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

[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]

Yes! THANK YOU!

I'd also like to point to "only those I could not save". That line always gets left out by the Snape haters - but we really do see moral growth in Severus Snape, and he's about the only character in the entire saga who shows this. Neville (my other favorite) grows, too, but primarily in competence and confidence. He's a decent person, as far as we can tell, from start to finish. As for Harry - cardigrl has shown that he grows, too, but in the wrong direction. From being a pretty likable little kid, he goes to being a bully, a cheater, a liar, and a torturer, and he is never sorry for anything he does.

The person who is sorry for the harm he has done, however selfish his reasons and however stunted he may seem, is always preferable in my eyes to the person who never makes amends or apologizes for anything.

[(Anonymous)]

'The only moral growth'
ACK. Sorry, but that sort of attitude - 'it's all about X' - makes me cringe no matter what fandom I see it in. I can understand only being into something for the sake of one character, but insisting that said character (or small group of characters ) are the only ones who matter...it just screams 'tunnel vision'.

'Harry is never sorry for anything' - the first thing that leapt to mind was him apologising to Ginny for forgetting she knows what it's like to be possessed. Not to mention reconciling with Ron and Hermione over their various fights and apologising to Dumbledore for losing focus on getting the memory from Slughorn.

Oh, and he flat-out calls Snape 'the bravest man I ever met' (which is up against some impressive competition) and names one of his children after the man. I'd call that pretty mature of him, given that Snape was an accomplice to the murder of both his parents.

Fairness to Harry

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

You're right, Harry does apologize: to Ginny, Ron, Hermione, and Dumbledore. People he likes and whose good opinion he wants to retain.

And in a sense to Snape, safely posthumusly, once he's been convinced Snape was on his side all along.

But is he ever sorry for hexing a helpless Squib? For tormenting his cousin with (fake) threats of magic? For hexing Slytherins in the corridors? For cheating repeatedly in class and in an international competition? For lying, repeatedly? For stealing and benefiting from others' thefts, again repeatedly? For casting the Cruciatus Curse?

The only time we see Harry feel anything resembling remorse over anything he does to an enemy is when he casts Sectumsempra on Draco. We read then that he's "horrified by what he had done." But he'd cast that spell, of course, not knowing in advance what he'd be doing and not expecting the result. A few chapters later Harry has no qualms at all about casting the spell in earnest, and the Cruciatus too.

Moreover, even in his moment of "horror", Harry's very first priority was holding onto the Prince's book to learn more goodies from it (and to continue to cheat in class). Harry was resentful of Snape's having the nerve to punish him (for almost killing or maiming another student) with multiple detentions (which punishment his own Head of House characterized as overly lenient). He's soon demonstrably more upset at disappointing the Quidditch team by missing the game than he is at having almost killed someone. Very like his godfather, in fact, although Harry does have the grace to feel a "slight squirm" of conscience.

In the real world, if a nearly sixteen-year-old picked up a gun which he knew MIGHT(or might not) be loaded and fired it at the chest of a boy he's fighting with, almost killed the other boy (would have killed him had not someone else showed up in time with the skills to stop the bleeding) and afterwards felt only a "slight squirm" of conscience and an eager desire to get his hands on more weapons, what would we think?

(And yes, I do remember that Draco was attempting to cast Cruciatus. Which would not have killed Harry, even had Draco been capable of casting it "properly", which neither we nor Harry know to have been the case. Harry, however, was a master of Expelliarmus, good at Stupefy, adequate a Petrificus... he had a whole arsenal of spells he could have used to neutralize Draco without harming him in the slightest. Instead, he used a spell of unknown properties--like I said, like a teen grabbing a gun which he knows might be loaded. And worse, after knowing the effects, Harry wants to go back for more such spells.)

Re: Fairness to Harry

[(Anonymous)]

...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: Fairness to Harry

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

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.

Re: Fairness to Harry

[oryx_leucoryx]

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.

Re: Fairness to Harry

[(Anonymous)]

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.

[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)]

'and her betrayal came before his'

Really?

'I've made excuses for you for YEARS'

'But you call EVERYONE of my birth Mudblood, Severus'.

Quotes from DH, emphasis mine.

Snape had been using flagrantly racist language for some time before SWM, which was the last straw rather than an isolated incident. I'd call that a pretty big betrayal for someone with a Muggle-born friend. I certainly wouldn't call a black girl a traitor for dropping someone who used the n-word on everyone else and just thought she was the exception.

'Trying to feed him to a werewolf' - Sirius gave him the information, but no-one forced him into the tunnel. 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. Even if she's already told you she doesn't like any of them either.

'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.

Interpretations

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

'I've made excuses for you for YEARS'

About what? About being geeky, poor, and uncool? About being "Dark"? About being a Pureblood supremacist? (Himself being a "filthy half-blood"?) We don't know.

The only thing she specifically accused him of that night was having the wrong other friends: "You and your precious little Death Eater friends--" Which was ALSO the only thing she accused him of in their previous quarrel: "I don't like some of the people you're hanging round with!"

And she never gave him a chance to choose her over them, just cut him off completely at the moment he might finally have realized he might have to. It's clear which he would have chosen, had Lily given him the option. As Dumbledore's double agent, he BETRAYED the Death Eaters, including his friends Mulciber and Avery, turning them in to be tortured by Aurors and Dementors. To try, unavailingly, to save Lily.

'But you call EVERYONE of my birth Mudblood, Severus'.

Well, either that's true, and she never called him on it before or stayed friends with him despite his refusal to change, or it isn't true, and she was again accusing him by association.

I DIDN'T make or stay "best friends" with anyone in my home town who called the other part-Chippewas "squaw," even if they refrained from using the term to me.

So if a black girl allowed her mixed-race "best friend" to get away (for YEARS, you tell me) with calling the slightly-darker kids "n--" why should he expect her to get so bent out of shape when he used the term about her?

[oryx_leucoryx]

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.

[(Anonymous)]

....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.

[oryx_leucoryx]

....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.

Sorry, Oryx - this is a response to anonymous.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

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

[(Anonymous)]

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

[neonorne.livejournal.com]

I don't know if I should really put my foot in here, because I may risk being called a "Snape hater". I do not love the man, not at all, and I do see some posts here that seem to do that and be willing to apologize or explain away anything Snape has ever done as someone elses fault - James' or Dumbledore's or 'The Gryffindors'.... I don't agree, I believe Snape is fully accountable for his own mistakes, both as a youth and as an adult - but I also try to think, OK, anyone's entitled to their own reading...

But Mary-j, I have to protest to your summary of Snape's history. Not based on a difference of opinion on Snape's character, but on the events as written in the books.

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?

"When he tells Lily what happened she ignores him and sides with his tormentors" - I'd say this is a very skewed reading of the dialogue between them, where Lily calls James "an arrogant toerag" - but OK, it's your interpretation of a dialogue that actually took place, and like I said, everyone's entitled to their own reading. My reading is different, but we don't have to argue that here. What I do contest is that you left out where Lily points out to Snape that they are best friends (italics in the book) but she doesn't like who he hangs out with: the creep Mulciber who tried to use Dark Magic on Mary McDonald, something Snape brushes off as 'a laugh'. It is only when Lily gets serious about this that Snape brings up the 'incident' at all - and first only to hint at what Lupin maybe is, mentioning the full moon and all....

Then SWM - Lily does NOT side with his enemies first and then Snape cracks, which maybe could have made his racist slur understandable, if not excusable. Snape FIRST calls her a mudblood when all she does is standing up for him as the only one of the onlookers. THEN she stops defending him and instead attacks him, too, by making a nasty comment on his underwear. Whether this is understandable/excusable or not is up for debate, of course. I must admit I do side with Lily here. Like the anonymous poster above me, I compare 'mudblood' to the 'n' word used against the black. So Snape would in my opinion be like someone hanging out with KKK (Lily calls them his Death Eater friends to his face, and Snape does not deny it) sympathizers and laughing at their jokes, calling everyone of colour the 'n' word except his best friend (see anonymous' canon reference for that one) - and then, when said best friend defends him against the ones bullying him, he calls her the n word too. Really, if this had been a black girl and someone hanging out with white supremacy supporters, would you say the black girl betrayed him?

Yes, interpretation, different reading, I know, I know. It's just that to me, this stands out a mile and is as impossible to ignore as an elephant in the room, so it is difficult not to present my reading on it, too, along with the canon fact.

He tries to apologize, yes. Says he never meant to call her that. 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. And then Lily turns his back on Snape and climbs back into the portrait hole. Not to throw herself into James' arms (I know you don't say that in your post, it's just me feeling the need to point out this fact, too) - this episode was at the end of their fifth year, and Lily didn't go out with James until their seventh year, when he was supposed to have changed considerably...

What I'm wondering is-

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

How, how, did we get back to arguing about SWM? Will it ever go away?! I think that, at this point, people have formed their views on Snape and it's not going to be possible to change each others' minds. So we should probably stop trying. The main thrust of my post wasn't about Snape, anwyay. It was about how offensive I find these books after DH.

But, as far as SWM goes, what I actually said about this scene is the following: I think it's possible for a reader to sympathize with, and be critical of, both Sev and Lily in the Pensieve scene. That is exactly how I read this scene. I do not try to justify or explain away Severus's every action. I never have.

All the same, what some people have pointed out is true. Lily does NOT defend him in any meaningful way - has the girl never heard of "Finite Incantatem"? She stands there arguing with James while her supposed best friend is immobilized and choking on bubbles. I wasn't even thinking of her failure to act in this scene, though (and she was a prefect. It was her responsibility to stop bullying, even if Sev had been her worst enemy.) No, she had already sided with his tormentors when she refused to listen to him about the werewolf caper. But she listened to James! This happened before SWM, and I see it as a betrayal.

What I see in these scenes, really, is a kid being very thoroughly prejudged. OF COURSE he calls Muggleborns Mudbloods; he's a Slytherin, and that's what Slytherins do. OF COURSE he's going to run off and join Voldemort! *After all, aren't all his Slytherin friends Death Eaters? OF COURSE he's a Dark Arts geek! He's ugly and dirty and wants to be in Slytherin, and all the Slytherins are Dark Arts geeks. But there is no evidence in the Half-Blood Prince's notebook that he is Dark in any way - until the later spells. It's easy to surmise that the boy turned dark after his best friend abandoned him, and he realized that no adult in the school would lift a finger to protect him. This does not, of course, excuse his racism (which came as a shock to me in DH, since there is really no hint of it in any of the other books.) But - if you get told over and over that you are dark, evil and worthless; if the only people offering you safety and validation are a bunch of racists, you are all too likely to side with the racists. The post below about cults is spot on.

Does this excuse his behavior toward Lily? Of course not! And I never said it did. I don't think anyone can deny, after DH, that young Sev was a racist. And that's ugly. On that point, I can see where you're coming from.

That's all from me, for now. I really, really am tired of arguing about Severus Snape, Harry Potter, and the Wizarding World generally. These books just make me sad and angry. But I'd like to add one thing: you are right about Whitehound's apologia. She is strongly biased in favor of Snape. And she does try to whitewash a couple of instances (there are really only a couple in the books) when the man is just plain nasty and wrong. (If you are wondering which ones, I'd say the "teeth" remark and his treatment of Trevor. The last, especially, just seems out of character; the first, unfortunately, does not. There are times when Snape is a jerk.)

Re: What I'm wondering is-

[neonorne.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, Mary-j if I have made you sad and angry by my post. That was not my intent. Neither did I mean to argue against you in general, or attribute to you every opinion anyone could have about Snape that I disagree with. I'm sorry if I came across like that. I think you have made many good points in your posts, even though I disagree with some of the things you say.

The only reason why I brought up the SMW scene again here, was because I felt your summary of the later books was a bit lacking, if it - as it seemed from the context of your post - was meant to give someone who had never read the later books a basis for participating in the discussion. That was why I felt the need of adding a few things. To those who have read the books already, and discussed them over and over a zillion times, as I have and I'm sure you, too, the adding of those facts and points was of course not necessary at all.

There is not very much else I would disagree with or want to argue in the rest of what you say. I read the pensieve dialogue between Snape and Lily where the werewolf incident was brought up differently from you, and do not see any betrayal on Lily's part. After all, it ends with Snape walking happily away with Lily, relaxed and with a new spring in his step! (I could give you a longer analysis of that pensieve scene and why I have come to my conclusion, but I don't want to bother you with it if you are tired of this discussion.)

In my opinion, Snape looses Lily as a friend because of his own actions and bad choices. But I think Snape did not himself understand this at the time, and was truly unhappy about it. I also have a longer list of incidents than just 'a couple' where I find the man nasty and wrong in his treatment of the kids than you do (and yes, the 'teeth' incident is on that list, certainly.) I can also list a few moments when Harry is not fair or in the right towards Snape. (But Snape doesn't have Harry's excuse of being a kid...) But as you say, none of us will probably be able to convince the other one of anything at all at this point, so I'm not going to try...

Re: What I'm wondering is-

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Um - I didn't say you made me sad and angry by your post, though it's true that, at this stage, arguing about Snape does make me sad. I said the books make me sad and angry. And they do. I think DH is a terrible, terrible book on many levels. I think it sends some truly appalling messages, and is furthermore badly written. I felt betrayed when I was reading it.

I do understand that some readers actually enjoyed DH, and perhaps even felt vindicated by it. And that, again, is not something I want to argue about.

After DH, there were only two things keeping me in the fandom: wizard rock (my sister had formed a band) and the character of Snape. I have been strugggling, over the past few months, to put the fandom behind me and move on to other things. It's been hard to do.

So no, I don't want to argue about this any more. As I said, the main point of this (essay) rant was Rowling's appalling, cheap and thoughtless use of an historical tragedy. Something in me made me post that. But I am really, really trying to shut up about these books. Thanks for your response.

(BTW, though I hate the books, I will always be grateful to the fandom, which has given me a couple of pushes to use my talents. I've had some horrible, acrimonious discussions, but most of the people I've encountered have been nice, even when we haven't agreed.)

Re: What I'm wondering is-

[neonorne.livejournal.com]

OK, a slight misunderstanding here then. I'm still sorry this discussion make you sad. I did post another answer to your comment on entitlement below, before I saw this. But I will shut up now. I agree, this whole discussion has gone off on a tangent compared to your initial post. I will try and comment on that later, because I do think you make some interesting points there. Unfortunately, I can't do this right now, I'm running out of time - it will have to be in a couple of days.

I can see where you are coming from when you say it is hard to put the fandom behind you, even though you feel sad and betrayed by the last book. Although we do disagree on many points, I actually had the same reaction. I felt very sad and betrayed too. I think DH really is a horrible book in many ways. At a point towards the end I said aloud to myself: I can never be a potterfan again. It is over. And that made me very sad, I had invested so much energy and emotion in this fandom. It was like losing a leg and an arm.

Too many characters twisted around just for plot reasons (I don't believe in Kreacher's sudden conversion into a happy slave for one second, and that's just one example), a horrible ending (Harry gets to both die to save the world - and fight a 'high noon' type duel with the enemy - and be saved from having to kill him by some random wand trickery to boot! Impossible) The concept of Love as the 'power the dark lord knows not' is out the window, instead we have victory by superior might (the elder wand). Dubious messages indeed. I could go on endlessly, but I won't.

I was so sad and angry after I had finished the book that I left the fandom completely for a long while - all the fun was gone. Especially when I came online and saw how many it was that loved the book. But to me, almost all my 'worst case scenarios' - the things I absolutely did not think would happen, came true... And I was left feeling part of an unhappy minority.

So that's another reason why I came here and started to kick up all the old dust - this seemed to be a thread where there was a live discussion going on, of some of the topics that used to interest me. I discovered how much I've missed it and that I never had any real closure when I left so abruptly...

Your sister started a band? That sounds cool. And you are trying to become a writer, aren't you? I saw that in an earlier post, that you had been able to publish a short story in a magazine. If the fandom inspired you to do that, that's truly amazing. I am currently trying to finish a whole novel, too, that started out as a fanfic but has now gone off on an entirely new tangent, with my own characters. I am very exited about it, but whether it will ever be published is another story. If that happens, I will forever be grateful to JK Rowling for her inspiration. No matter how disappointed I was by the last two books.

[oryx_leucoryx]

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.

[(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)]

Actually, scratch that comment, I'm now disagreeing with it.