mary_j_59: (Default)
mary_j_59 ([personal profile] mary_j_59) wrote2009-08-04 10:18 pm

A few things - (mostly Potter - related)

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.

[personal profile] oryx_leucoryx 2009-08-13 03:34 am (UTC)(link)
Apparently, outing someone's extremely stigmatised condition to their entire school is fine if it means proving to your crush that her housemates suck more than yours.
Who was trying to out Remus to the school? The one who created that situation was Sirius. Severus in his school days only ever attempted to out Remus to Lily. Lucius didn't know up to POA. It seems even Voldemort never found out, not even by Legilimency, or he would have used the information to finish Dumbleodre's career. (Of course in POA Severus outs Remus completely, as Remus fully deserved, because he proved himself irresponsible and uncooperative with the measures that kept students and villagers safe from him.)

'She sides with them again' - Didn't you say somewhere that you don't even have these books anymore? Because, IIRC, she stuck up for him when literally no-one else would and demanded they leave him alone, despite him having already spouted racist language around the school. Looking like she was going to smile for a second seems kinda small compared to him calling her a racist slur.
Her whole behavior in that scene before Severus' racist slur was a betrayal of Severus. Her near-laughter, her inaction to stop his choking and paying so much attention to James while ignoring Severus. Most people who read the scene before DH thought Lily didn't know who Severus was from her behavior in that scene. She was not acting as his friend.

[personal profile] oryx_leucoryx 2009-08-13 04:23 am (UTC)(link)
We also disagree about the things you list as reasons for this entitlement, oryx_leucoryx. You see someone going out of his way to help and save everyone, I see a man doing what any decent, responsible teacher or indeed adult should do. The exceptional would have been if he had not done any of those things.

Then I wonder what your view of all the other teachers at Hogwarts is. Because nobody else responded to the egg's screams (except Filch who was already up and about doing his rounds).

And several teachers do much to endanger students. The most obvious is Remus who knows he has a dangerous condition, knows Severus works extra to help him be safe, and Remus plays head games with Severus about taking the potion, eventually leaving it to the last moment and not taking it at all - but going out on the grounds, where he ends up endangering people, including 3 students.

Or Hagrid who has students care for illegally bred organisms with unknown traits (over the year they become known and dangerous traits - students endure burns in his class).

But let's look at Minerva: To teach students that being out after curfew in dangerous times is irresponsible she sends them to serve detention in the Forbidden Forest where a unicorn killer is about. Very sensible.
And when Neville supposedly endangers people by leaving the Gryffindor common room passwords about she goes balistic, and completely ignoring the fact that he left the passwords *beyond* the common room portrait - it was accessible to those who already had a way past the portrait. That Sirius got the passwords meant he had a collaborator inside Gryffindor Tower - but does anyone investigate who that is?

And of course the worst is Dumbledore who is using the school as a trap for supervillains and as training ground for his hero and future soldiers, while constantly endangering innocents.

How does Severus compare to other teachers in being a responsible adult?

More later.

[personal profile] oryx_leucoryx 2009-08-13 06:39 am (UTC)(link)
Re: insults.

It is not nice to insult people. But still people do it, a lot. Especially when they are exasperated. Teachers get exasperated with students and they tend to insult them in those situations. It is not nice of them, there might be better and more efficient ways to deal with the situation, but insults are minor things. If my daughter were to complain to me that a teacher insulted her I would try to figure out what else this teacher is doing. If it turns out the teacher knows hir stuff and makes a serious effort to impart hir knowledge, makes a reasonable effort to keep the class disciplined, avoids wasting time then I would tell her that as unpleasant as the experience of being insulted in public by an authority figure can be, it is sometimes worthwhile to endure (as well as good preparation for later in life).

In most of my school years I can recall teachers who insulted my class in general, specific students (sometimes including myself), groups of students in the class (sometimes I was part of the group in question). Insults on their own are not the reason to consider a person a bad teacher or boss and they hardly figure in considering the morality of a person in general.

Rowling loves Remus, she considers him the best teacher at Hogwarts and the one she would have wanted to teach her children. Remus is the exact opposite of Severus. He is nice mannered to students (at least to the Gryffindors in Harry's year, I can imagine him being his passive-aggressive self with the Slytherins) and avoids overt hostility (but just look at his interactions with Severus in POA, or how he talks about Severus when he thinks the latter can't hear him). He is supportive of Harry and Neville (who just happen to be sons of his friends and comrades - how did he deal with Crabbe or Goyle?). But he fails completely with the very basic matter of student safety because he can't stand it that the management of his condition depends on the work of a former enemy. An additional failure in this department is his non-disclosure of Sirius' status as Animagus and his knowledge of secret entrances to the school - not because Remus knew Sirius was in fact not dangerous but because he did not want to admit rather serious past misdeeds. What is his nice classroom conduct worth when his deeds and inaction could have gotten students killed?

Severus is good but not nice, Remus is nice but not good. I know which one I choose, for myself and for my daughter.

[personal profile] oryx_leucoryx 2009-08-13 07:38 am (UTC)(link)
I don't like him, but I can pity him, and I can see he had some things to struggle with, indeed.

I doubt Severus would appreciate your pity. My mother says she'd rather be sworn at than pitied, and I have a feeling Severus is the same.

Following my earlier response about how Severus compared with other Hogwarts teachers regarding caring for their student I was reminded of a Hillel quote and looked it up.

It is from Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers, sayings of most significant rabbis from roughly 1st century BCE to 3rd century CE)

He would also say: A boor cannot be sin-fearing, an ignoramus cannot be pious, a bashful one cannot learn, a short-tempered person cannot teach, nor does anyone who does much business grow wise. In a place where there are no men, strive to be a man.
(Avot 2:5)

Severus fails by being a short-tempered teacher, but his greatest achievement is that despite living in the wizarding world and in Hogwarts, which is its microcosm - both places where there are no men - he never stops striving to be a man.

schemeingreader, in her AU Snupin fic where Hogwarts is a 19th century yeshiva named her Severus after Shammai - Hillel's colleague and rival, a great scholar but strict and severe - with himself and others.

And apropos Severus and Judaism, I'd like to refer to the dispute between Yochanan and his brother-in-law, Resh Lakish about Genesis 6:9 - why does the biblical text say "Noah was a righteous and blameless man in his generation"

Yochanan said: "In his generation, but not in other generations." (ie while Noah was the most righteous of his times, the same level of behavior wouldn't have been considered righteous at times of higher moral development.)

In contrast, Yochanan's brother-in-law Resh Lakish said "If in his generation, how much more so in other generations?"

For background, Resh Lakish was a gladiator, or perhaps a bandit, who repented. (The trigger for his repentance was the offer of Yochanan's sister's hand in marriage, after Resh Lakish admitted to finding Yochanan beautiful. If there are any Talmudic slashers I'm guessing this would be a popular pairing.) He was someone who could appreciate the amount of growth needed to be righteous in an evil society. And following Resh Lakish, I paraphrase. Severus was a righteous man in his generation.

[personal profile] oryx_leucoryx 2009-08-13 03:12 pm (UTC)(link)
First - while the actual content and intent of 'The werewolf incident' certainly can be debated, and I am not going to state that an intent of "feeding Snape to a werewolf" is not a valid reading of the scene, although I do believe other interpretations are also valid - you cannot say that it was "the marauders" who did this. As in James, Peter, Lupin and Sirius. It was only Sirius who gave the information on how to get into the womping willow. There is no evidence that Peter and Lupin were present or had anything to do with it at all. And James risked his own life to save Snape from the werewolf. Fair is fair, right?

While Sirius is the only one who admits being involved, the only others who talk about that event are Severus who believes James to have been involved, Dumbledore whom we know didn't know the full picture and Remus who has an interest in whitewashing James and himself to Harry and who has withheld potentially life-saving information for a year for the sake of his image and who already lied about the roots of the James/Severus rivalry in that very conversation. So I find the evidence against James and Remus' involvement flimsy to non-existent.

But think for yourself: If the whole stunt was Sirius' idea alone then surely both Remus and James would consider it grave betrayal of Remus' secret? Yet James was considering placing his entire family's secret in Sirius' hands? How does that compute?

How about some alternate scenarios, suggested originally by duj:

- There was an original 'prank' in which all Marauders were involved, meant to get Severus off their backs. According to the plan Severus was supposed to get caught by a teacher on the way to the Willow, but Sirius exacerbated it by having Severus make it all the way to the tree and past it.

- Or perhaps both the luring to the Whomping Willow and the heroic save were part of one script designed by James and Sirius in order to create a rift between Lily and Severus and to show James as a hero to Lily? It worked so well she wasn't willing to listen to Severus' side at all. Yes, even Remus was complicit, because Severus was becoming a nuisance to his fun too.

But it is in this same dialogue that Lily accuses him of wanting to join Voldemort, and Snape's response is to say nothing. He does not deny this in front of her.

Considering how tongue-tied he gets when he is emotional at that age, his silence can be interpreted in many different ways. he may have been completely astounded at the accusation.

Re: Fairness to Harry

(Anonymous) 2009-08-13 04:09 pm (UTC)(link)
...I had a lot of trouble taking anything you said seriously after 'tormenting his cousin'. He 'threatens' Dudley ONCE in CoS and taunts him a few more times that we know of - after Dudley and his family have verbally , emotionally and physically (on occasion) abused him for the better part of 11 straight years.

As for 'cheating in an international competition'....are you for real? He never ASKED to be in the Triwizard in the first place and was up against dragons, mermen and the like. Somehow I don't blame him for accepting help.

'For casting the Cruciatus Curse' - he tried to use it on Bellatrix, who had just murdered his GODFATHER, and failed. He tried it on Snape, who had just killed Dumbledore, but IIRC Snape just blocked it so we have no way of knowing if it would have worked. He uses it successfully on Carrow, who had been using his friends as knife-sharpeners - remember Neville?

Plus, he kinda had more immediate concerns in the third case - staying alive, keeping his friends and finding the remaining Horcruxes among them.

'Hexing a helpless Squib' - who willingly sided with Umbridge the previous year and was going to have two 17-year-olds WHIPPED. Briefly having one's tongue stuck to the roof of one's mouth seems kinda lenient in comparison.

He used Sectumsempra on Malfoy entirely out of instinct, while Malfoy was busy throwing curses at him. This does NOT make the results any more palatable, but once it became clear that Malfoy was going to live...well, this is Mr 'Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first...well, second, DIGGORY was the first' we're talking about.

Re: Entitled?!

[identity profile] mary-j-59.livejournal.com 2009-08-13 04:42 pm (UTC)(link)
We see these characters so differently that I do not think we can possibly achieve a meeting of minds. But I must comment on a couple of things. First, you say, when explaining that you like Sirius, Adult Sirius, mind. Too many people jump to the conclusion that anyone who claims to be a Sirius fan must also be a 'marauder' fan, but I am not that at all. Young Sirius had a lot to answer for, no question about it.

This, I have to say, is strange to me, for two reasons. Those of us who love Snape love him, boy and man. It's the same character! That's part one. But, if this is true of Severus, it is even more true of Sirius, who, as Jodel points out, never grows up. There are clear reasons for this - his obviously psychologically abusive childhood and his imprisonment in Azkaban. One can, as you say, cut him some slack. But, as a man, he is not sorry for anything the Marauders have done. He never apologizes to Severus for the attempted murder, never stops sniping at him or putting him down, and is also inconsistent in his treatment of Harry, trying to lure the boy out of the castle in OOTP when that is a dangerous thing to do. I also dislike his mistreatment of Kreacher, who is after all, his slave - however nasty- , and his callous dismissal of his (dead!) younger brother. In other words, he remains impulsive, thoughtless, aggressive, and rather self-absorbed. I repeat, Sirius is the same person, boy and man. Either you like him, or you don't. You can't dislike him as a boy and like him as a man. At least, I don't see how. BTW, another thought - these books, up to HBP, were full of twins and twinning. Severus's spiritual twin is Harry; Sirius's is Bellatrix

And Severus, as a young man (and quite possibly throughout his life) does come across as clinically depressed. You should read Marionros on this. It all hangs together - the irritability; the self-absorbption; the suicidal tendencies when he is in despair as a young man; the lack of self-esteem, such that he lets anyone and everyone he cares for push him around; the insomnia, the gauntness, the poor grooming - altogether, he is a figure of mourning. And that is exactly why Rowling punishes him so cruelly, IMHO.

As for "entitlement" explaining his sniping at the kids - I don't see this at all. ALL wizards are "entitled", and act as such; as I've said, this is one of my problems with the Wizarding World. Snape is not more so than anyone else - including Sirius.* What's actually going on here is threefold. Snape can actually be nasty at times, and there are times when any reasonable reader would dislike him. Also, though he's a very emotional person, the only emotions he seems able to express freely are grief and anger. There's a lot of displacement going on here, I think. Finally, he has a sarcastic sense of humor, and no real knowledge of how to relate to people other than sniping at them - he comes from a severely dysfunctional background. You don't need to reach for a concept like "entitlement" to explain his behavior. It's all much simpler and more comprehensible than that.

*(Note. Of couse, Severus and Sirius are also practically twins - they are very alike in some key ways. It's interesting that there is such a gulf between Severus and Sirius fans, that being the case. Maybe it all boils down to a fundamental difference between introverts (like Snape) and extroverts (like Black)?)

Re: Harry's concern for Hermione's torture

(Anonymous) 2009-08-13 05:51 pm (UTC)(link)
Yeah, the horror of hearing one of his best friends being tortured and being powerless to stop it. Criticise some of his later behaviour if you want, but I'm not seeing the ambiguity there - it flat-out says that it was Hermione's scream that brought him back to the present.

Re: Fairness to Harry

[identity profile] mary-j-59.livejournal.com 2009-08-13 05:53 pm (UTC)(link)
Hi, Anonymous - thanks for keeping it polite, and I do welcome anonymous comments - I have friends who are not on livejournal and sometimes comment on my posts. But could you please use a handle or initials so that people know whom they are talking with?

Thanks.

Only two comments on yours - of course there are shades of grey here. But the "sectumsempra" incident that bothers me isn't so much the one with Draco. Harry's just dumb here, but he's in a panic and I can understand him using the spell. When he plots to hit McLaggen in the back with it, he's both dumb and malicious. As to Filch, who made Harry his judge, jury and executioner? It is not Harry's job to punish him, no matter how nasty you find Filch. It's also true that Filch is handicapped, while Harry is a powerful young wizard.

Otherwise, let's just agree to differ, if you don't mind.

(Anonymous) 2009-08-13 06:05 pm (UTC)(link)
....I still don't get how standing up for him and repeatedly telling James to leave him alone can be seen as a betrayal.

'her inaction to stop his choking' - Okay, I don't have OotP handy, so by all means correct me if I get the sequence wrong. As far as I remember, James first used Scourgify when Snape was still hanging in the air and it looked like he really might choke. Lily yelled at him to stop it and James promtply dropped Snape, leaving Snape spitting out soap suds but not choking. Maybe she figured that was appropriate after all the 'Mudbloods' he'd handed out. Again, by all means correct me.

'paying so much attention to James' - really not seeing the issue here. He was the leader and the instigator. She was arguing with him and trying to get him to back off.

'Near-laughter'? She looked like she was going to smile for about a second in between shouting at Sirius and James to leave him alone. Snape called her the equivalent of the n-word and took a running jump off the slippery slope.

[personal profile] oryx_leucoryx 2009-08-13 07:51 pm (UTC)(link)
....I still don't get how standing up for him and repeatedly telling James to leave him alone can be seen as a betrayal.

Because the whole scene looks like making use of Severus' suffering to flirt with James. She doesn't acknowledge Severus at all, she behaves as if he was a complete stranger.

She spends quite a while chatting with James, asking him about his motivation for his actions instead of casting a simple Finite.

As far as I remember, James first used Scourgify when Snape was still hanging in the air and it looked like he really might choke. Lily yelled at him to stop it and James promtply dropped Snape, leaving Snape spitting out soap suds but not choking. Maybe she figured that was appropriate after all the 'Mudbloods' he'd handed out. Again, by all means correct me.

James and Sirius disarm Severus, then cast Impedimenta to prevent him from retrieving his wand. They taunt him, he swears at them, James Scourgifies Severus who chokes. Lily shows up, demands that James leave Severus alone. Neither undoes any of the spells. They chat about why James behaves the way he does, James makes that stupid extortion-by-proxi attempt at her. Meanwhile the Impedimenta wears off allowing Severus to get to his wand and cast a non-verbal cutting spell which may have been Sectumsmpra (though much weaker than the way Harry cast it on Draco or Severus on George, because of the non-verbal casting and the different wand movement). James casts Levicorpus. Lily stops her rant to almost smile, then remembers she was supposed to be ranting, demands that James let Severus down, as James releases Severus Sirius immobilizes him. Again Lily demands them to leave Severus alone - and only then (when Sirius was also involved) does she even bring her wand out. James undoes Sirius' curse, taunts Severus - who goes on to make the 'Mudblood' remark (at James, rather than directly at Lily, as sionna pointed out - just like Lily had ignored him all the while).

So no, nobody undid the original spell that put Severus in a situation of helpless choking, they simply spent so much time on one another that the spell wore off. Lily had plenty of time to realize James was not going to do anything, but she didn't even take out her wand. Listening to James, looking at James and ranting at him was more interesting.

'paying so much attention to James' - really not seeing the issue here. He was the leader and the instigator. She was arguing with him and trying to get him to back off.

How about undoing the Impedimenta and looking to see if her supposed 'best friend' was alright?

Near-laughter'? She looked like she was going to smile for about a second in between shouting at Sirius and James to leave him alone.

What kind of person stops a rant to almost smile and then goes back to ranting? Someone whose rant wasn't particularly sincere, maybe? (At least that would be how Severus read her behavior.)

Snape called her the equivalent of the n-word and took a running jump off the slippery slope.
While he could have chosen a less inappropriate insult I fully understand why he felt like hurting Lily at that point.


Re: Fairness to Harry

[personal profile] oryx_leucoryx 2009-08-13 08:09 pm (UTC)(link)
He tried it on Snape, who had just killed Dumbledore, but IIRC Snape just blocked it so we have no way of knowing if it would have worked.

Canon question - isn't the Cruciatus supposed to be unblockable? Or was Barty's information that distorted?

He uses it successfully on Carrow, who had been using his friends as knife-sharpeners - remember Neville?

But at the time Harry had cast it the curse served no purpose other than belated revenge. And neither do I justify him casting it on Bellatrix or Severus - while I understand why he wanted to it was still wrong to do it. It does not serve the purpose of fighting a true or believed enemy, it does not make the people he is supposed to be protecting any safer. Immobilize your enemy, incarcerate hir, do something to stop hir, but what is the point of torturing hir?

Plus, he kinda had more immediate concerns in the third case - staying alive, keeping his friends and finding the remaining Horcruxes among them.


So why waste time on torturing people for his enjoyment (and yes, he did admit enjoying it)?

As for his bathroom duel with Draco - why does Draco's past justify using an unknown spell on him? Harry was in danger - so he should have used spells he knew to be effective in that situation.

Sorry, Oryx - this is a response to anonymous.

[identity profile] mary-j-59.livejournal.com 2009-08-13 08:23 pm (UTC)(link)
Hi, anonymous. I've asked this before - anonymous posters are welcome here, but I would prefer it if you used a name or initials, as duj and others have done. That way, everyone knows who is speaking.

And, when I was talking about her betrayal, I, at least, wasn't even thinking of this scene. I was thinking about the way she shut Sev up, and believed James instead, when he tried to warn her about Lupin. But, since we are talking about this scene, try this thought experiment:

Sev is Harry. James is Draco. Lily is Hermione (or Ginny, if you prefer). Imagine that Draco, with the willing help of Crabbe, has hexed Harry, hung him upside down, and choked him with soap bubbles. Would either Hermione or Ginny just stand there talking to Draco while their friend suffered? I don't even like Ginny very much, but I have no doubt at all she'd be more effective than Lily was in this scene.

The majority of readers of OOTP undoubtedly thought Lily was doing her duty as a prefect, and had never even seen Sev before. That's how the dynamic comes across - she's interested in James, and Sev is a stranger. Best friends? I don't think so.

Re: Fairness to Harry

(Anonymous) 2009-08-13 09:12 pm (UTC)(link)
I think it was just AK that was explicitly stated to be unblockable.

'but what is the point of torturing hir?'

Uh, in the first two cases Harry had just seen someone he cared deeply about murdered.

I'm not saying that makes using a Crucio cool, but sheesh. How do you expect someone in that situation to react - to think their every subsequent action through perfectly despite the heat of the moment, or to just throw the worst thing they can think of at the loved one's murderer?

As for Draco's past, I was referring to Harry's lack of great regret later on rather than to his actual use of the spell.

Re: Sorry, Oryx - this is a response to anonymous.

(Anonymous) 2009-08-13 09:21 pm (UTC)(link)
Ack; entirely my bad. I'm the same anon you've already asked this of just above this thread. Sorry for not replying already.

tm

Re: Fairness to Harry

[personal profile] oryx_leucoryx 2009-08-13 09:35 pm (UTC)(link)
How do you expect someone in that situation to react - to think their every subsequent action through perfectly despite the heat of the moment, or to just throw the worst thing they can think of at the loved one's murderer?

At the very least I expect him after the fact to wonder what kind of person he was becoming and to start working on self-control. But he does not, so instead his fuse only becomes shorter and his lack of control easier to provoke.

Your responses are in accordance with the values Dumbledore and Rowling promote - that seeking revenge is an expression of love, that one can be vengeful and pure of heart at the same time. I lean towards the teachings of Yoda - seeking revenge is the way to the dark side of the force. While wishing ill on someone who harmed oneself or one's loved ones is a natural reaction it isn't a good one. It is better to become aware of such feelings and learn not to be affected by them.

As for Draco's past, I was referring to Harry's lack of great regret later on rather than to his actual use of the spell.

Err, that only makes it worse in my eyes. After the fact, when he had time to rethink his actions he does not regret them because he nearly killed someone who in the past made some threats that at the time he had no way of carrying out?

Re: What I'm wondering is-

[personal profile] oryx_leucoryx 2009-08-13 11:35 pm (UTC)(link)
Too many characters twisted around just for plot reasons

Other than Kreacher, which characters do you think were twisted around for plot convenience?

I see (from your blog) that you agree with me that Remus' spinelessness in DH is continuing a trend that started from his appearance in POA. I also think Dumbledore's Machiavellistic thinking has been around since PS (I'd say it was even in the first chapter) - it was just harder to notice before we knew about the prophecy, Horcruxes and Harry's being one.

Hermione's morality had been going gradually downhill from the first book but really accelerated in that direction around the time she kidnapped Rita Skeeter and never really recovered. (I read Hermione as Harry's mobile superego, with Ron as his mobile id, so I find it unsurprising that the acceleration of Harry's moral deterioration takes place in HBP, after Hermione's feats of wrongness and bad judgment in OOTP.) The biggest change about Hermione in DH is that she suddenly became wonderwoman in dueling and escaping - leading to several HG/SS authors have her undergo some kind of mentorship by Severus out of Harry's view during HBP.

Who else changed in ways that are discontinuous from their characterization in previous books?

Oh, I think I know one: Voldemort. Before DH I thought he was rather intelligent and good at planning ahead. In DH he made (or proved that he had made in the past) one Evil Overlord mistake after the other.

Re: Entitled?!

[identity profile] neonorne.livejournal.com 2009-08-14 10:52 am (UTC)(link)
I said I would shut up, and instead post a comment to the topics you raised in your original entry. But since you did post an answer to me here, I suppose you are OK with a few more comments from me. I will make it two posts to be able to say what I want to say, and then I will come back here no more, I promise.

Your comment about introverts and extroverts is very interesting - I have actually thought the same thing! When I first entered online fandom I was quite baffled when I noticed the animosity between some Snape and Sirius fans. There seemed to be some strange loyalty to their favorite characters: Snape and Sirius hate each other, so if you love Snape you must hate Sirius, if you love Sirius you must hate Snape...

I want to repeat what I said before: I don't hate Snape. I find him difficult to like, but that's not the same thing. I do admire his incredible courage in book four, for instance, when he instantly agrees to go back to Voldemort, who means to kill him for his treason, with nothing but his Occlumency skill to protect him. The man didn't even take a minute to consider! Truly outstanding. As you can see from this entry in my livejournal (which has been sadly neglected for a long time now,) Snape was not the one I named as my least favorite character among the so called "good guys": http://neonorne.livejournal.com/1841.html I really think Snape deserved a better fate than death by Nagini in DH...

As for Sirius - I never meant to start a discussion of Sirius on this thread. That would have been bordering on rude, considering your original blog entry. But you asked if I was a Sirius fan and I saw no reason to deny it. (Thank you for your generous gift of positive remarks about the one you thought was my favorite, by the way. I did appreciate that, very much.)I thought I would keep my answer very short, though. If I were to line out all my thoughts and evaluations of that character, I would need the space of a long essay or perhaps a whole book. But seeing your response I now think my answer was maybe too short and probably worded a bit clumsily. Since it seems to me that most of the posters here love Snape, my chief aim in the way I worded my answer was to make it very clear that although I do love Sirius I do not approve of or in any way defend all the 'Marauder' antics or their unfair attacks on Snape. I have been in some discussions earlier where I have seen some fans jump at confessed Sirius love with an "Oh, so you think bullying is OK, do you!" I don't. At all. If you care at all - and I won't be offended in the slightest if you don't! - to hear more about my Siriuslove, there is a (also too short...) summary here in my journal: http://neonorne.livejournal.com/1711.html That entry is a cut-and-paste from something older. Maybe I would have worded it differently now, but I still stand by it.

Also, I could have made a list of the incidents where I thought the man acted like an idiot, but that was not the purpose of that entry. There were times during reading where I wanted to crawl into the book and slap the man upside the face, or shake some sense into him, believe me!

Ok, I will stop here, more about Snape and entitlement in part two...

Re: Entitled?!

[identity profile] neonorne.livejournal.com 2009-08-14 12:12 pm (UTC)(link)
Part two, about Snape, see above...

I never meant to imply that the word "entitled" sums up all there needs to be said about Snape's character. I was merely pointing at the single aspect that contributes the most to why it is so difficult for me to like him.

I don't disagree with your point that all Wizards feel entitled towards Muggles. That's very obvious. This seems to be a political more than a personal issue, though. Not that this makes it in any way defensible, only something to be addressed on a different level.

By the way, Harry himself seems about to develop some ideas of entitlement, too, by the end of DH. The crucio and lack of remorse? The expectation that his slave should leave the victory feast to fix him a sandwich? Don't get me started...

I'm not sure what you mean with 'simpler and more comprehensible.' To my mind, there is nothing difficult or incomprehensible with the idea of entitlement. Also, I appreciate and am interested in - really! - your take on Snape, but I cannot accept your way of explaining his behaviour as "what's really going on." What we are dealing with here is interpretation of canon facts, not canon facts themselves. Ultimately, I think we are dealing with how the text comes across to us when we read it, and since each of us come to the text with our own individual backgrounds, experiences, preferences, references, personality traits etc. etc. etc., we will read the text differently. And as a rule, I think one's personal reading of a text is something that will not change very easily. A few times, someone has pointed out to me patterns in the text that I wasn't aware of before, in a way that made me entirely change my initial interpretation of something. But that hasn't happened very often, and never with any of the characters that are important to me. I suppose this is the same with you?

I think one main reason why Snape's snides, sarcasms and insults come across as entitlement to me, is because he is so selective in who he targets. It is never Dumbledore, never his fellow professors, never the Slytherin students. To me, this does not signal someone with no real knowledge of how to relate to people other than through snipes and sarcasms. We see in the scene with the distressed Narcissa that he does know how to relate to people in respectful and compassionate ways, even in a very heavily charged, emotional situation. But he chooses not to use this skill towards selected students in his care, the Gryffindors in particular. And he doesn't always come across as angry or emotionally upset when this happens, on the contrary, in the majority of cases he seems perfectly snug and pleased with himself.

To me, this makes Snape come across as someone who acts as if he was still back in his school days, where it was Slytherin vs. Gryffindor and the Slyths felt every right to do all they could to put down the Gryffs (and the Gryffs of course had it the other way around!) Not as the teacher with equal responsibility for all his students.

There are ways to explain why he ended up like this, certainly: his dysfunctional family background, his unhappy school days, his DE friends, his own DE years... I know that, even though I do believe in accountability. And as I said, I don't hate him. But I still can't bring myself to like him.

Finally, about depression: If you are talking about Snape as a schoolboy I would be more willing to see it as likely, given his unhappy situation. Although I still feel that the few pensieve situations we have is too meager to go on. In adult Snape as written, I can't see it. And I say this as an experienced clinical psychologist, who diagnoses depression in adults on a regular basis. To name a few reasons: I would never label anyone as an insomniac based on the few occasions where Harry meets him in the corridors at night, for instance. More important: a clinically depressed person could never have successfully functioned for years as a spy among the DEs. Sirius in OotP shows many signs of a clinical depression, the fall in adaptive behaviours included. If I had read the description of him in that book as a case presentation, I would have put depression and PTSD as a tentative diagnosis. But I don't see it in adult Snape.

Re: Entitled?!

[personal profile] oryx_leucoryx 2009-08-14 02:59 pm (UTC)(link)
On Severus' attitude to students:
We do see once when he is sarcastic with Slytherins - in his comment to Crabbe how potentially killing Neville would look bad on his resume. I think he would have employed even more sarcasm towards other students had they earned it. The 4 Gryffindors do a lot to earn Severus' attitude towards them (though occasionally the cause is an honest misunderstanding and very rarely his comment is the result of his overall feeling about said student based on past interactions rather than justified by the student's behavior immediately prior to the comment. As for his punishments, well, why should he let students get away with being disrespectful, talking out of turn, yelling at him or telling him how to run his class? Harry thinks Severus' not punishing Slytherins for flicking ingredients at him and Ron was a sign of unfairness, but in the same lesson he gets away with throwing a firecracker into Goyle's cauldron - simply put if Severus doesn't see who did it he doesn't punish - and that goes for both Houses.

We do not know how he interacted with Hufflepuffs or Ravenclaws, but considering that Hufflepuffs are hard workers and Ravenclaws like being challenged intellectually I tend to think he found teaching them more rewarding than teaching Gryffindors and I expect that his lessons with them went more smoothly. Gryffindor culture, which encourages risk-taking (even when it is pointless and counterproductive) is anathema to Severus' view of what a Potions or DADA class should be like.

Also, we have no point of comparison - we never see classroom interaction between known Gryffindor teachers and Slytherin students. I'm willing to bet that Remus' classes with them were quite antagonistic from his part and that Minerva gave other Houses extra homework just before their teams were going to play against Gryffindor. It would be in line with their behavior elsewhere.

So is Severus really unfair to Gryffindor students or is he simply responding to behavior he doesn't like that stems from a House culture he disagrees with?

Re: Entitled?!

[identity profile] mary-j-59.livejournal.com 2009-08-14 03:15 pm (UTC)(link)
Um - okay. We are just going to have to differ here. As to Sirius in OOTP, I agree with Jodel. I see him as alcoholic (very possibly caused by depression - I can certainly see him as depressed here) and Remus as an enabler. Clearly, the man is not entirely well. But -

I am just stunned that you cannot see Severus's essential sadness. You may be a clinical psychologist, but I have to ask - have you ever been depressed? I have been, though just in the "shallow waters", and Marionros has also been. And, to both of us, Snape's depression practically leaps from the page. I do not see him as smug and self-satisfied at all. Irrational, unfair, and stuck in his past? Yes, at times, to all of these. And - especially when we find out how toxic his relationship with Dumbledore is, and how Dumbledore abuses him - there are clear reasons for this. Like Sirius, in some ways, Severus never grows up. As I have said before, repeatedly, the two are very alike in some ways. I've written an essay on that which might interest you, though I'm sure you won't agree.

But it does seem that you and I come at the world so differently that we will never achieve a meeting of the minds on some things. To give a brief example, I went to your blog and read your entry on writing characters, and I just don't approach my characters at all the way you do. Not at all. None of them. But I think I should probably continue that thought over on the post it's about, and not here.

Basically, in his lack of remorse for the werewolf caper, and in his utter failure to understand the probable consequences of his actions, Sirius comes across as far more entitled than Severus ever does. Both of them are flawed characters, and in rather similar ways. Still, I would not see "entitlement" as the chief problem of either one of them, not even Sirius. James? Dumbledore? Harry, as you so rightly point out in your comment? Yes, defintely. But not these guys*.

BTW, if you are feeling frustrated because I didn't address your argument, please remember (1) I am sick and tired of arguing about Snape, as I said before. No one's mind is going to be changed at this point - and my original post was not really about Snape. (2) I have gone into much greater detail about Snape elsewhere, and really don't want to repeat my arguments.

*BTW, Terri Testing did point out that, as a wizarding-raised pureblood, Sirius, like James, seems to have no comprehension of consequences. The wizarding world is a hidebound place, and wizards in general are mentally lazy. At least, that's what Rowling shows us. Heaven knows what she actually intended.

(Anonymous) 2011-03-09 03:00 am (UTC)(link)
I'm a teacher myself, and one of the most horrifying moments for me was when Remus used the boggart as a teaching tool. Really? Seriously? Putting the students' worst fears out on display? What was he planning to do when the boggart turned into a molesting uncle or a dying mother? He's an awful teacher, and behaves badly most of the time. He gets points because he's soft-spoken and seems vaguely pitiable, but he's self-serving and thoughtless most of he time.

Re: Sorry, Oryx - this is a response to anonymous.

[identity profile] forsnape.livejournal.com 2012-01-03 06:27 pm (UTC)(link)
Yes.I thought Lily was doing her duty as a prefect when I read this scene in OoTP.I didn't think she liked Severus because she 'was going to smile' ,laughed at his poverty and called him 'Snivellus' .
Plus I didn't think she really cared about him.IMO whatever Severus called her,she should stop the bully first,because it was the duty of being a prefect.But she just went away.

So in DH I was very surprised to find that they were friends.
Edited 2012-01-27 16:26 (UTC)

(Anonymous) 2016-10-18 11:48 pm (UTC)(link)
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.



Re: Entitled?!

(Anonymous) 2016-10-20 01:01 am (UTC)(link)
I mean, just to play devil's advocate, I liked Sirius as well, um...

I mean, I suppose it depends on whom you like better. I was very frustrated by Molly's response to him at the beginning of Book 5 - what was that supposed to accomplish? I mean the whole thing has such a 'blame the victim' qua lity to it about his imprisonment.

I found that distasteful.

Page 3 of 4