Four Possible Interpretations of Snape:
Nov. 18th, 2006 06:48 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mary_j_59This is an informal essay, about 500 words, about Snape and his role in the Harry Potter Stories. Rated G, no warnings. The essay follows the cut-
The four possible interpretations of Snape:
1. Snape is a baddie, and Voldemort's man. This is the interpretation all of us probably came to, if only for a second or two, immediately after reading HBP. IMHO, there are many problems with this interpretation when you read the books again; it ignores the story structure, the patterns in the books, the symbolism surrounding Snape, and even some of his actions. Then why do I say it's still possible? Because, the story being unfinished, Rowling may yet decide to write Snape this way. It seems a very unlikely interpretation to me, and, if Rowling does this, my admiration for her as an author will be greatly diminished. But she *could* do it, all the same.
2. Snape is a baddie, and out for himself. A few fans are promoting this one - at least, I have read it in a couple of places - but they have not convinced me. I have many of the same problems with it as I have with the "Voldemort's man" interpretation; all the same it seems more likely than "Voldemort's man" to me. Although it also ignores the structure, the patterns, and the symbolism surrounding Snape, it does *not* ignore his actions in the story, and it makes sense plotwise. It's quite possible. Again, I would personally find it very unsatisfying if Rowling wrote her character this way, but at least the story, as a story, would hang together and make sense. In other ways, it would be sloppy writing, but Rowling may well be a sloppy writer in exactly those ways. Time will tell.
3. Snape is a good guy*, but out for himself, and neither Dumbledore's man nor Voldemort's. A very possible reading - Severus might, indeed, be crying mentally: "A Plague on both your houses!" , and trying to 'take over' and fix the wizarding world out of a combination of rage at the wrongs he's suffered (from BOTH sides), vengefulness, and a sort of hard-headed, misguided idealism. I think it's very easy to read the character this way, and it contradicts almost nothing in the books, actually. Not my interpretation, but very possible. (*note: It's pretty obvious that Snape has some serious character flaws, and they would fit right into this interpretation. Some of his virtues do not - his loyalty, for example, which is hinted at in a couple of places. And this one also ignores the Christ symbolism which surrounds this character. But otherwise I do think this interpretation works well.)
4. Snape is a good guy, and Dumbledore's man through and through. My interpretation, and not mine alone* - as those who have read my essay called "Snape as a Pillar of the Universe" know, I really think this reading makes perfect sense of what we know of the character, the symbols surrounding him, the comparisons with Harry, and the plot structure. IMHO, this one just works, and I will be thrilled if Rowling goes this route - but there are no guarantees that she will. At this stage, I really don't think interpretation (1) is possible, but any of (2), (3) or (4) is. And, as I said, I might be wrong; Rowling might go with (1), after all. (*note - for a couple of other essays on Snape as Dumbledore's man, you could visit logospilgrim's website at www.logospilgrim.com. She has a few listed there; Emily Anne's is particularly good.)
Things we don't know, even if (3) or (4) is right: What was Snape's childhood really like? His parents? Was he orphaned very early in life, as Jodel from aol, cmwinters, and I suspect? Were he and Lily ever friends/rivals? Was he always Dumbledore's man (Jodel's interpretation, and she's almost persuaded me) or was there a time when he was a committed Death Eater? If he really was a committed Death Eater, what caused him to repent? (I know -Dumbledore's given us an explanation, and I'm sure it was true, as far as it goes, but I'm also sure it's not the whole story.) What is Snape's Patronus? His boggart? His animagus, if he has one? And on it goes. J.K.Rowling, please hurry up and write! Very Happy
The four possible interpretations of Snape:
1. Snape is a baddie, and Voldemort's man. This is the interpretation all of us probably came to, if only for a second or two, immediately after reading HBP. IMHO, there are many problems with this interpretation when you read the books again; it ignores the story structure, the patterns in the books, the symbolism surrounding Snape, and even some of his actions. Then why do I say it's still possible? Because, the story being unfinished, Rowling may yet decide to write Snape this way. It seems a very unlikely interpretation to me, and, if Rowling does this, my admiration for her as an author will be greatly diminished. But she *could* do it, all the same.
2. Snape is a baddie, and out for himself. A few fans are promoting this one - at least, I have read it in a couple of places - but they have not convinced me. I have many of the same problems with it as I have with the "Voldemort's man" interpretation; all the same it seems more likely than "Voldemort's man" to me. Although it also ignores the structure, the patterns, and the symbolism surrounding Snape, it does *not* ignore his actions in the story, and it makes sense plotwise. It's quite possible. Again, I would personally find it very unsatisfying if Rowling wrote her character this way, but at least the story, as a story, would hang together and make sense. In other ways, it would be sloppy writing, but Rowling may well be a sloppy writer in exactly those ways. Time will tell.
3. Snape is a good guy*, but out for himself, and neither Dumbledore's man nor Voldemort's. A very possible reading - Severus might, indeed, be crying mentally: "A Plague on both your houses!" , and trying to 'take over' and fix the wizarding world out of a combination of rage at the wrongs he's suffered (from BOTH sides), vengefulness, and a sort of hard-headed, misguided idealism. I think it's very easy to read the character this way, and it contradicts almost nothing in the books, actually. Not my interpretation, but very possible. (*note: It's pretty obvious that Snape has some serious character flaws, and they would fit right into this interpretation. Some of his virtues do not - his loyalty, for example, which is hinted at in a couple of places. And this one also ignores the Christ symbolism which surrounds this character. But otherwise I do think this interpretation works well.)
4. Snape is a good guy, and Dumbledore's man through and through. My interpretation, and not mine alone* - as those who have read my essay called "Snape as a Pillar of the Universe" know, I really think this reading makes perfect sense of what we know of the character, the symbols surrounding him, the comparisons with Harry, and the plot structure. IMHO, this one just works, and I will be thrilled if Rowling goes this route - but there are no guarantees that she will. At this stage, I really don't think interpretation (1) is possible, but any of (2), (3) or (4) is. And, as I said, I might be wrong; Rowling might go with (1), after all. (*note - for a couple of other essays on Snape as Dumbledore's man, you could visit logospilgrim's website at www.logospilgrim.com. She has a few listed there; Emily Anne's is particularly good.)
Things we don't know, even if (3) or (4) is right: What was Snape's childhood really like? His parents? Was he orphaned very early in life, as Jodel from aol, cmwinters, and I suspect? Were he and Lily ever friends/rivals? Was he always Dumbledore's man (Jodel's interpretation, and she's almost persuaded me) or was there a time when he was a committed Death Eater? If he really was a committed Death Eater, what caused him to repent? (I know -Dumbledore's given us an explanation, and I'm sure it was true, as far as it goes, but I'm also sure it's not the whole story.) What is Snape's Patronus? His boggart? His animagus, if he has one? And on it goes. J.K.Rowling, please hurry up and write! Very Happy
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-11-19 01:47 am (UTC)Thank you. :)
no subject
Date: 2006-11-19 03:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-11-19 01:58 pm (UTC)Well, no. :) So I wouldn't say that path is open for Rowling. I don't see it making sense on any level, even when ignoring the previous five books. She couldn't do this without contradicting herself and leaving gaping plotholes. Her being a bad writer is not a logical explanation as she did all the writing herself. She wouldn't have put the argument in the forest in there, clumsily expositioned by Hagrid I might add, if she didn't want it there.
I like to play with the second and third option a bit, because it would be intriguing. He would be an independent sole anti-hero or sole villain, and who doesn't like those? Plus it means that he really fooled Dumbledore and that's ... good for him, I guess, although it of course undermines Dumbledore's wisdom and function in the books.
Realistically option two doesn't work because it makes Snape an ubervillain above Voldemort or completely pointless. So he fools Dumbledore and Voldemort and gets both killed, using Harry, and then what? He laughs manically and tells us how he will rule he world. Dobby stabs him. The End?
If he dies before Voldemort, how will we ever learn about his selfish goals? And what for?
Evil Snape just doesn't fit into the story.
I still like to believe that the third option is possible, but I think it's mostly wishful thinking. Not wishful thinking because I have a problem with Snape being loyal to Dumbledore, but because it would be nice to have JKR surprising me and everything being a bit different than it seems - to me. I'm pretty convinced that Rowlings attempt at everything seeming different constitutes of making Snape seem evil, though.
So I agree you listed them from least likely to most likely, but I would say his loyalties are pretty much set in stone.
Also, he was a genuine Death Eater out of ambition, loved Lily and changed sides to save her. His patronus is a phoenix now, his boggart is Voldemort killing Harry and him being unable to intervene. He is no animagus. Surprise me JKR, I dare you!
no subject
Date: 2006-11-19 02:51 pm (UTC)So - where we differ: I think Severus may have become a Death Eater out of genuine racism. Because I think Voldemort murdered his family, but they were murdered by Voldemort (or Death Eaters working for him) by putting Tobias under Imperio and forcing him to kill his wife and any siblings, and then himself. Severus is a vengeful sort; he would have wanted revenge but it would have been impossible to get - so a combination of ambition and anger led him to the Death Eaters. Then he found out what really happened to his family. Vengeance was suddenly possible - but very difficult. He went to Dumbledore.
Alternatively, he may always have known what really happened. In that case, he was always "Dumbledore's man", and joined the Death Eaters in order to undermine them. (Jodel's theory, and CMWinters's', and I really, really like it, because of the parallels with Harry. But I'm not sure Rowling will do this.)
I agree his Patronus is now a phoenix, and I think you're probably right about his boggart, too. But I disagree about the animagus. I think he became one after the werewolf caper, without knowing there were other unregistered animagi in the school. Young Severus would have done this to protect himself, since he would have been convinced no one else was going to protect him. I have three guesses for his animagus form - either a raven or else (the same as his original patronus) a griffin or hippogriff. I am leaning strongly toward the griffin or hippogriff.
Because I think he's going to kill Greyback, in animagus form, in order to protect some of 'his kids'. Would any of this surprise you? I would find it quite satisfying, and am hoping Rowling agrees with me (grin).
Thanks for the feedback! How is "Amber Spyglass" coming? Can you stand it at all (there were brilliant things in it, but I found it quite incoherent, personally. I won't say more for fear of spoiling you.)