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)
From:(no subject)
From: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
From:Part II
From:Part II cont.
From:Part III
From:Re: Part III
From:Re: Part III
From:Re: Part III
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Turning from the Death Eaters
From: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?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: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)
From:(no subject)
From:The Patronus
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:Lily Potter
From: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)
From: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
Re: Thanks
From:Re: Thanks
From:Harry's concern for Hermione's torture
From:Re: Harry's concern for Hermione's torture
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-08-13 05:51 pm (UTC) - Expandno subject
Date: 2009-08-10 05:04 am (UTC)I had to go back and read what I wrote (http://mike-smith.livejournal.com/164722.html) to see if this was what I actually said. In hindsight, I think the only clear point I made was that the Dinobots are super-awesome, and should have been included in the book.
To rebut, Snape is not Batman. I've even said this exact statement somewhere in the Book VI review. Rowling wants you to think he's like Batman, except Snape doesn't have the sense of perspective that Batman does.
The Batman is an experiment. Bruce Wayne would be avenging his dead parents one way or another, but he only chose to dress up like a giant bat because he felt it would be the most effective methodology. He constantly tweaks his tactics and weapons to improve his war on crime. While his parents inspired him to do all the things that he does, he knows that ultimately nothing will bring them back, and his crusade against crime is bigger than his own personal loss. So basically, he used that loss to become a better person, crafting an emotional, yet practical means to make the world a better place.
On the flip-side, Snape never worked past any of his problems. Lily blows him off, then dies, and he spends the rest of his life regretting his past mistakes. There's no master plan on his part to make things right. He just does whatever Dumbledore tells him, and acts like a giant dick whenever it doesn't conflict with following Dumbledore's lead. The only net improvement I can think of is that he eventually stopped using the term "Mudblood", about twenty years after it would have done him any good.
I forget the exact circumstances of Snape's role in the Potters' death, but he was working for Lily's murderer right up until she was slated to be murdered. I'd call that a betrayal, wouldn't you? Even if he had no idea she was targeted for death, he knew what Voldemort wanted to do to Muggle-borns, and he didn't seem particularly concerned with how Lily might end up.
The main thing I took away from whatever chapter that was, was that Teen Snape would throw around anti-Muggleborn slurs like it was no big deal, and then be genuinely confused when Lily took personal offense. That's what I mean by lack of perspective. In his mind, the world was him and a small number of people and things that made him happy, and he never bothered to understand how those things interrelated outside of him. That's why he couldn't figure out how to deal with Lily's sister, because he couldn't understand why Lily would care about someone he himself wasn't concerned about.
Compare to Batman, who only fights crime because he extrapolated the horror of his parents' murder to that of any murder. To him, any innocent life is sacred, and must be protected with equal vigor. Snape can't do that. He only cares about Harry because of his connection to Lily. Yeah, he "saves" the damn weinerkids in Book 3, big deal.
And that's what makes him weak, because in the midst of all that goes on, his focus is squarely on himself. That's why he sought Lily's approval while simultaneously striving for greater power via the Dark Arts. It doesn't matter what they are or how they work. The point is that Lily hates the Dark Arts and Snape can't (or won't) understand that he can't have both. A stronger character would have learned to see beyond his own wants and needs and appreciate the bigger picture. Instead, Snape's still whining about Harry's dad decades later, and taking out his frustrations on whoever's convenient.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-08-10 04:56 pm (UTC) - ExpandFairness to Harry
From:Re: Fairness to Harry
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-08-13 04:09 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Fairness to Harry
From:Re: Fairness to Harry
From:Re: Fairness to Harry
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-08-13 09:12 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Fairness to Harry
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-08-10 04:33 pm (UTC) - ExpandInterpretations
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-08-13 06:05 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:Sorry, Oryx - this is a response to anonymous.
From:Re: Sorry, Oryx - this is a response to anonymous.
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-08-13 09:21 pm (UTC) - ExpandRe: Sorry, Oryx - this is a response to anonymous.
From:(no subject)
From:What I'm wondering is-
From:Re: What I'm wondering is-
From:Re: What I'm wondering is-
From:Re: What I'm wondering is-
From:Re: What I'm wondering is-
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2016-10-18 11:48 pm (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2016-10-20 01:06 am (UTC) - Expandno 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)
From:(no subject)
From:Entitled?!
From:Re: Entitled?!
From:Re: Entitled?!
From:Re: Entitled?!
From:Re: Entitled?!
From:Re: Entitled?!
From:Re: Entitled?!
From:Re: Entitled?!
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2016-10-20 01:01 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2011-03-09 03:00 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:I agree ! (1)
Date: 2016-12-17 09:09 pm (UTC)I'm a strong believer that good or bad actions aren't supposed to be decided upon the good/bad actions of others (otherwise it's just hypocrisy at its finest coupled with immaturity and inability to take responsabilities. Circumstances explain, but don't excuse) but upon own personal moral beliefs we hold, and how the person react after a wrongdoing they do to (how they react when they are called about it ? Are they able to recognize their own wrongdoing without pining everything on someone else's back ? Can they make conscious actions to improve themselve ? Can they show this conscious way of facing responsabilities, not only when it personaly impact them (either positively by making them gaining somthing or negatively when it impact their quality of life)but when it impact stranger group of peoples ? In other words, can they show empathy, humility and desire to learn from the peoples first concerned by problems they encounter/create to better themselve. Can they pro actively seeks to learn about their world and how they impact it positively/negatively and what they can do to better it ? Sadly it seems not the case for many characters in HP, which lead to a statu quo from the 1st to last book, and this statu quo isn't a good one. That where Harry and many so called "good" characters felt short in Rowling books (because again, Rowling thinks that as long she write "X is doing good here" any "bad" actions she write to provide plot action/pathos (etc) should be overlooked. But any well aware reader need a consistent presentation of the "moral rules" and to decide by themselve if a character do good/bad deed, and not been told by the author in an inconsistent way that make character does sames acts and not been called in the same way by the narrative. Otherwise it's no more a story but a sort of propaganda or I don't know the word for this sort of writing.)
I agree ! (2)
Date: 2016-12-17 09:11 pm (UTC)James (a pure blood rich kid) bully and sexually assault another character (halfblood and poor) ? Lol he changed (but it's not show and the narrative point towards the contrary in fact) and the victim deserved it (even if it sounds like victim-blaming, and nothing support that in the narrative, and more Rowling tell about James, less it seems the true). Dumbledore is a "reformed" purebloodist supremacist that now works for the well-being of muggles(but we are never shows HOW concretely, but everything is fine because he have a nice medal I tell you) what can possibly make you think otherwise ? =>oh the time when he displayed power dynamic by bullying the Dursley in front of Harry (I don't count the time he decided to drop a baby in front of the door, not feeling that he owned Petunia any face to face explanations and condoleances, nor any help to understand how to raise a wizard baby in a muggle world, what was her rights and duty as guardian, what she should know/do to make it as best as possible and which laws (the muggle one or wizard one ?) would be applied in her&family case. Shut up, stay in the dark, and do anything I told you and if you dare not to, I won't even go myself yell at you in person like the child you are in my allmighty eye, I do it throught magical letter to reminds you of the power imbalance created by magic in case you forgot, despite their obvious fear and inability to defend themselve not even to present their own point of view about the whole situation ? Lol the victims are obviously wrong here (NO), why didn't they just comply and dare to look frightened when their lives are threatened and they are humiliated in their own house. But it's OK because they are evil (and stupid, and MUGGLE whoo), end of explanation. Ahh good muggle defensor Dumbledore, Merlin's Order yadda yadda, that sounds so...fake ally like. And infuriating.
That's these sort of credibility gaps that make the story looking silly and frustrating imo.
PS : From "Another". Short descriptionof myself, I'm a 28 y old non binary person of color who read HP books (1st when I was 9 y o) and watched the movies. English isn't my native tongue so forgive my mistakes. And how the short thanks message turnd into a rant. Also sorry if you receive confusing multiple messages, I'm not used to LJ and it seems there is a limited characters.