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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-08-05 04:30 pm (UTC)(2) I don't think the term "Snape Shaped Hole" from DH helped Snape's hero image in the slightest. It's very cartoonish --- The Road Runner.
(3) Yes --- what are the Dark Arts? Rowling took great pains not to be specific. BUT --- she could have by detailing a Dark Arts library at Grimmauld Place that Regulus might have had access to. Then we'd have a plausible explanation of how the dear boy knew what the hell a Horcrux was.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-05 06:31 pm (UTC)About Snape. I don't know what Mike Smith said (link?) but perhaps what he meant was that he thought Snape was less of a hero because he only turned away from the Death Eaters because they wanted to kill Lily. It's been said before (and I tend to agree) that it is more heroic to turn away because you've realised you've joined nazis with superpowers (not my words btw) than because they're threatening a girl you want. We are never shown in the text that Snape ever really disagreed with their views on what should be done with muggles and muggle-borns, or if he was just doing it becuase they killed Lily.
I'm not sure what you were talkign about with the last bit, as both superman and batman and proactive and get things done. It's an admirable trait but its not solely for superheroes.
Part I
Date: 2009-08-05 08:59 pm (UTC)I'm going to break this into parts for ease of reading. While I agree with the statement that it' more heroic to leave because of the underlying ideology, versus fear for Lily, I have to say a couple of things. One: it's easy to stand back and criticize from our bird's-eye perspective, but for how many of us (myself included) would it take a personal blow to spur us into action? Human beings have a remarkable ability to deceive themselves about unsavory things until they are literally shoved in our faces.
Two: We are never shown that he actually truly agreed with these views in the first place, either. The entire issue is maddeningly obscured. It isn't clear what precisely Severus thought he was getting into when he first joined - according to the indications we're given, even Regulus Black, presumably better connected to any possible sources of inside information than half-blood, raised-in-a-Muggle-town Severus, thought Voldemort wanted to RULE the Muggles and somehow promote pureblood superiority via the creation of second-class citizens; not admirable, but hardly the same as agreeing to genocide. We don't know anything about what was said to Severus to encourage him to join, or what drove him to accept. We can speculate, but that is all. What we are shown tends to support a reading that interest in the Dark Arts (whatever they actually are) and a desire for acceptance and/or protection from the Gryffindor contingent were at least as important in this respect as any views about Muggles/Muggleborns. We don't ever get a clear statement about what his views about Muggles and/or Muggleborns actually ARE, as a child, young man, or adult.
Part II
Date: 2009-08-05 08:59 pm (UTC)- he is himself a half-blood, with one Muggle parent and one witch parent. It's not clear if Eileen was pureblood, half-blood, or even Muggleborn herself (though Severus' exposure to other wizarding children at a young age, indicated by the broomstick incident, argues against her being Muggleborn).
- as a child he seems to have had few, if any, positive experiences of the mingling of wizards and Muggles, if the memories we are shown are indicative of the usual state of things then.
- he is contemptuous of Petunia for being a Muggle. This is in line with the attitude of most of the WW (anti-Muggle prejudice is rampant in the WW, if usually less murderous than Voldie's version of it. Even Arthur is patronizing towards them, and no wizard/witch shows compunction about mindraping them for convenience's sake, or treats them like their equals - not even Hagrid or DD. The most tolerant witches/wizards agree they should not be tortured or murdered, but that's about it.)
- as a child he is aware to some extent of prejudice against Muggleborns, but it is unclear if he shares it (he hesitates before answering Lily's question about her heritage being a "problem," then says no. Other than SWM, which I will deal with in a moment, we never see him disparage her heritage in any way.)
- Even during the worst of her rants against Severus, Lily never accuses him of behaving in a bigoted manner towards Muggleborns, or using the word 'mudblood.' The worst she can say against him is that he is 'friends' with his housemates who hex another girl (blood status unknown) for amusement and apparently is not bothered enough by it to cease contact with them. This is not markedly different than the behavior of her fellow Gryffindors, who hex poor, ugly, Slytherins for 'existing.' We don't even know that Severus himself hexed anyone other than those who often attacked him.
- he is sorted into Slytherin, supposedly the house of purebloodism (though as he, Tom Riddle, and Harry were all candidates for admission, it can't be THAT exclusive. He even thought Muggleborn Lily could be admitted.) We don't know why he thought Slytherin the "best" house; speculation usually centers on possible family ties. We don't know if the hat considered other choices for him. We don't know how he was received in Slytherin, as a half-blood; Lucius welcomes him at the Feast, but we never see another Slytherin either standing up for him or disparaging him. He apparently didn't feel secure enough to reject them all at Lily's behest.
- We can suppose that the word 'mudblood' was uttered in the Slytherin common room at some point, but it quite possibly is uttered elsewhere as well. We don't know how he would have reacted, or if he was used to hearing it as a child.
Part II cont.
Date: 2009-08-05 09:00 pm (UTC)- he joined the Death Eaters. We have no clear idea what he thought at the time he was getting into, or why he joined. We have no indication that between then and Lily's targeting that he did or did not feel uncomfortable with what he was being asked to do (whatever that was - we're not told what he did other than spy and possibly make potions). As an adult, we have some indication that he tried to save everyone he could.
- he once, in a moment of rage and humiliation after being tortured, uses the word mudblood in reference to her. It is clearly directed against James, as a slight regarding his choice for the object of his attention and thus his manhood. It also seems to be an attempt to deny the weakness he probably felt at having to be rescued by a Gryffindor girl in front of half the school, presumably including some of his fellow Slytherins. Teenage males can be quite defensive about their manhood, and House politics may have added quite a bit of tension to the situation (did he fear rejection or worse by his Housemates? Unclear.) It's possible that he meant it literally, and it's equally possible that it was a (very badly) calculated move to lash out at James and recoup some of his status in the eyes of his fellow guys and Slytherins. We do know that he was deeply apologetic afterwards, and to some extent recognized that he ought not to have said it. We don't know if he recognized that he ought not to think it as well, or if he did or did not indeed actually think that way at all beforehand.
- Decades later he once reprimands Phineas' portrait for using the word.
- We never see him take other action against anyone, student or otherwise, to discourage Muggleborn prejudice.
- We never see him take any other action against anyone, student or otherwise, indicative of prejudice against them for being Muggle/born or tolerance of such prejudice.
Part III
Date: 2009-08-05 09:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-06 07:08 am (UTC)However the biggest betrayal Severus experienced that year IMO was by Dumbledore - who did not punish Severus' near-murderers (while silencing him), who failed to investigate the events surrounding the murder attempt, who failed to improve the security arrangements for Remus even after he knew at least 3 students knew how to overcome existing ones, thus endangering hundreds of students and who knows how many villagers, and who allowed horrific acts of bullying to take place in his school.
Yet somehow, even after Severus joined Dumbledore's enemy, the fact that Dumbledore had sheltered a werewolf in his school, information that could have gotten him removed from office and possibly allowed the school to be taken over by Voldemort remained secret. So who exactly is vengeful and disloyal? What does this tell us of how badly Severus supported Voldemort and wanted him to win?
Re: Part III
Date: 2009-08-06 02:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-06 02:44 pm (UTC)(In my case, I was inspired by the theories of Jodel at the Red Hen website and of Swythyv.)
Re: Part III
Date: 2009-08-06 02:46 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-06 02:52 pm (UTC)And there are many, many questions Rowling failed to answer in DH. "Just what are Dark Arts, anyway" may be the most egregious, but I was irked that we never found out exactly how bad the hazing by James and Sirius got, and still more irked at the absolute lack of information on the werewolf caper. Since there is nothing in the text to contradict it, I'm going with Marionros's theory that young Severus went down the tunnel to rescue Lily. Like "Snape opposed to Voldemort and trying to bring him down from within", this reading makes much more sense of the available facts than anything Rowling actually gives us.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-06 03:01 pm (UTC)As to the last bit, I'm not sure I can find the quote again, but what I was getting at is this: Superman is a superhero; he has superpowers and is basically invulnerable. This is so completely boring that the writers had to come up with kryptonite to give him a vulnerability.
Batman, like Severus Snape, is flawed, haunted by demons, and human. He has no superpowers. I prefer Batman - and Snape (who, in the context of his world, is also just an everyday Joe - but even more so than Batman, because he is dirt-poor and has few or no friends). I like vulnerable guys (and women) who struggle against their own flaws to get things done. Superpowers bore me.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-06 04:07 pm (UTC)I wouldn't be surprised. Part of me is dying to find out what excuse she can give for this lapse. Because if Dumbledore was capable of such magic that left Severus able to remember the entire sequence of events at the Shack without even Voldemort being able to pick it up in his mind then he had no excuse whatsoever to allow Severus to escape with even part of the prophecy, unless he *wanted* it to happen. (The other part of me just wants her to shut up to keep whatever coherence is left in the story from crumbling.)
Under this reading Severus joined Voldemort for protection (as well as perhaps ties with people like Lucius who appreciated his talent and may have helped him find a way to make a living), but he never wanted Voldmort to win. At most he wanted a long stalemate under which he could survive.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-06 04:34 pm (UTC)Re: Part III
Date: 2009-08-06 04:44 pm (UTC)In this case we know Regulus did not expect to be signing on for genocide - there wasn't much of one going on.
His belief that Lily could have Sorted into Slytherin may have been based on Eileen's belief that Riddle may have been a Muggle-born. If so this rules her out as anyone who was in any way close to Riddle. She knew him as the heroic student who caught Hagrid and later became Head Boy but no more. (The theory she promised to raise her child to serve Tom or anything of the like is out.)
However after SWM Lily does accuse him of calling everyone else of her birth 'Mudblood'. Probably not within her hearing.
As an adult, not only does he not use racist language or race-based insults (unless you consider him telling Harry his perception of Legilimency as mind-reading is 'thinking like a Muggle' as such), but he talks of matchboxes in front of the entire dueling club, thus revealing his familiarity with Muggle devices.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-07 12:12 am (UTC)My reading of the text was that Lily was the catalyst for a much deeper realization of what he'd gotten himself into. We are never shown that he ever really agreed with the DE views on muggles and muggle-borns. What we are shown is that Severus tended to turn a blind eye towards anything that he didn't really want to see: He didn't want to see that Lily was starting to "fancy" James, and so he didn't hear any of her critical remarks directed towards Severus, only those directed towards James. He was so invested in the idea that the Death Eaters offered prestige, power, glory, and advancement in wizarding circles that he mentally "filtered" anything to do with their darker side; I really think he had himself convinced that, "Oh, it's not that bad, it's just something they say, you don't understand, I'll be so impressive a wizard once I'm a real Death Eater!"
The text also strongly implies that Severus' duties as a new Death Eater were pretty much restricted to spying. Fanon notwithstanding, it's highly unlikely he ever had to do an "initiatory" killing and/or torture, because his conversation with Dumbledore in Harry's sixth year indicates that he's only had to watch people being killed (and I wonder if that was in his early years, or only after Voldemort's return), never had to do any killing himself. That being the case, he was probably somewhat sheltered from the harsh realities of what the Death Eaters did: He focused on spying, something he did well and prided himself on, and was likely all caught up in how awesomely well he would PROVE himself and finally gain recognition! --until the target of one of his intelligence reports ended up being Lily.
So I think he left because the ugly realities of Death Eaterdom hit home for him, became "real" when it involved someone he knew and still cared about. (Not so sure about the "loved her forever" bit, Harry's immediate storyspinning notwithstanding, but he obviously didn't want to see her dead, either.) It brought the killing and cruelty out of an abstraction in his head into a flesh-and-blood reality.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-07 12:23 am (UTC)I'm really questioning whether Severus really did cling to Lily all of his life, as Harry quickly leaped to assume. If you look at the memories he gave to Harry, they could just as easily (and more sensibly, in terms of his character) read that he really, deeply regretted that Lily had been targeted and killed because of his actions. Everything--the desperation on the hilltop, the grief in Dumbledore's office, the doe Patronus (that he "always" protected Harry in memory of Lily), the weeping and the torn photograph--can easily be read as remorse and regret, rather than eternal clinging to an unrequited love.
Hence, his purpose in showing Harry those memories was to convince Harry that he, Severus, could be relied upon to be telling him the truth about Dumbledore's words--and that he himself protested leading Harry to slaughter like that--by convincing him that he truly regretted his role in Harry's mother's death.
The only thing that might possibly contradict such a reading is that Harry interpreted the memories as "he loved her all his life, since they were children!" Now, those of us who see Harry as a less-than-nuanced thinker, and less-than-reliable narrator, have no problem saying, well, that's Harry for you, leaping tall conclusions in a single bound. ;-) Not to mention that he was assuming his mother's Patronus was a doe--on what basis? But if JKR sees Harry as reliable, sympathetic, and right, then it may be that we are supposed to assume that what Harry says is The Way We Are Supposed To Interpret Severus' Memories.
Frankly, I think my reading--remorse, regret, making amends to the innocent--makes more sense. What about Lily Evans, as depicted, would inspire Severus to continue loving her, and loving her deeply, long after she cut him off and married his worst enemy?
no subject
Date: 2009-08-07 05:20 am (UTC)There's nothing unusual or pathological obsessive about a man like Severus feeling deep remorse about his part in endangering his best childhood friend and first love. This is even normal, if he had been the one who broke up their relation. One can stop loving someone romantically and still feel extreme loyalty. Severus as I have read him in the books certainly can.
The memories Severus gives to Harry IMO are less a testimony of undying love than a confession. Not one of them presents the Saint!Lily he is supposed to love; they show his mistakes. I interpret the casting of the doe patronus in Dumbledore's office as an act of almost childish defiance. 'No, I don't care for the boy. Look!'If a patronus always represents the casters true love, what about Dumbledore's phoenix, Harry's stag and Ginny's horse? I prefer to believe that patronusses are a bit more complex. BTW if the two patronusses are indeed similar, who got it first. A doe is a symbol for protective female power. It's not even the right consort for a stag and why on earth should Severus remember his one and only true in the form of his enemy's female consort anyway?
no subject
Date: 2009-08-07 05:32 am (UTC)The movie audience watched 'just another romantic movie about the Titanic desaster'; for many readers of the HP books those were the first and for still a great proportion of the targeted young readers the only series of books they have ever read. This gives the books a much larger influence on the minds of the readers.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-07 05:41 am (UTC)My understanding is that the form of one's Patronus represents one's happy memories. If the memories are mostly about one person the Patronus represents that person, but if they are from a variety of sources they end up as the sum of what the caster likes and thus represent the caster (or the caster's happy side). I would think that for someone like Harry, who used his Patronus from an early age to save himself and others from dangers the feeling of power and protection from the ability to cast the Patronus becomes such an important memory that the Patronus becomes self-enhancing. For Severus, his life was so bleak most of the time, I think his happiest memories were from the time between first noticing Lily and coming to Hogwarts, when he had hope his life would turn out good once he was among wizards. Which never happened.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-07 06:29 pm (UTC)Anyway, I do find Titanic offensive. It's true, though, that Harry Potter is more offensive, since Rowling claims she intended to say something serious about racism and genocide.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-07 06:33 pm (UTC)But what gets me is the people who see Severus as weak because he continued to love someone who did not love him. That is what I was arguing against. I do think there is much more to his actions than simply pining for a woman who rejected him. And I think you've explained that beautifully. But I will never, ever agree that loving someone makes you weak. That's a really common argument among the Snape-haters, and I am sick of reading it!
no subject
Date: 2009-08-07 06:38 pm (UTC)That's a great point! Really brilliant.I'd never seen this put quite that way before, and I think you are right.
But, again, I don't think Sev's repentance can be separated from his love. I do think he always loved Lily, and what I'm arguing against is the idea that this love and faithfulness are weakness.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-07 08:21 pm (UTC)I do agree Severus loved Lily all his life, but what started as an obsessive and posessive teenage love has changed to something quieter, more like loyalty and faithful friendship over the years. I don't see this love as a weakness. There's a small psycho-linguistic hint that he thoroughly accepts her marriage to James Potter. At the meeting with Dumbledore he calls her Lily Potter. He is in an emotional state there that clearly suggests he hasn't planned his words. He speaks his mind. Severus thinks of her as Potter not Evans. A man who wants her to be spared for himself would think of her by her maiden name.
But I will never, ever agree that loving someone makes you weak. That's a really common argument among the Snape-haters, and I am sick of reading it!
I actually dobn't mind this argument coming from Snape-haters. I'm sick of reading it from former Snapefans who can't forgive that he is not their prince of darkness, not the machiavellian superhero, but a human being with emotions, vulnerability and a bad-girl syndrome ;) .
Thanks
Date: 2009-08-09 07:25 am (UTC)Your point about Snape's "undying love" also holds good. There is no textual evidence that his affection was ever sexual in nature. She was his best/only friend, whom he both worshipped and treasured. Does he need any other reason than that to loathe the bully who's trying to sever that friendship and batten on her? Does he need any other reason to rue forever that he unintentionally put her life in danger and was unable to undo that and save her?
Harry thinks so because Harry is unable to feel that level of love/concern for anyone who is not a sexual object. In order to understand Ron's fear for his family after their house has been raided by DEs, Harry has to think about Ginny. Not the rest of the Weasleys who have (barring Percy) taken him in as one of them, but only sexy-lips. After Ron storms out, Harry starts watching the Marauder's Map not in hopes of finding that Ron is safe, but in search of ammunition against him, "proving that he had returned to the comfortable castle, protected by his status as pure-blood" - which soon segues into thoughts of Ginny again. And in the Malfoy dungeons, how long does Hermione scream before it impinges on his concerns? She's his second-best friend, but does he give her torture another thought after they escape?
Harry is as little able to love as Dumbledore, IMO. What he does have is "a saving people thing"; no less, but unfortunately, no more, also.
duj