands and think that all is really well in the Wizarding World at the end of this saga. Nothing is well in the Wizarding World. Nothing at all. I would feel happier with these books if I could be certain Rowling meant that, but I would still dislike her borrowing Nazi imagery for her villains. It's tacky at best, and offensive at worst.

2. Now, the second question. Mike Smith insists that Severus Snape is weak because he did everything for Lily, who did not love him after his insult to her. He's not alone in thinking so; even some Snape fans are saying that DH Severus is a weaker character than they had imagined. Mr. Smith also said he agrees with Rowling, and that Severus is a worse person than Voldemort for betraying his beloved - because he was loved, and Voldemort never was. Let's look at these questions.

The betrayal, first. There are several things wrong with the story Rowling finally gave us. For one thing, we never really understand what Dark Arts are, why young Severus was attracted to them (if he was; that's not so clear, either), and why he joined the Death Eaters in the first place. But, even given all these open questions, it's quite clear that Severus did not know he was betraying Lily when he reported the prophecy. Heck, it's even doubtful that the prophecy refers to a baby. I was among the readers who thought it could mean Severus himself. A second problem, though, is even harder to understand. Given that Sev was a Death Eater at the time, it makes some sense that he might report the prophecy. But - why didn't Dumbledore stop him? He was a kid, no more than 20 or 21, and, Aberforth had him by the collar. Dumbledore was a mature, powerful wizard. He has had no problems confunding and obliviating others in the story - then why not do likewise to Severus? But Aberforth and Albus let the boy go to do whatever he wanted - and then Albus Dumbledore, at least, blamed him for acting in a way that was easy to anticipate. This makes no sense.

So the story of the prophecy, in the end, just doesn't hang together. Maybe, though, Mike is talking about an earlier betrayal? Maybe he means that Sev betrayed Lily when he became a Death Eater.

This is possible, but it again requires several assumptions. First, you need to assume that Severus knew Voldemort's true agenda, and also approved of it. This is doubtful. After all, as I mentioned above, anti-Muggle racism is rife on the "good side" in the Wizarding World. And we don't know how Voldemort presented his agenda to his impressionable young followers. We do know that he snagged most of them very young.

Second, you need to assume that Sev really was a Dark Arts geek and really believed in Voldemort's agenda (however it was presented). This is also doubtful. I simply do not see a power-hungry or sadistic person in the rather gentle, lost soul Rowling presents to us, particularly in the last book. It seems likely that he joined for companionship, belonging, or even protection.

This brings me to my third point. If Severus betrayed Lily by joining the Death Eaters, she also betrayed him, much earlier. She sided with his tormentors. And we know from DH that they began tormenting him without cause, and they were relentless. I think it's possible for a reader to sympathize with, and be critical of, both Sev and Lily in the Pensieve scene. But, as Jodel has remarked, the Wizarding World is very small. Once you are typed in school, there is no escape. If an influential and wealthy group within this world made your life a living hell for seven years, and if someone opposed that group and offered you (1) protection, and (2) a chance to get back at them, wouldn't you be tempted?

This brings me to the question of Severus as (1) more culpable than Riddle, because he has been loved, and (2) weak. After I read DH, one of my first questions was, "Who loved Severus"? Lily certainly didn't. Yes, they had a casual, childish friendship, but I wouldn't call that love. That Severus did, and that he clung to Lily so desperately, indicates just how bleak his life was. It seems that he never got unconditional love from anyone - not his parents, not Lily, and certainly not Dumbledore.

Young Tom Riddle was emotionally neglected. His mother abandoned him because of her death, and he grew up in an orphanage. I understand that even negative attention is better than no attention, but negative attention can be pretty damaging, and, based on his reactions, I'd guess that's what young Sev got. He doesn't seem to know how to relate to people, and he accepts emotional abuse as his due. Is that weak?

I can see why some readers would think so. I don't. As I've said before, Severus, as a young adult*, shows clear signs of clinical depression. That he remembers what little affection he received with such faithfulness and gratitude (shown by his patronus); that he soldiers on and meets all his obligations; that he manages to grow morally and emotionally with no support at all, however stunted he may still seem - these things, to me, are signs of incredible strength. If he is weak, who is strong? It isn't easy to act freely - or at all - when you are hampered by a chronic disease. It isn't easy to grow morally and emotionally when you are in the clutches of an emotional abuser (as Sev is with Dumbledore). Yes, Severus is a sinner; he was wrong to join the Death Eaters, and he's wrong to blame Harry for existing. He's not perfect. But he's a hero in my eyes, all the same. I've said it before, but it bears saying again.

Mike remarked that he likes superheroes because they are proactive and get things done. That's probably the big difference between us, and why I find Severus much more heroic, and even inspirational, than he does. I do not like superheroes. Superman always bored me because he was basically invulnerable, and too good to be true. I liked Batman better because (as a reviewer commented when reviewing Batman Begins) he has no superpowers. He is strong because he has the discipline to work out; he can fight because he practices; he uses intelligence, the help of loyal friends, knowledge, and discipline to get the things done he wants to accomplish. Oh - and cool gadgets and lots of money. He has those, too, I grant you. But still, he is human, and a human haunted by demons. He is not perfect, and he has no superpowers. Superpowers bore me.

And what cartoon character did one of my fellow panelists compare Severus to? Batman!

That's it for me. A longer ramble than I intended, and I hope Mike doesn't mind my critique. I do enjoy his site, even though I often disagree with him.

Comments

[professor-mum.livejournal.com]

(1) When I was very little I had a Scottish nanny and she was supposed to cross on the Titanic as a young girl with her parents, but for some reason, long forgotten, they missed the boat or had to sell their tickets.

(2) I don't think the term "Snape Shaped Hole" from DH helped Snape's hero image in the slightest. It's very cartoonish --- The Road Runner.

(3) Yes --- what are the Dark Arts? Rowling took great pains not to be specific. BUT --- she could have by detailing a Dark Arts library at Grimmauld Place that Regulus might have had access to. Then we'd have a plausible explanation of how the dear boy knew what the hell a Horcrux was.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

That's fascinating about your nanny! As to the Snape-shaped hole - yes, it's clearly supposed to diminish Snape. I see that as an example of Rowling's emotional tone-deafness. You cannot make a mockery of a character and then expect readers to be moved by his sacrifice a chapter or two later. DH is just a mish-mash, in many ways - content, tone, plot, characterizations, everything.

And there are many, many questions Rowling failed to answer in DH. "Just what are Dark Arts, anyway" may be the most egregious, but I was irked that we never found out exactly how bad the hazing by James and Sirius got, and still more irked at the absolute lack of information on the werewolf caper. Since there is nothing in the text to contradict it, I'm going with Marionros's theory that young Severus went down the tunnel to rescue Lily. Like "Snape opposed to Voldemort and trying to bring him down from within", this reading makes much more sense of the available facts than anything Rowling actually gives us.

[skull-bearer.livejournal.com]

I once tried to map out what the Holocaust would have been like if JKR's anti-muggle prejudice was an accurate metaphor of it. I stopped after I started feeling a bit too uncomfortable. A situation where the Aryans are /actually/ superior, and the Jews really did try and wipe them out at one time, and massively out-number them and are making their very existence difficult -- yeah, I stopped about there and had a bath. ick.

About Snape. I don't know what Mike Smith said (link?) but perhaps what he meant was that he thought Snape was less of a hero because he only turned away from the Death Eaters because they wanted to kill Lily. It's been said before (and I tend to agree) that it is more heroic to turn away because you've realised you've joined nazis with superpowers (not my words btw) than because they're threatening a girl you want. We are never shown in the text that Snape ever really disagreed with their views on what should be done with muggles and muggle-borns, or if he was just doing it becuase they killed Lily.

I'm not sure what you were talkign about with the last bit, as both superman and batman and proactive and get things done. It's an admirable trait but its not solely for superheroes.

Part I

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

"We are never shown in the text that Snape ever really disagreed with their views on what should be done with muggles and muggle-borns, or if he was just doing it becuase they killed Lily."

I'm going to break this into parts for ease of reading. While I agree with the statement that it' more heroic to leave because of the underlying ideology, versus fear for Lily, I have to say a couple of things. One: it's easy to stand back and criticize from our bird's-eye perspective, but for how many of us (myself included) would it take a personal blow to spur us into action? Human beings have a remarkable ability to deceive themselves about unsavory things until they are literally shoved in our faces.

Two: We are never shown that he actually truly agreed with these views in the first place, either. The entire issue is maddeningly obscured. It isn't clear what precisely Severus thought he was getting into when he first joined - according to the indications we're given, even Regulus Black, presumably better connected to any possible sources of inside information than half-blood, raised-in-a-Muggle-town Severus, thought Voldemort wanted to RULE the Muggles and somehow promote pureblood superiority via the creation of second-class citizens; not admirable, but hardly the same as agreeing to genocide. We don't know anything about what was said to Severus to encourage him to join, or what drove him to accept. We can speculate, but that is all. What we are shown tends to support a reading that interest in the Dark Arts (whatever they actually are) and a desire for acceptance and/or protection from the Gryffindor contingent were at least as important in this respect as any views about Muggles/Muggleborns. We don't ever get a clear statement about what his views about Muggles and/or Muggleborns actually ARE, as a child, young man, or adult.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Um - I'd say to this that even those of us who act on principle have those principles because we were taught them, by people we love and respect. Many of us start with people, and our love for them. We all have to start somewhere.

As to the last bit, I'm not sure I can find the quote again, but what I was getting at is this: Superman is a superhero; he has superpowers and is basically invulnerable. This is so completely boring that the writers had to come up with kryptonite to give him a vulnerability.

Batman, like Severus Snape, is flawed, haunted by demons, and human. He has no superpowers. I prefer Batman - and Snape (who, in the context of his world, is also just an everyday Joe - but even more so than Batman, because he is dirt-poor and has few or no friends). I like vulnerable guys (and women) who struggle against their own flaws to get things done. Superpowers bore me.

[bohemianspirit.livejournal.com]

It's been said before (and I tend to agree) that it is more heroic to turn away because you've realised you've joined nazis with superpowers (not my words btw) than because they're threatening a girl you want. We are never shown in the text that Snape ever really disagreed with their views on what should be done with muggles and muggle-borns, or if he was just doing it becuase they killed Lily.

My reading of the text was that Lily was the catalyst for a much deeper realization of what he'd gotten himself into. We are never shown that he ever really agreed with the DE views on muggles and muggle-borns. What we are shown is that Severus tended to turn a blind eye towards anything that he didn't really want to see: He didn't want to see that Lily was starting to "fancy" James, and so he didn't hear any of her critical remarks directed towards Severus, only those directed towards James. He was so invested in the idea that the Death Eaters offered prestige, power, glory, and advancement in wizarding circles that he mentally "filtered" anything to do with their darker side; I really think he had himself convinced that, "Oh, it's not that bad, it's just something they say, you don't understand, I'll be so impressive a wizard once I'm a real Death Eater!"

The text also strongly implies that Severus' duties as a new Death Eater were pretty much restricted to spying. Fanon notwithstanding, it's highly unlikely he ever had to do an "initiatory" killing and/or torture, because his conversation with Dumbledore in Harry's sixth year indicates that he's only had to watch people being killed (and I wonder if that was in his early years, or only after Voldemort's return), never had to do any killing himself. That being the case, he was probably somewhat sheltered from the harsh realities of what the Death Eaters did: He focused on spying, something he did well and prided himself on, and was likely all caught up in how awesomely well he would PROVE himself and finally gain recognition! --until the target of one of his intelligence reports ended up being Lily.

So I think he left because the ugly realities of Death Eaterdom hit home for him, became "real" when it involved someone he knew and still cared about. (Not so sure about the "loved her forever" bit, Harry's immediate storyspinning notwithstanding, but he obviously didn't want to see her dead, either.) It brought the killing and cruelty out of an abstraction in his head into a flesh-and-blood reality.

Turning from the Death Eaters

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

If you haven't read Rex Luscus's great essay, "Snape's Supposed Great Love," do so! S/he looks at Severus's Patronus as a metaphor, and points out the canon evidence for Severus's spiritual growth: from turning from the DE's (solely) out of selfish/acquisitive desire for Lily, to saving Lily's son because it's what she would have wanted, to sacrificing everything to save others, because it's the right thing to do.

Snape may have started by rejecting Voldemort only because of the threat to Lily, but even by the time of her death that was no longer his sole motivation. Otherwise, if all he cared about was possessing Lily and increasing his own power/promoting an anti-Muggle agenda/whatever reason you think he joined the DE's, with Lily lost he'd turn back, if not to the DE's (tactically imprudent), to whatever he thought could achieve his secondary aims (power or whatever). And he doesn't; he continues to do "anything" DD asks of him, to protect Lily's son.

[oryx_leucoryx]

On Severus and betrayal: Both Lily and Severus betrayed one another in their fifth year. Lily by listening to the Marauders' version of the events of the Shrieking Shack while ignoring whatever Severus was able to say on the subject, by visibly nearly laughing at Severus' humiliation and by using the opportunity to focus all her attention on James while letting Severus choke. Severus' betrayal consisted of uttering a racist slur which he thoroughly regretted (while she never regretted anything, except perhaps not dumping Severus sooner). Compare at your own risk.

However the biggest betrayal Severus experienced that year IMO was by Dumbledore - who did not punish Severus' near-murderers (while silencing him), who failed to investigate the events surrounding the murder attempt, who failed to improve the security arrangements for Remus even after he knew at least 3 students knew how to overcome existing ones, thus endangering hundreds of students and who knows how many villagers, and who allowed horrific acts of bullying to take place in his school.

Yet somehow, even after Severus joined Dumbledore's enemy, the fact that Dumbledore had sheltered a werewolf in his school, information that could have gotten him removed from office and possibly allowed the school to be taken over by Voldemort remained secret. So who exactly is vengeful and disloyal? What does this tell us of how badly Severus supported Voldemort and wanted him to win?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

You are right (quite horrifyingly so) about Dumbledore's betrayals - and also about Severus keeping silence about Lupin. I wish we could be sure that this last wasn't an example of Rowling's incoherent writing, however! If you really think about it, it's still more "proof" of the theory that CMWinters and I came up with independently of each other - that Severus was "Dumbledore's man" all along (though we both gave him his own motives), and never supported Voldemort at all. This reading still makes more sense of most of the "facts" in the text than the reading Rowling actually gave us. ;)
(In my case, I was inspired by the theories of Jodel at the Red Hen website and of Swythyv.)

[bohemianspirit.livejournal.com]

After I read DH, one of my first questions was, "Who loved Severus"? Lily certainly didn't. Yes, they had a casual, childish friendship, but I wouldn't call that love. That Severus did, and that he clung to Lily so desperately, indicates just how bleak his life was.

I'm really questioning whether Severus really did cling to Lily all of his life, as Harry quickly leaped to assume. If you look at the memories he gave to Harry, they could just as easily (and more sensibly, in terms of his character) read that he really, deeply regretted that Lily had been targeted and killed because of his actions. Everything--the desperation on the hilltop, the grief in Dumbledore's office, the doe Patronus (that he "always" protected Harry in memory of Lily), the weeping and the torn photograph--can easily be read as remorse and regret, rather than eternal clinging to an unrequited love.

Hence, his purpose in showing Harry those memories was to convince Harry that he, Severus, could be relied upon to be telling him the truth about Dumbledore's words--and that he himself protested leading Harry to slaughter like that--by convincing him that he truly regretted his role in Harry's mother's death.

The only thing that might possibly contradict such a reading is that Harry interpreted the memories as "he loved her all his life, since they were children!" Now, those of us who see Harry as a less-than-nuanced thinker, and less-than-reliable narrator, have no problem saying, well, that's Harry for you, leaping tall conclusions in a single bound. ;-) Not to mention that he was assuming his mother's Patronus was a doe--on what basis? But if JKR sees Harry as reliable, sympathetic, and right, then it may be that we are supposed to assume that what Harry says is The Way We Are Supposed To Interpret Severus' Memories.

Frankly, I think my reading--remorse, regret, making amends to the innocent--makes more sense. What about Lily Evans, as depicted, would inspire Severus to continue loving her, and loving her deeply, long after she cut him off and married his worst enemy?

[sionna-raven.livejournal.com]

Thank you very much for saying that. I've already been starting to think that it is only me clinging to straws who can come up with this explanation to get a normal, reasonable Severus Snape out off the last book's wreckage.
There's nothing unusual or pathological obsessive about a man like Severus feeling deep remorse about his part in endangering his best childhood friend and first love. This is even normal, if he had been the one who broke up their relation. One can stop loving someone romantically and still feel extreme loyalty. Severus as I have read him in the books certainly can.
The memories Severus gives to Harry IMO are less a testimony of undying love than a confession. Not one of them presents the Saint!Lily he is supposed to love; they show his mistakes. I interpret the casting of the doe patronus in Dumbledore's office as an act of almost childish defiance. 'No, I don't care for the boy. Look!'If a patronus always represents the casters true love, what about Dumbledore's phoenix, Harry's stag and Ginny's horse? I prefer to believe that patronusses are a bit more complex. BTW if the two patronusses are indeed similar, who got it first. A doe is a symbol for protective female power. It's not even the right consort for a stag and why on earth should Severus remember his one and only true in the form of his enemy's female consort anyway?

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your comment. I really don't think we disagree all that much - how could Severus's regret and repentance (not merely remorse, IMHO) be separated from his love?

But what gets me is the people who see Severus as weak because he continued to love someone who did not love him. That is what I was arguing against. I do think there is much more to his actions than simply pining for a woman who rejected him. And I think you've explained that beautifully. But I will never, ever agree that loving someone makes you weak. That's a really common argument among the Snape-haters, and I am sick of reading it!

[sionna-raven.livejournal.com]

There's one major difference I see between the movie and the HP books; nobody in his right mind has ever watched the movie believing that it is meant as a historically correct and morally appropriate representation of the events and more important the movie producers never claimed it to be. JKR in contrast claimed that her books are moral and her parallels to racism and the Nazi Holocaust are realistic.
The movie audience watched 'just another romantic movie about the Titanic desaster'; for many readers of the HP books those were the first and for still a great proportion of the targeted young readers the only series of books they have ever read. This gives the books a much larger influence on the minds of the readers.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the comment, Sionna Raven! But, actually, about Titanic: a cousin of mine, working in the Merchant Marine at the time, did actually say that he thought the crew of the Titanic could have behaved the way they did in the film. He loved the movie, and couldn't see why I found it offensive. And my dad, a music teacher who was offended by "Amadeus", had his 13 and 14-year old students telling him the movie was the exact truth. Too many people do take movies as history; too many do think what they see is, and must be, true.

Anyway, I do find Titanic offensive. It's true, though, that Harry Potter is more offensive, since Rowling claims she intended to say something serious about racism and genocide.

Thanks

[(Anonymous)]

I'm very glad to see someone else make that point about JK's misuse of Nazism as a story trope. I find JK's misappropriation of the Holocaust era one of the most offensive things in what I call her immorality tale. (Plainly, she does want to present a teaching about ethics, and the teaching she presents encourages the habit of prejudiced thought and exalts bullies and conmen, hence "immorality". OTOH, her view of ethics grants no inherent moral value to actions, only to status, so I have wondered if "amorality" describes her ideas better.) HP as genocide-tale trivialises genocide, at best. At worst, it actually encourages reverse-genocide.

Your point about Snape's "undying love" also holds good. There is no textual evidence that his affection was ever sexual in nature. She was his best/only friend, whom he both worshipped and treasured. Does he need any other reason than that to loathe the bully who's trying to sever that friendship and batten on her? Does he need any other reason to rue forever that he unintentionally put her life in danger and was unable to undo that and save her?

Harry thinks so because Harry is unable to feel that level of love/concern for anyone who is not a sexual object. In order to understand Ron's fear for his family after their house has been raided by DEs, Harry has to think about Ginny. Not the rest of the Weasleys who have (barring Percy) taken him in as one of them, but only sexy-lips. After Ron storms out, Harry starts watching the Marauder's Map not in hopes of finding that Ron is safe, but in search of ammunition against him, "proving that he had returned to the comfortable castle, protected by his status as pure-blood" - which soon segues into thoughts of Ginny again. And in the Malfoy dungeons, how long does Hermione scream before it impinges on his concerns? She's his second-best friend, but does he give her torture another thought after they escape?

Harry is as little able to love as Dumbledore, IMO. What he does have is "a saving people thing"; no less, but unfortunately, no more, also.

duj

Re: Thanks

[oryx_leucoryx]

In addition to the unconvincing parallels between Voldemort's regime and Hitler's there is the Grindelwald regime (that suddenly collapses in a single duel) placed in overlap with WW2 and the lack of explanation how the two related - leading to interpretations that are uncomfortably close to Holocaust denial.

Re: Thanks

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I am starting to think, as a result of discussions like this one, that the reason I cannot simply let go of these books - the reason I am so disturbed by them - is that the mixed and negative messages in them are so darn appalling. And what you say about Harry - brrr!

It would be a huge relief to me if I could think (as I postulate in the brief essay below this one) that Rowling intended us to be critical of Harry, and of the wizarding world generally. Unfortunately, I cannot be sure of this at all. And absolutely everything she's said in interviews goes against such a reading. That leaves us with a text that actually seems to encourage fascism, racism, blind obedience and the cult of personality while paying lip-service to love, freedom and responsibility. It's all quite chilling, really.

Harry's concern for Hermione's torture

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

Duj, you're great. I think you've made that point before about Harry not empathizing with Ron's worry for his family until he thinks of Ginny sharing the family fate, but I missed that about Hermione's torture.

Harry's channeling Gellert taunting Voldie, then--

"He felt Voldemort's fury, but as Hermione screamed again he shut it out, returning to the cellar and the horror of his own present."

The horror of his OWN present?

[mike-smith.livejournal.com]

2. Now, the second question. Mike Smith insists that Severus Snape is weak because he did everything for Lily, who did not love him after his insult to her. He's not alone in thinking so; even some Snape fans are saying that DH Severus is a weaker character than they had imagined. Mr. Smith also said he agrees with Rowling, and that Severus is a worse person than Voldemort for betraying his beloved - because he was loved, and Voldemort never was.

I had to go back and read what I wrote (http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/164722.html) to see if this was what I actually said. In hindsight, I think the only clear point I made was that the Dinobots are super-awesome, and should have been included in the book.

To rebut, Snape is not Batman. I've even said this exact statement somewhere in the Book VI review. Rowling wants you to think he's like Batman, except Snape doesn't have the sense of perspective that Batman does.

The Batman is an experiment. Bruce Wayne would be avenging his dead parents one way or another, but he only chose to dress up like a giant bat because he felt it would be the most effective methodology. He constantly tweaks his tactics and weapons to improve his war on crime. While his parents inspired him to do all the things that he does, he knows that ultimately nothing will bring them back, and his crusade against crime is bigger than his own personal loss. So basically, he used that loss to become a better person, crafting an emotional, yet practical means to make the world a better place.

On the flip-side, Snape never worked past any of his problems. Lily blows him off, then dies, and he spends the rest of his life regretting his past mistakes. There's no master plan on his part to make things right. He just does whatever Dumbledore tells him, and acts like a giant dick whenever it doesn't conflict with following Dumbledore's lead. The only net improvement I can think of is that he eventually stopped using the term "Mudblood", about twenty years after it would have done him any good.

I forget the exact circumstances of Snape's role in the Potters' death, but he was working for Lily's murderer right up until she was slated to be murdered. I'd call that a betrayal, wouldn't you? Even if he had no idea she was targeted for death, he knew what Voldemort wanted to do to Muggle-borns, and he didn't seem particularly concerned with how Lily might end up.

The main thing I took away from whatever chapter that was, was that Teen Snape would throw around anti-Muggleborn slurs like it was no big deal, and then be genuinely confused when Lily took personal offense. That's what I mean by lack of perspective. In his mind, the world was him and a small number of people and things that made him happy, and he never bothered to understand how those things interrelated outside of him. That's why he couldn't figure out how to deal with Lily's sister, because he couldn't understand why Lily would care about someone he himself wasn't concerned about.

Compare to Batman, who only fights crime because he extrapolated the horror of his parents' murder to that of any murder. To him, any innocent life is sacred, and must be protected with equal vigor. Snape can't do that. He only cares about Harry because of his connection to Lily. Yeah, he "saves" the damn weinerkids in Book 3, big deal.

And that's what makes him weak, because in the midst of all that goes on, his focus is squarely on himself. That's why he sought Lily's approval while simultaneously striving for greater power via the Dark Arts. It doesn't matter what they are or how they work. The point is that Lily hates the Dark Arts and Snape can't (or won't) understand that he can't have both. A stronger character would have learned to see beyond his own wants and needs and appreciate the bigger picture. Instead, Snape's still whining about Harry's dad decades later, and taking out his frustrations on whoever's convenient.

[oryx_leucoryx]

On the flip-side, Snape never worked past any of his problems. Lily blows him off, then dies, and he spends the rest of his life regretting his past mistakes. There's no master plan on his part to make things right. He just does whatever Dumbledore tells him, and acts like a giant dick whenever it doesn't conflict with following Dumbledore's lead. The only net improvement I can think of is that he eventually stopped using the term "Mudblood", about twenty years after it would have done him any good.

I completely and totally disagree. The Severus we see in Harry's school years is already a good person. He is the man who jumps out of bed because he hears someone in pain. He does not stop even though on his way he notices his office (which contains sensitive and possibly expensive or hard to come by ingredients) was broken into. Only when he learns that nobody was in danger or suffering (because the screaming came from Harry's Triwizard egg) does he consider the break in or the fact that Harry was breaking curfew (again).

The Severus we see in Harry's school years is also the man who was in anguish that a student (whose identity he did not know at the time) was taken to the Chamber of Secrets and he was unable to save hir.

The Severus we see in Harry's years is the teacher who teaches the subject that is the most dangerous in the first few years and he makes an effort to keep them all safe despite their inattention and lack of appreciation of the situation - hence the strict and demanding attitude, hence the presence of antidotes and hence the intolerance of unpredictable factors such as the presence of a toad in the class. He teaches an advanced curriculum, and 1 in 4 students gets an Outstanding.

While he occasionally gives unpleasant detentions he never gives detentions that place students in danger or in pain (as opposed to McGonagall and Umbridge), nor does he ever - in class, in the dueling club, in the corridors or ground expose students to any risk he can't control (as opposed to Remus, Hagrid, Lockhart and the schemer Dumbledore).

Snape can't do that. He only cares about Harry because of his connection to Lily.
As I have showed, Severus cares about everyone. He saves everyone he can save, he goes out of his way for everyone. He treats Sirius when he is at his mercy with compassion, while Sirius treats Severus with callousness.

So he is insults kids and adults. Big deal. After all he does for them, why do the insults even matter?

And that's what makes him weak, because in the midst of all that goes on, his focus is squarely on himself. That's why he sought Lily's approval while simultaneously striving for greater power via the Dark Arts. It doesn't matter what they are or how they work. The point is that Lily hates the Dark Arts and Snape can't (or won't) understand that he can't have both.,/i>

It matters very much that the Dark Arts are ill-defined. It shows that Lily and her Gryffindor friends have a shallow concept of morality where an action is judged by arbitrary classification by some bureaucratic system rather than by the actual possible consequences of the actions in the context of the situation where those actions took place. If a person can be drowned by Scourgify then using the spell in such a way is worse than a mild and controlled application of Sectumsempra. And if the Marauders nearly killed Severus by setting wereRemus on him then their supposed avoidance of Dark Arts is hypocritical, and Lily's preference of the Marauders' 'jokes' over Mulciber's is meaningless. I can understand Severus' confusion, I'd be confused too in his place.

Snape's still whining about Harry's dad decades later, and taking out his frustrations on whoever's convenient.
Severus mentions James in Harry's presence 5 times in canon, and in all but one of these times it is in response to when Harry is behaving like James at his worst. Considering that James made Severus' schooldays into living hell and Severus finds himself protecting James' ungrateful son I'd say he brings James up sparingly and almost always only under extreme circumstances, in situations that appear to be flashbacks. (The only other time is when Severus is riling Sirius up while discussing the upcoming Occlumency lessons.)

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Hey, Mike! I'm glad you're jumping in here, since I was quoting you. When you say, he was working for Lily's murderer right up until she was slated to be murdered. I'd call that a betrayal, wouldn't you? , I answer, "Yes. Of course I would, and I have. I think I have in this same conversation." But -

I realize, from your blog (and it's really clever, and I enjoy it), that you have not read all these books as of yet. If Sev betrays Lily, she also betrays him, and her betrayal comes before his.* Before this betrayal, there is no evidence in the text itself that Sev is fascinated by the Dark Arts. It's all hearsay - and hearsay provided by people who are strongly biased against him. There is only weak evidence that he is prejudiced against Muggleborns - and no evidence at all, before the seventh book, that he is prejudiced against Muggles. As Oryx has pointed out, if you focus on what Severus actually does and not on what he says, he comes across as pretty heroic and selfless. There is all kinds of symbolism in the text, too, pointing toward a heroic Severus. But-

I agree with you COMPLETELY that Rowling dropped the ball on this, and on so many other things as well. That's the point of this post, really. She deals with really serious subjects - or apparently tries to - and she deals with them so badly that it's actually offensive. On this, at least, I think we agree.

*(Brief summary, in case you don't manage to force your way through book 5, as well as book 6 and 7: The Marauders torment Sev, without reason, for five solid years. This culminates in their trying to feed him to a werewolf. When Sev tries to tell Lily what happens, she ignores him and sides with his tormenters. After this conversation, they haze him in public - she sides with them again - and he snaps and calls her "Mudblood". Not good, but, as Oryx Leucoryx says, almost understandable. And he does try to apolgize for it. One more thing I'd like to mention: Severus risks his life begging for Lily's from Voldemort. We know that Voldemort tortures and kills his supporters when they anger him; we also know they are killed if they try to leave. We don't know that Severus knows Voldemort's anti-Muggleborn/Muggle agenda when he joins, nor do we ever find out to what extent he ever agrees with it.

[(Anonymous)]

But she never defines what the Dark Arts ARE, and then we see that running around with a werewolf endangering people, or using a Map as a covert surveillance device, is NOT dark arts.

'Yeah, he saves the damn weinerkids in Book 3, big deal'
I don't get it. Isn't it a good thing to save people's lives?? And he is jumping into the scene of his trauma to do it.

I mean, Harry's focus is pretty squarely on himself for most of the books, too.

'A stronger character would have learned to see beyond his wants and needs and appreciate the bigger picture'
Like the way Harry so clearly learns to do??

I mean, in what way would Snape have done that? And at what point in the story? In book 5, say, or Book 4, what should he have done differently?

It seems to me that in both of those books, jkr sets up the story in such a way that Snape is damned no matter what he does. But maybe you think there was a clear, alternative course of action he should have taken, which would represent a morally better choice.

[(Anonymous)]

Dear me, I really feel I must jump in here. I'm currently finishing Whitehound's amazingly thorough, fair, and impartial explication of All Things Snape called, "But Snape is Just Nasty, Right?" This long (about 80 pages, I think) article is required reading for anybody who wants to discuss Snape's character, behavior, history, and motivations. She covers literally every reference to him and every scene involving him in all seven books from both pro and con Snape angles. I can't recommend it too highly. The link is here:
http://members.madasafish.com/~cj_whitehound/Fanfic/good_or_bad_Snape.htm

As for what Severus did or didn't know when he joined the DEs: Mary has astutely pointed out Moldy Shorts was running a cult. Cult expert Steven Hassan says that cults present two faces to the world: a benign face for the world at large and new recruits, and their true, malignant face once the recruits have gotten sucked in and can't escape. He adds that anyone can be tricked into joining a cult. Hassan himself came from a loving, supportive, two-parent family, but he still joined the Moonies.

Hassan's BITE model of cult characteristics sounds like JKR's template for constructing her wizarding world. That is, the entire WW in these books is one giant cult. So no matter what Severus did, he would have been a cult member just by virtue of being a wizard. Once you realize this, the bigotry, immaturity, paranoia, moral corruption, and emotional flatness exhibited by the characters in the WW makes perfect sense. Cults are evil by definition because they force people to (1) never grow up, but remain children dependent on the cult leader, and (2) forfeit their genuine personalities in favor of becoming clones of the cult leader. Hassan's section on the BITE model is not required reading for HP readers, but it certainly enhances the experience of the books and makes sense of JKR's incoherence. His website is freedomofmind.com.

Last, if I were going to compare Severus to a superhero, it would be Buffy Summers, the Vampire Slayer. They are both exceptionally powerful yet vulnerable mortals who frequently chafe against the restraints on them and exhibit resentment about their sacred duty but always end up doing the right thing anyway. And for us Snape fans, he is the Chosen One. ;-)

oneandthetruth

[neonorne.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the link oneandthetruth! Actually, I have seen this before, and it is a very thorough and comprehensive list of all the pro-Snape arguments, so very handy as a reference for anyone interested in a debate of Snape's character, yes, absolutely.

But I have to disagree when you say its is impartial. It is entirely pro-Snape, and very much so, listing all the familiar arguments against a reading of Snape as bad in any way. With the familiar, pro-Snape interpretations of all the events listed. Which is totally OK for a Snape fan to do, of course! And interesting reading, too, for anyone interested in the debate, even for those who disagree with the premises of the list. I agree with you there.

But you cannot call it impartial. It is not a mere list of all the canon facts concerning Snape, it is a list of arguments. Neither does it list in any loyal way all the possible anti-Snape readings of the events covered. If you want a loyal rendering of all the possible anti-Snape arguments, you will have to go somewhere else. I am not familiar with any place doing this in the same thorough, intelligent and logical way as this website does for the pro-arguments, though. A shame, really, if it doesn't exist. It would have made a very interesting comparison.

Just for the record, since I did put my foot in here: I do not consider myself a Snapehater. I don't like him, but I can pity him, and I can see he had some things to struggle with, indeed. I just have the experience that to many who love the character, my arguments for not liking him may easily come across as hating him and siding with his bullies instead. But that's not where I'm coming from. I just read many of the events in the book differently than many Snape fans do, so my Snape is actually a different man from their Snape. That happens a lot with book characters - readers will see them differently, there are many valid readings of the same text. No one can claim that their particular reading is the only valid or possible one.

I agree ! (1)

[(Anonymous)]

Hello, a necro-post to say thanks to the OP and I agree here with many things said, that's amazing to find a place to read analyses of the story. It's very frightening that some people blindly eat every justifications Rowling throw to whitewash her "hero" and story(she tells things instead of showing WHY Harry and co are supposed to be the better side and WHY we should root for them). She clearly don't understand how systemic discriminations and institutionalised racism works, or if she does, she uses discriminatories discourse and tools to portray the so called good sided characters more than the bad ones (who btw became more caricatures of what she supposedly wanted to denounce and therefore less frightening that the good ones who become exactly what she wanted to denounce and in a realistic way !!). I remember that I became more and more unconfortable with the books as far as child, until the 6 where I couldn't see anymore why I was supposed to care that Harry kill Voldemort when anyone and everyone was a nasty piece of shit and that nothing would change about all the problematic themes the author introduced. I was so upset it took me one year before the decide to finish the serie by reading the last one book (and sometimes I wish I didn't especially after reading part like how Harry belittle Hermione torture trauma and risks she face because of her statu, and how he enjoy to "rightfully" torture an enemy and how he is litteraly praised for it).

I'm a strong believer that good or bad actions aren't supposed to be decided upon the good/bad actions of others (otherwise it's just hypocrisy at its finest coupled with immaturity and inability to take responsabilities. Circumstances explain, but don't excuse) but upon own personal moral beliefs we hold, and how the person react after a wrongdoing they do to (how they react when they are called about it ? Are they able to recognize their own wrongdoing without pining everything on someone else's back ? Can they make conscious actions to improve themselve ? Can they show this conscious way of facing responsabilities, not only when it personaly impact them (either positively by making them gaining somthing or negatively when it impact their quality of life)but when it impact stranger group of peoples ? In other words, can they show empathy, humility and desire to learn from the peoples first concerned by problems they encounter/create to better themselve. Can they pro actively seeks to learn about their world and how they impact it positively/negatively and what they can do to better it ? Sadly it seems not the case for many characters in HP, which lead to a statu quo from the 1st to last book, and this statu quo isn't a good one. That where Harry and many so called "good" characters felt short in Rowling books (because again, Rowling thinks that as long she write "X is doing good here" any "bad" actions she write to provide plot action/pathos (etc) should be overlooked. But any well aware reader need a consistent presentation of the "moral rules" and to decide by themselve if a character do good/bad deed, and not been told by the author in an inconsistent way that make character does sames acts and not been called in the same way by the narrative. Otherwise it's no more a story but a sort of propaganda or I don't know the word for this sort of writing.)

I agree ! (2)

[(Anonymous)]

The thing that is shocking and made me (and maybe others ?) to not fullybeen able to digest and let go of the HP books is probably because Rowling tell instead of showing, and it create a dissonance. So I try to understand and reconciliate the idea that the author presented two opposite ideas, but not on purpose. She push the narrative to make the reader sympathetic toward some characters but not others when they aren't very different from each others outside of superficial points she make. Example : Harry is empathic trust me (and then she wrote him been as unempathic as possible in many instances), he care for others I tell you ! -wrote him been a uncaring and egoist because pathos/plot point and who care what message it will carry to the reader because I TOLD to believe me on all these empty praises done through the books by others characters.
James (a pure blood rich kid) bully and sexually assault another character (halfblood and poor) ? Lol he changed (but it's not show and the narrative point towards the contrary in fact) and the victim deserved it (even if it sounds like victim-blaming, and nothing support that in the narrative, and more Rowling tell about James, less it seems the true). Dumbledore is a "reformed" purebloodist supremacist that now works for the well-being of muggles(but we are never shows HOW concretely, but everything is fine because he have a nice medal I tell you) what can possibly make you think otherwise ? =>oh the time when he displayed power dynamic by bullying the Dursley in front of Harry (I don't count the time he decided to drop a baby in front of the door, not feeling that he owned Petunia any face to face explanations and condoleances, nor any help to understand how to raise a wizard baby in a muggle world, what was her rights and duty as guardian, what she should know/do to make it as best as possible and which laws (the muggle one or wizard one ?) would be applied in her&family case. Shut up, stay in the dark, and do anything I told you and if you dare not to, I won't even go myself yell at you in person like the child you are in my allmighty eye, I do it throught magical letter to reminds you of the power imbalance created by magic in case you forgot, despite their obvious fear and inability to defend themselve not even to present their own point of view about the whole situation ? Lol the victims are obviously wrong here (NO), why didn't they just comply and dare to look frightened when their lives are threatened and they are humiliated in their own house. But it's OK because they are evil (and stupid, and MUGGLE whoo), end of explanation. Ahh good muggle defensor Dumbledore, Merlin's Order yadda yadda, that sounds so...fake ally like. And infuriating.

That's these sort of credibility gaps that make the story looking silly and frustrating imo.

PS : From "Another". Short descriptionof myself, I'm a 28 y old non binary person of color who read HP books (1st when I was 9 y o) and watched the movies. English isn't my native tongue so forgive my mistakes. And how the short thanks message turnd into a rant. Also sorry if you receive confusing multiple messages, I'm not used to LJ and it seems there is a limited characters.