A few things - (mostly Potter - related)
Aug. 4th, 2009 10:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mary_j_59Just 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-12 07:59 am (UTC)http://members.madasafish.com/~cj_whitehound/Fanfic/good_or_bad_Snape.htm
As for what Severus did or didn't know when he joined the DEs: Mary has astutely pointed out Moldy Shorts was running a cult. Cult expert Steven Hassan says that cults present two faces to the world: a benign face for the world at large and new recruits, and their true, malignant face once the recruits have gotten sucked in and can't escape. He adds that anyone can be tricked into joining a cult. Hassan himself came from a loving, supportive, two-parent family, but he still joined the Moonies.
Hassan's BITE model of cult characteristics sounds like JKR's template for constructing her wizarding world. That is, the entire WW in these books is one giant cult. So no matter what Severus did, he would have been a cult member just by virtue of being a wizard. Once you realize this, the bigotry, immaturity, paranoia, moral corruption, and emotional flatness exhibited by the characters in the WW makes perfect sense. Cults are evil by definition because they force people to (1) never grow up, but remain children dependent on the cult leader, and (2) forfeit their genuine personalities in favor of becoming clones of the cult leader. Hassan's section on the BITE model is not required reading for HP readers, but it certainly enhances the experience of the books and makes sense of JKR's incoherence. His website is freedomofmind.com.
Last, if I were going to compare Severus to a superhero, it would be Buffy Summers, the Vampire Slayer. They are both exceptionally powerful yet vulnerable mortals who frequently chafe against the restraints on them and exhibit resentment about their sacred duty but always end up doing the right thing anyway. And for us Snape fans, he is the Chosen One. ;-)
oneandthetruth
no subject
Date: 2009-08-12 10:46 am (UTC)But I have to disagree when you say its is impartial. It is entirely pro-Snape, and very much so, listing all the familiar arguments against a reading of Snape as bad in any way. With the familiar, pro-Snape interpretations of all the events listed. Which is totally OK for a Snape fan to do, of course! And interesting reading, too, for anyone interested in the debate, even for those who disagree with the premises of the list. I agree with you there.
But you cannot call it impartial. It is not a mere list of all the canon facts concerning Snape, it is a list of arguments. Neither does it list in any loyal way all the possible anti-Snape readings of the events covered. If you want a loyal rendering of all the possible anti-Snape arguments, you will have to go somewhere else. I am not familiar with any place doing this in the same thorough, intelligent and logical way as this website does for the pro-arguments, though. A shame, really, if it doesn't exist. It would have made a very interesting comparison.
Just for the record, since I did put my foot in here: I do not consider myself a Snapehater. I don't like him, but I can pity him, and I can see he had some things to struggle with, indeed. I just have the experience that to many who love the character, my arguments for not liking him may easily come across as hating him and siding with his bullies instead. But that's not where I'm coming from. I just read many of the events in the book differently than many Snape fans do, so my Snape is actually a different man from their Snape. That happens a lot with book characters - readers will see them differently, there are many valid readings of the same text. No one can claim that their particular reading is the only valid or possible one.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-12 12:19 pm (UTC)As is probably obvious by now oryx_leucoryx and I disagree about many things Snape. I am not going to list them all, that will take much too long. But I just wanted to comment on this one in particular, since it adresses my core reason for not liking the adult Snape very much:
>>>>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?
It is precisely this attitude of entitlement that makes it so hard to like Snape, no matter his troubled background. As far as I am concerned, no one is entitled to insult or bully others, and especially not children. It is a big deal to me, and I don't understand at all the distinction between doing and saying here, mary-j - as if what you say to people is not part of what you do and not something you should be held accountable for.
But Snape seems to ooze entitlement in every situation: I have the right to insult you, bully you, put you straight - because you are such an idiot, arrogant toerag, whatever. This is particularly not charming when the 'idiots' he deals with are children, and children entrusted to his care as teacher of a boarding school, to boot.
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.
But being a decent, responsible adult, fulfilling your duty in the job and the situation you are placed, does not entitle you to insult everyone around you. It doesn't entitle you to insult anyone. Even being a war hero or a secret agent does not entitle you to insult anybody. And to me, Snape is far from the only one being responsible or putting his life on the line in the war against Voldemort. I can't see him as a special case here, so special that he gets to bully the rest. It's a problem to me that he comes across as believing he is a special case with a special entitlement.
Also, I read very differently from you at least two of the examples you list as responsible or compassionate. If the toad Trevor was in any way a danger to any of the students due to hopping into one of the dangerous potions for instance - in my opinion, Snape should have ordered the pet out of the class immediately, at first sight - or, rather, made it crystal clear from lesson one in the first year that pets were strictly forbidden in class. To suddenly threaten to kill a child's beloved pet for no other stated reason than the kids failure to get his potion right, and then do nothing about it anyway when the potion came out OK, makes absolutely no sense to me if he really thought the toad was dangerous to anyone. Attributing this motive to Snape for the Trevor incident makes him come across as both callous and irresponsible to me.
And compassionate is not the word I would use to describe Snape's treatment of Sirius when he was at his mercy. Snape meant to see to it that Sirius was subjected to the Dementor's kiss, without being willing to hear the man out. The relationship between Sirius and Snape is something that can be debated at length, certainly. But transporting someone to the soul-sucking Dementor on a stretcher instead of dragging him along on the ground, does not come under the heading of 'compassionate' to me. By any stretch of the word.
Entitled?!
Date: 2009-08-12 02:56 pm (UTC)So, now I've said what I was going to say to you. But then you called Severus entitled, and I felt I really did have to argue about that word. Entitled? That is the last thing Severus is! What he is, quite demonstrably, is immature and self-absorbed - as well as depressed. At a guess, he doesn't understand his own emotions all that well and isn't as in control of them as he'd like to think. And - he's immature. Yes. But ENTITLED?!
There is one person in this saga who defines the word "entitlement". That person is James Potter. Draco Malfoy, his father, and Tom Riddle himself are the other possible poster children for this word, but James defines it. He fits it perfectly. Severus does not - not at all. He's insecure, immature, and self-absorbed, as I said. That does not add up to entitlement. Rather the reverse.
Oh - the scene where Severus conjures stretchers and brings Sirius and the others up to the castle? What he wants here is justice. He does to Sirius exactly what Harry was going to do to Pettigrew. Yet many readers see Harry as compassionate, while they see Severus as cruel. That's the way this universe seems to work. It does not matter what you do; it only matters who you are.
Re: Entitled?!
Date: 2009-08-12 07:12 pm (UTC)I don't disagree with you at all when you say young James fits the word 'entitlement' completely. And he had far less excuses in his background for his behaviour than Sirius had. (I still read the ugly conflict between the marauders and Snape differently from you though - I don't think it was a one-sided affair, with Snape as the always innocent victim. I can give my arguments for this too, if you wish, but I suppose this is another discussion you are tired of.) We are told that James changed on this point before he died - but in my opinion, I think Jo fails to convincingly show us this, it ends up being only hearsay. I am willing to believe her on this one because I think it makes for a better story in several ways. But I can certainly see where those readers are coming from who chooses to dismiss this change because they don't think there is enough evidence for it in the books as written.
And Voldemort, the Malfoys - certainly. No disagreement there. But alas, I also do see entitlement in the behaviour of adult Snape. Especially in his treatment of the Gryffindors. His blatant unfairness, his snug smirks and glib remarks, his put downs and humiliations of students in front of their peers - his cruel comment on Tonks' new patronus in front of Harry... I don't want to list all the occasions, that will be a long list and I am sure you know them already. And his total lack of any remark in any scene at all meant to be kind, encouraging, praising or even just friendly towards any Gryffindor, no matter what they do.
Immature? Self-absorbed? Maybe - although he does seem to be able to empathise with Narcissa's despair for instance. So not totally self-absorbed or simply unable to see the suffering of others. Depressed? Again, maybe, but if that was intended by the author, I don't think she shows it very well where Snape is concerned.
None of these traits or states exclude a feeling of entitlement in anyone in my opinion. They do not add up to entitlement, no, absolutely not, but they do not exclude it either. You can be both immature, self-absorbed and depressed and feel entitled at the same time.
The reason why I brought this concept up at all, was this remark from oryx_leucoryx: So he is insults kids and adults. Big deal. After all he does for them, why do the insults even matter?
This, to me, is entitlement in a nutshell. And when I read the books, this sentiment comes across as Snape's view of himself. This is just my interpretation, mind, I do not claim any absolute objectivity. And I do admit that the apologia from some Snape fans have rubbed off on me a bit, so it is maybe sometimes difficult for me to see the text entirely free from that influence....
Finally, to your last remark: I do NOT see it as compassionate of Harry to want to feed Pettigrew to the Dementors. It is entirely possible to find excuses for Harry given the extreme circumstances. But I see the Dementor's kiss as a horrible, repulsive, barbaric form of justice, no matter who is subjected to it, Pettigrew or Voldemort himself included. In the same vain, while it may be possible to find valid reasons for Snape's behaviour towards Sirius in this scene, you cannot call him compassionate just because he gives the unconscious Sirius a stretcher before he hands him over to get his soul sucked out... Again, this was an argument specifically targeting oryx_leucoryx's remark that Snape treated Sirius with compassion when he was in his mercy. I don't see how I have any double standards here where Snape and Harry are concerned.
Re: Entitled?!
Date: 2009-08-13 04:42 pm (UTC)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: Entitled?!
Date: 2009-08-14 10:52 am (UTC)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?!
Date: 2009-08-14 12:12 pm (UTC)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?!
Date: 2009-08-14 02:59 pm (UTC)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?!
Date: 2009-08-14 03:15 pm (UTC)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.
Re: Entitled?!
Date: 2016-10-20 01:01 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-13 04:23 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-13 06:39 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2011-03-09 03:00 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-13 07:38 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-12 02:39 pm (UTC)As far as superheroes go, I know nothing about Buffy; my point about the Batman comparison is that Batman is not a superhero. He's just a human being, and a human being with flaws and demons. That's why I think that, as far as cartoon characters go, he's the best analogue to Severus. Severus, too, is a flawed and tormented human being, not a superhero at all.
Thanks for commenting, and thanks for the links. )