Lily the lily-white girl and Sev the greasy foreigner?

You may have a point.

I like this, and find the idea of Snape embodying 'Otherness' in this way to be realy interesting.

Like you, I find the disparity in the Lily and Severus' physical appearances to be interesting. Lily is *very* white Northern European in appearance, pale, red-haired and green-eyed. Snape's dark features are constantly emphasised and he has a hooked nose - as you say - ticking many of the boxes for the stereotypical 'Jewish foreigner'.

This essay argues this idea of 'Jewish Snape' particularly well and raises lots to food for thought:

http://sabbathmeals.typepad.com/sabbath_meals/2005/08/i_am_going_to_t.html

The idea of a Jewish Snape is also raised in the lovely '25th of Kilsev' by LoneButterfly ( http://hgss-library.livejournal.com/43078.html )

I think Snape carries the baggage of lots of kinds of 'otherness'. He's feminised, racially ambiguous, and marginalised by his social class. It's interesting that Rowling chooses to show that he fails to 'get the girl', while the upper-class, Anglo-Saxon, 'macho' Potter succeeds.

P.S - On the idea of the stereotypical appearance of villains, does anyone else think that film Snape is an absolute spit for Olivier's Richard III?

http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=richard+III+laurence&ndsp=18&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&start=0&sa=N

Thanks for the links!

I was in a bit of a hurry when I posted my original post, or I would've included a lot more, like, for instance a few quotes from Stephen Fry's autobiography 'Moab is my Washpot'. Stephen, a British homosexual, born from a Jewish mother, remenishes about his schooldays:

"But in a culture like ours, language is exclusive, not inclusive. Those on easy terms with words are distrusted. I was always encouraged to believe that cleverness and elegance with words obscured and twisted decent truth: Britain's idea of a golden mean was (and still is) healthy inarticulacy. Mean, certainly - but golden? Leaden, I think. To the healthy English mind (a phenomenon we will dwell on later) there is something intellectually spivvy, something flash, something *jewy* about verbal facility. George Steiner, Jonathan Miller, Frederic Raphael, Ben Elton even.. how often that damning word *clever* is attached to them, hurled at them like an inky dart by the snowy-haired, lobster-faced, Garrick Club buffoons of the Sunday Telegraph and the Spectator.
(snip)
For the English the words healthy and hale, at their best, used to carry the full-bellied weight of florid good cheer, cakes and ale, halidom and festive Falstaffian winter wassail.... Thomas Arnold, and behind him Edward Thring and a squadron of other great Victorian pioneering headmasters, whiskers flowing in the breeze, found a new meaning for health. They twisted a poor Roman satirist's cynical hope into the maxim of the Muscular Christian: Mens sana in corpore sano.
It is one thing to build sanitation systems that inhibit the breeding of unhealthy bacteria and bacilli, but it is another to build educational systems that inhibit the breeding of unhealthy ideas and beliefs.
(snip)
There is no doubt in my mind that there is a kind of anti-Semitism peculiar to Britain. I have mentioned before the use of the word 'clever' and with what particularity it is applied to men like Jonathan Miller and Freddie Raphael. Jews, like homosexuals, are not quite *healthy*. They are part of that parade of pale, clever men who, at the tunr of the century, confused the healthy world with all that talk of relativism and doubt and those weird ideas about deteminant history and the divided self. Einstein, Marx and Freud took the old healthy guilt that sprang from Eden and the Cross and which Western Culture had somehow purged of jewishness and gave us a whole new suite of guilts that a good cold shower and a game of rugger couldn't quite cleanse."

You know, this reminds me of some books for girls published in U.S. in the early 20th century. They were called "Ruth ___" (can't remember the girl's last name, but think the first name was Ruth) and I got them from my grandmother. I don't have them anymore, and don't recall what happened to them.

Anyway, one of the stories was about how Ruth gets kidnapped by a band of Gypsies and a major source of her angst was how they used some kind of nut oil or something to dye her face and arms brown so that she would look like a Gypsy, thereby desecrating her Beautiful White Skin. And your comments about Severus as Foreigner made me think of that.

I've been swayed by the arguments that Severus was likely of Catholic background, but of course a lot of Catholics of European heritage can probably trace their roots to conversion at swordpoint in some earlier century--and of course, many people of any kind of Mediterranean heritage, regardless of religion, have the physical traits attributed to Severus Snape.

And that video... OMFG!!! James and Lily at the end, or WHAT??? Thanks for sharing. ;-)

"Ruth" book

one of the stories was about how Ruth gets kidnapped by a band of Gypsies and a major source of her angst was how they used some kind of nut oil or something to dye her face and arms brown so that she would look like a Gypsy, thereby desecrating her Beautiful White Skin.


You know...I remember this particular story (dying the girl's skin with brown nut oil is the detail that sticks in my mind) but I can't recall the title of the book series. Growing up, a read a lot of old children's books that had belonged to my grandmother and mother and I think this book was among them. I'll have to ask mom if she recalls a book with "Ruth" in the title. There is the possibility that this story could have been in an anthology of children's short stories and fairy tales. Do you remember anything else about the Ruth books?

Re: "Ruth" book

Wow. Someone actually knows the books I'm talking about! ;-)

I don't remember anything other than they were published in the 1910s, as I recall, and they always had a picture of "Ruth" (if I'm even remembering the name correctly) on the cover, which was khaki-tan clothbound (pretty standard for that era). She had long dark hair, all puffed up around her head and pulled back with a bow into a long ponytail down her back. She wore a "sailor" collar type blouse, with the long bow tie in front, and a long narrow skirt a la the 1910s. There was another book in the series involving a lighthouse and some curmudgeonly old guy that was, I think, the keeper of the lighthouse or something. That's all I really can remember; it's probably been 30 years since I read the books!

Alan Rickman has a very Welsh look about him (I'm fairly Welsh myself - we're both prey to that type of 'madness' - heh!), with high cheekbones and a hooked nose, and a sensuously curved mouth (could be described as 'cruel,' I prefer the term 'sexy...'). But they had to give him black hair and eyes, with a wig and contact lenses, to make him Exotic enough to play Snape. Severus is definitely intended to be Other, Not One Of Us Normal People. It's interesting, when Rowling went out of her way to include Black and Asian and Eastern European kids at Hogwarts (okay - the Eastern European kids were from Durmstrang). But they're all peripheral to the story, just window dressing to make the school look open and accepting of diversity. Snape is integral to the tale, and she really stacked the deck against him. With Snape we see that is isn't really all right to be Different. Diversity only gets the most glib of lip service. Conform, conform, conform, is the subtext. And only Rich, Beautiful White People deserve consideration, apparently, because they're the only ones who get any.

"Alan Rickman has a very Welsh look about him [...] But they had to give him black hair and eyes, with a wig and contact lenses, to make him Exotic enough to play Snape."

I wouldn't know from Welsh. Maybe that is exotic within the Isles themselves. Alan Rickman "au naturel", so to speak, looks very normal to me. I agree that the black hair and dark eyes makes him more exotic, but then it is also to the canon. That said, black eyes in anyone of Caucasian extraction is so rare as to almost be impossible, I think, so if we want to be "realistic" rather than just going with "in SS/PS she was just plopping down details that would make him seem evil and 'other' ", then I suppose we do have to theorize some other kind of background for Snape.

"Severus is definitely intended to be Other, Not One Of Us Normal People."

I know what you meant here, but I'm going to make the smart-arse remark anyway:

Speak for yourself. Severus is "normal" to me. Those scary Gryffindors are the freaks. ;)

Oh, I don't think that JKR consciously wrote Snape as having a jewish background, she just used the standard British stereotype of 'nasty people' to describe Slyhterins and unfortunately those stereotypes include 'foreign looking/jewish looking, greedily coveting Our Women, trying to use money to influence the government, ambitious, cunning, weedy, unathletic, unhealthy, etc, etc...

I think you are making a very good point here. These books have always bothered me (I almost said, "irritated me", but initially my discomfort was not that strong) by how they use stereotypes. As far as antisemitism goes, a friend's dad (a Quaker, btw) was enormously offended at the way the goblins were described. That bothered me, too, and still does. But I always thought Snape was a pure Celtic type; his coloring is actually strikingly like Harry's. I'm Irish (mostly), and I know that this coloring is not at all atypical of some of the Celtic countries. And the only person I've ever seen with a hooked nose is a young man of (Catholic) German descent, who happens to be fair-haired. The name "Snape", too, is pure English - or, to be accurate, pure Danish.

In other words, I never, ever read Snape as an antisemitic stereotype. But I found some of her other stereotypes (Fleur, the extremely parochial and prejudiced Weasleys, Hagrid, the goblins - and on it goes), really, really bothersome. And I HATED that word "greedy" applied to a needy, lonely and shy little boy.

I think what's bugging us all right now is that she *did not* turn those stereotypes around or open them up - she just lets them sit there. Slytherins are ambitious schemers and physically ugly - and they *really are* all evil. The goblins are sallow, dark, greedy little foreigners, and they *really* cannot be trusted - and on it goes. And yet - just as you've all said above - Rowling truly believes she's promoting tolerance in these books. That's about the last thing she's doing, as far as I can see.

Good post.

"And I HATED that word "greedy" applied to a needy, lonely and shy little boy."

Desire is not evil (but cf. discussion on JKR writing in various Christian morality); needing others is not evil. I think maybe the intent with this word was to make us think "Severus wanted Lily all to himself", and maybe he did, but if so, I hardly think that at a single-digit age this is an unforgivable sin. That's what children are like: they are pure and unabashed in their selfishness. Maybe he even wanted this as a teenager. This is perhaps not the "good" or "adult" (but a teenager is not yet an adult! that's when we learn how to be adults, hello?) thing to feel, but I seem to recall having similar feelings about a certain boy when I was in high school (and, *koff*, of the dark-cunning-outsider-maybe-evil type), so I hardly think it's really that condemnable. IOW, if you will excuse the language, real people do shit like this. Heavens forfend, a literary character should act and react like a real human being. hrm.

The Child Stealer from Chitty-Chitty Bang Bang - awesome! *lol*

It is fine for her to use stereotypes as long as the book is still from Harry-the-child's point of view. Children often stereotype people, and part of growing up is shedding those fixed opinions.

Harry does change his view of Snape - five minutes after he dies. *eyeroll* The Boy Wonder finally sees his old teacher as human, and if we just had the book for reference, Harry learns to respect Snape for his good traits beyond appearances.

Only JKR muddies the waters with her talk of revenge against Mr. Nettleship, who obviously didn't give her the grade she expected years ago.

But there is no doubt that there is an insidious underlying message that people should stay with their "own kind" from their "own house." I've read really stupid comments about "Why didn't Snape just find some girl in Slytherin?" He wasn't good enough or handsome enough for Lily, and she dumped him for Mr. Popular Quidditch Player who later gets a monument in the churchyard for not protecting his family. *ugh*

I agree that the goblins are problematic in many ways, as stereotyped "bankers" with bad personalities. I don't know what she was thinking with that. I guess we just aren't "sensitive" enough to understand it.

Good post, and lots of good comments, too. I was also bothered by the stereotypes in the books, but I kept expecting her to make a point of disproving them in the last book--and instead, they were reinforced, for the most part. For a little while it seemed like she was going to use Griphook to disprove the goblin stereotype, but then he steals the sword (before Harry has a chance to cheat him), and we're back to the sneaky goblin stereotype.

And I always felt sorry for Percy. He wasn't evil; his biggest flaw seems to be that he trusted the government too much, but you're supposed to be able to trust the leaders of your country. If they were untrustworthy, I see that as more their fault than his. Maybe he showed poor judgment in trusting blindly, but his family also treated him badly at times, and they never seemed to feel any remorse.

Finally, I was just listening to the latest Pottercast episode, and they made the point that all the Death Eaters except maybe the Malfoys are described as ugly. I think Snapecast also said something similar about the Slytherins, although I could be getting my podcasts mixed up. It's really disappointing, not to mention trite, to see all the good guys (who maybe aren't really that good) being described as handsome and beautiful, and all the bad guys described as ugly. And if you're an ugly Slytherin, I guess you're automatically a bad guy twice over.

Perhaps That's Why the Malfoys Survive?

Beauty conquers all--well, we're doomed, then.

In GoF, Harry thinks that Narcissa would be nice-looking except that she has a expression on her face as if she "smells something bad." I always wrote that off as Harry seeing the blond hair and thinking of Petunia, but I don't know anymore.

All the Slytherin boys are either described as stupid or "troll-like," and Millicent Bullstrode looks like something from "Holidays with Hags."

What bothered me about Griphook was that Harry thinks at one point that no matter how long he knows him, he will never like him. That is one of the repetitions we have in the books, and one that JKR often repeats in interviews. No matter how hard Harry tries, or how people change, certain people remain unlikable, especially if they are not in Gryffindor and identical to Harry or Ron. Draco for instance - he's never going to be a nice guy in any way, not as a husband and father, not as a citizen, not in any way. Now we know from the real world, that just isn't realistic.

Percy doesn't remain unlikable, I suppose, because he has red hair and is one of the family. He's in with the in-crowd, and Ginny's family can't afford to lose another brother.

JKR said that Slytherins were "not all bad," and then she showed the noble side through Snape and Regulus. But in DH, no one in the present generation is noble - not even Draco. It's totally depressing.

I know she didn't want a Walt Disney Happy Ending with them all singing Kum Ba Ya around the dungeon fireplace, but couldn't at least one Slytherin besides the Malfoys have come forward to help?

Stereotypes

I agree with the general consensus that Snape was described with one of the stereotypical descriptions of "evil people." As others have said, I thought this was a perfectly deliberate attempt to mislead Harry, and through Harry, us. I fully expected a turnaround in the last book, similar to the one at the end of the first book that hooked me on the series to begin with.

With the 7th book out, we can start looking at everything in context. No more waiting for the "turnaround." It's beginning to look like the back and forth with the stereotypes was not done to explode stereotypes, but rather, just to keep surprising us.

At the end of book 1, I thought Rowling's message was to beware of stereotypes. But really, she was just reversing stereotypes so she could keep surprising us. In the epilogue, NONE of the ugly main characters from EITHER side are mentioned as being alive. (although I wonder where Hagrid fits in that?) In other words, when we got to the very end and Rowling was finished with all the surprises, everything reverts to stereotype.

The only woman we see actually bring down a bad guy is the stay-at-home mom, not the trained warrior (Tonks). Not the seasoned second in command at Hogwarts whom we've actually seen fight before (McGonagall). Not the Tri-Wizard champion (Fleur). The nice fat boy, Neville, ends up not fat. The ambitious Gryffindor, Percy, sees the error of his ways and returns without requiring any apology from his own family. The mean, ugly teacher who ended up on the right side was redeemed only because he loved the pretty Gryffindor girl whose only shown claim to goodness is dying to save her child [no, I don't think she was being noble by arguing with James when he was picking on Snape -- she didn't even bother to Finite the Scourgify when Snape looked like he was choking]. And that was good enough to make him a "not evil" "sort of" anti-hero, but not enough to save him from death or make him a "real" hero.

In fact, come to think of it, was there ANY stereotype she overturned in Deathly Hallows? Did ANYBODY behave in a NON stereotypical way? I'm serious. It's starting to scare me that I can't think of any.

And I don't care what JKR may have said in interviews -- the only thing I care about is what is actually in the books.

The connection between Slytherin and 'Otherness' for me actually clicked in as soon as I read about the Founders. "Godric," "Rowena," and "Helga" are names of Old English or Old German origin. But "Salazar" is a Spanish (and also Portuguese) surname. So the fact that Rowling named the Founder of Slytherin House with a name which implies "foreign, exotic, different, strange, and other" and assigning Slytherin the serpent symbol and making it 'evil' from the outset when compared to the names of the other Founders is indicative of her intention to separate that House from the rest from the get-go.

I fully agree with your points. Snape's depiction and stereotypically "greasy foreigner" traits have been debated within my circle of friends for years; it seems he commits the "Great Sin," since he wants more than what he was entitled to from birth, and must be destroyed for it. I find it odd that Ambition is a negative trait in the Potterverse, considering Rowling's own life story. Had she not been ambitious, her books would never have been published. The British WW seems to have a very medieval view of social structure. You're born in your place and you remain there.

For a woman who is so involved with children's charities, I find it odd that her books contain a tacit approval of the bullying Snape underwent as a student. I didn't mind Lily before the final book. But when she threw up the Shack Incident to Snape after the Dangling Incident, I lost all interest in that character. She exposed a hypocrisy that is clearly evident in Book 7. It's all right for Gryffindors to bully others, or use Unforgivable Curses, but not for Slytherins to do the same. Never mind the fact that McGonnagall casts the "serpents from the garden" before the Final Showdown. Harry's victory is only for 3 Houses, those 'worthy' of him.

Therein lies the most disappointing aspect of the series for me. At its start, I thought it might well teach a lesson in acceptance of differences, and show the problems with prejudice. Instead, all it did was tell a story where only some are worthy of happiness, love, success, redemption, etc. She writes off a whole swatch of the Wizarding World's children when they start at Hogwarts and are Sorted into Slytherin.

By ending the series as she did, she merely set the stage for another 'Dark Lord' or 'Dark Lady' to rise and gather the disenfranchised Slytherins around himself or herself; Slytherin remains as despised and isolated after Voldy War II as it was beforehand. So all of her talk of House Unity, how there were Death Eaters in all Houses, and how not all Slytherins are evil was just hot air, not worth the air and energy she took to speak them.

Which is a shame. The series had a lot of potential, and it imploded terribly.

"But "Salazar" is a Spanish (and also Portuguese) surname."

I work in a library, so I see a lot of names on patron records. This quarter there's an Adriana Salazar who comes in regularly. It gives me a giggle. :)

"and assigning Slytherin the serpent symbol and making it 'evil' from the outset"

Depending on one's perspective, of course. We all have our blinders. JKR is wearing a set of Christian ones, as far as I can tell. I happen to be wearing a set of Pagan ones, so to me, serpents are intriguing, admirable, redemptive even. Just so long as you take care with what apples they are offering you. ;)

I actually never noticed this linguistic difference, though. Interesting point.

"it seems he commits the "Great Sin," since he wants more than what he was entitled to from birth, and must be destroyed for it."

I -- ah. Well -- yes. Interesting. Interesting, with emphasis, even, in terms of my own introspection and how I relate to Severus. The feeling of being "born for" derision and punishment ("it's more that he exists, if you know what I mean") and trying to overcome it through whatever means necessary -- yeah. Um. Anyway.

McGonnagall casts the "serpents from the garden" before the Final Showdown.

If there's supposed to be a "fiery sword" idea with the Sword of Gryffindor, then she screwed up that metaphor by putting it willingly in the hands of a Slytherin.

OH WAIT the Slytherin who was "sorted too soon". My bad. ...Now I'm disgusted.

The bullying aspect is a huge problem, in my opinion. I've debated the scene of Snape's Worst Memory with people for literally years now, and with some friends wrote this essay, which even now is causing some debate if you look at the latest comments.

The problem that my co-writers and I (and many others) see in SWM is that James and Sirius are attacking someone who grows up to become a DE. Since James "always hated the Dark Arts," it would seem he was clairvoyant in singling out Snape. So in the internal logic of the books, it seems James and Sirius (future heroes) were politically correct in attacking Severus (the future enemy).

So there are some limited readers who sadly view it all as justified, even the taunts about the grease and the big nose.

And then there are the "blame the victim" people who say that even as a boy, Snape was a bully who must have "deserved" what he got, even though James gives the lame reason that "he exists." Isn't that the reason for all ethnic violence or hate crimes? Isn't James really just another Draco?

But now it's even worse, because JKR says that adult Snape was a bully till the day he died. So even though James is the one who threatens to "hex" Lily, and Severus never says any such thing, then Lily made the right decision in avoiding the "bad boy."

The linked essay brought back some bad memories for me, one of them from a local Detroit news story years ago: a young man named Vincent Chin was murdered in a parking lot, the night of his bachelor party, by two men: a father and son. They chased him down, one held him, and the other bashed in his head with a baseball bat. They wangled a Grand Jury trial, in which a local judge acted as the sole arbiter, and he acquitted them on the grounds that it was 'justifiable' homicide. He based this notion on the facts that 1) they thought the victim was Japanese (he was Chinese), and at the time the Japanese auto industry was usurping "our" place in the worldwide car market, and 2) the victim was "being a jerk" in the way he was talking at the bar where they'd been. So he "deserved it." Case closed, and the two men later gave an interview in which they staunchly upheld their actions. They still firmly believe that they were in the right, as far as I know.

Like most people, I've been on the receiving end of a few bullying episodes, although I was usually able to defend myself. The bullies I knew were both egotistical and insecure, and they utterly enjoyed making other people feel bad, because it made them feel 'superior.' The above case went beyond the usual, and it makes me feel sad and helpless to this day, although I never met any of the parties to the catastrophic outcome.

I just can't accept Rowling's assertions that Snape was an intrinsically 'horrible' person who 'deserved' the ill treatment he got, and the more she tries to justify it by pointing out that he became a bully himself, without regard to the good he did and the courage he displayed, the more I dislike HER, and distrust her judgment. If his disposition was ruined by his lifelong victimization, she ought to acknowledge that fact instead of blaming the victim. But that's another unpleasant human trait. If we blame the victim, we can feel safe and superior, because of course WE would NEVER be that weak/stupid/name-the-defect. It's a way of feeling in control of our environment, which is just delusional, magical thinking. (Even wizards seem to indulge in magical thinking...::wink::)

Even though it hurt to reflect on these things, it was an excellent essay, and thanks for the link to it.

Thanks for the YouTube Link!

I haven't laughed that hard all week!

Re: Thanks for the YouTube Link!

lol, that video is totally it. I wonder who the "cad" would work out to be then ;)

re: sev the greasy foreigner

Oh, I didn't think about Lily...because she was Just Like Everyone Else, but Snape's otherness did stick out to me! I also really dislike how all the good guys have to be physically conventionally attractive, while the grayhats and the minions are ugly.

It wasn't that way in Book 1, not the way I remember. Hermione had frizzly hair and buck tooth, like a beaver lol, and I liked that, that was normal. A major reason I really loath Book 4 was how they gave Hermione the swan treatment. Fixing the bucktooth was one thing, you can close your mouth better when it's fix, but why mess with the hair? Wouldn't Viktor like her the way she is? Like her for her mind since they were talking all the time? In spite of Viktor's accent, they seem to have conversations that interest each other. As oppose to the awkward Hermione snogging Ron for his half-hearted elf rights comment thing... ...and so Viktor found love in his native land.

On the racial side, Kingsley Shaklebolt made Minister. Shaklebolt is really hot though.

On the less than conventionally attractive side; Slughorn. ...oh, and Griphook, I would have really like to known what happened to Griphook, because he was kinda hot with his goblin pride thing. If only our heroes had actually not decided to trick him?

This is very thought-provoking. I had noted the class/wealth distinctions before, but I never would have seen the foreigner stereotype had you not brought it up, and now it seems so obvious!

Oh, and those videos were awesome! Spent a good half-hour in near-hysterics!