![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/community.gif?v=92.2){kind=small}
title Snape as wicked Stepmother?
type essay, gen, about 1,000 words
warnings, credits, etc G-rated, no warnings. Thanks to Swythyv, Bohemianspirit, and especially Jodel from aol and liznc for inspiring me and allowing me to quote them.
Rowling's hatred of Severus Snape: a theory about what it signifies.
When I summed up my reactions to Deathly Hallows, one of the things that struck me was Rowling's extraordinary cruelty to Severus Snape. Others have noted it, too, and, have, I think, been equally puzzled by it. In fact, liznc points out, Rowling is actually kinder to Voldemort than she is to Snape. Why on earth should an author who claims to be writing a Christian work be so appallingly cruel to one of her own characters, and what does it indicate?
In her response to Swythyv's latest essay, Jodel from aol had something very insightful to say about this. She pointed out that perhaps the reason DH feels so different from the other books in the series, and ignores so many of the story lines and characterizations Rowling built up previously, is that Rowling stopped telling a story, and began instead dealing directly with the trauma of her mother's death. She says, in a comment she posted on November 5, 2007:
It wasn't until after I finally uploaded the revised essay collection that a few of the mists cleared and I finally decided that the reason Book 7 doesn't seem to fit, is because it *doesn't fit*. That you can make a fairly good argument that with Book 7 she simply stepped aside from telling us a story, and engaged in a bit of "therapeutic" writing.
In which she finally rolled up her sleeves, set Albus up as a stand-in, set Harry up as her own avatar, and started finally dealing with the psychodrama of finally forgiving a god who wasn't in reach, wouldn't answer questions directly, didn't explain his plans, and who sat back and let her mother die.
Which, since the whole Potterverse project is what she hid out in when she couldn't bear to deal with a world where her mother was unfairly and far to early dead, makes a kind of sense, but psychodrama doesn't make for very satisafying stories for anyone but the person writing them.
(http://community.livejournal.com/hp_es
That actually makes a good deal of sense to me, for it seems clear Rowling must have had a very strong motivation to tell this story. And Albus Dumbledore, as an apparently cruel, distant and manipulative god, also makes sense. But the theory does not - yet - explain her hatred of Snape, and her denial of the positive aspects of his character.
Another livejournaller, liznc, had some equally fascinating things to say about what Rowling might intend where Snape is concerned. This was a comment to Bohemianspirit's post on Ian McKellan:
I can't shake this feeling that she understands Snape way too well, & that's why she hates him. Her statements are so bitter, so hateful, so downright mean that it's difficult for me to see it any other way. She's nicer to Voldemort! She's made Snape in her own image & then attacked that image - more as an expression of self-hatred than anything else. Seen in that light, her statements make me a little less angry.
(http://community.livejournal.com/snape
Liznc went on to explain how Rowling's attitude toward Snape could be shadow projection. She is, it seems, rejecting aspects of her own personality and pouring them into a fictional character whom she then destroys. Liz's full comment is well worth a look, for those who haven't seen it, as is Bohemianspirit's original post and the whole discussion that ensued.
I agree with liznc that Rowling is expressing unconscious hatred and anger in her portrayal of Severus Snape. But I'm not sure it's self-hatred. One thing many readers noted in DH was that, for almost the first time, the watery and feminine aspects of Slytherin house - and thus, of their head - came to the fore. Severus, like Draco, is shown weeping, something Gryffindors (and men, generally) in these books do not do. On the train when they are children, the other boys tease him, in part, because his best friend is a girl. The incident by the lake during OWLs week is, of course, a sexual assault, and a deliberate emasculation. James is never punished for this during the course of the story; on the contrary, it is Severus, the victim, who is punished because of the way he lashes out at Lily. Finally, as others have pointed out, Severus assumes a femine role - the lady of the lake who gives the sword - when he helps Harry, and his Patronus, which guides Harry, is feminine. It seems to me that Rowling is using these feminine images quite consciously. But, as several of us have said, she is not introspective, and doesn't realize quite what she's done with this character.
What did she consciously intend to do? As I've said earlier, one young woman I'm acquainted with thinks she has been writing a fairy tale. Who is that stock character in fairy tales who is always punished mercilessly? Isn't that character usually female? Throughout the first six books, I'd been convinced that Snape represented the "Dark Father" - the disciplinarian, conscience, or superego, with which Harry had to reconcile. That reading still makes sense to me, but Rowling had something else in mind. Snape is not the "Dark Father", after all. He is the wicked stepmother.
As Liznc says, Rowling's cruelty to Snape may represent self-hatred, and a rejection of a part of herself that she would do better to accept and transcend. But I think her depiction of this character may point to something even more disturbing.
As Jodel says, these books are all about Ms. Rowling's mother's death. As Dumbledore represents God, and her anger at him for letting her mother die; as Lily represents the conscious love for the mother and her sacrifice, so Snape represents the unconscious anger at the mother for dying and abandoning her child. Or so it seems to me. I am no psychologist (though I'm interested in what makes people tick), and the woman, except through her work, is an utter stranger to me. So I can't really judge.
But Snape, poor guy, is quite definitely the wicked stepmother in these books. That much I am sure of.
Mary Johnson, November, 2007
Thanks to Swythyv, Jodel, liznc, and Bohemianspirit for inspiring me and giving me permission to quote.
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →
November 21 2007, 06:26:58 UTC 4 years ago
not so much wicked, as the image of the Dark Mother
this makes so much sense to me. I have been mulling over the previous essay that suggests feminizing Snape is a way to diminish him, because these are in many ways the qualities that endear him to me. He is not hesitant to play the Dark Quiet one. There is nothing weak or fragile about a doe, I live surrounded by them. They are strong and fleet and fierce when they need to be. It's the way our culture sees these 'feminine' qualities as less valid that causes the problem.As a goddess follower, I honor the Dark Mother, the mysterious teacher, keeper of secrets, powerful and frightening. No wonder I love him!
November 21 2007, 15:26:56 UTC 4 years ago
Re: not so much wicked, as the image of the Dark Mother
Well, I can see your point! Perhaps especially because I(though in a different way) come from a spirituality that honors the feminine and sees it as powerful. But Snape is not *just* the dark mother; he actually also is the dark father. As I said before, he is the one person in the entire saga who expresses and unites masculine and feminine, magical and muggle, rational and emotional. And this is why I absolutely cannot see him as evil; as I said before, he has a capacity for wholeness and healing that no one else in the story begins to touch.But the real question, to me, is not "Why does Snape show so many feminine traits?" It's "why does Rowling apparently align 'feminine' with 'evil'?" That's quite foreign to me! And Rowling really does curtail the feminine and limits her female characters. It's not insignificant, I think, that the traditional, earth-mother housewife gets to kill the untraditional, childless woman. Why does Rowling do this? She's a woman! I do think liznc is right (or I am) and it is either unconscious self-hatred, or rejection of an aspect of the mother. It's weird and uncomfortable, either way.
Glad you liked the essay, and thanks for your comment.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 21 2007, 09:50:17 UTC 4 years ago
I do have to think some more about the stepmother thing. Looking at his apparent death scene, I think you have something there.
November 21 2007, 15:30:57 UTC 4 years ago
But I'm glad you liked the essay. There's clearly something deeply personal going on with Rowling's rejection of Snape.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 21 2007, 10:01:04 UTC 4 years ago
Which one of these does not belong?
I KNEW IT! DH does NOT read like a continuation of HBP. HBP has all these Snape moments that I can only explain as Snape with a sense of humor (Harry's ghosts are transparent comment and Snape basically laughing it off; or the equivalent of laughing it off for Snape). And DH... there is no Snape. The doe chapter does not count as nowhere does it mention what happens to Snape.
It's the reason I don't like DH much - I found it boring. No Snape. Confusion. Chaos. No explanations.
I don't think Rowling was kind to Voldemort. I felt SORRY for Voldemort in the end. Whereas the entire Snape arc was just....*groans*
November 21 2007, 15:41:10 UTC 4 years ago
But what I meant about her relative kindness to Voldemort, I'd explained in a previous essay. Young Tom Riddle has status and safety in Hogwarts; he's Head Boy, a member of the Slug club, has friends (even if he doesn't see them as true friends, but only as tools) and the respect of his professors. Young Severus has none of that. The life she hints at (and, partly, shows) for him is unbearably bleak. That he manages to soldier on, with no emotional support, in the service of the only love he has ever known (inadequate and grudging as it was - I don't think much of Lily after DH), is incredibly heroic. It amazes me that Rowling can't see this.
But DH certainly doesn't seem like a continuation of HBP. She drops all the themes and characterizations she'd built up in the previous books to go in several completely new directions. I think Jodel is basically right as to why she does this.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 21 2007, 10:47:10 UTC 4 years ago
I still think one of the biggest mistakes in DH was the complete omission of the Snape/Harry confrontation. That has been heavily set up from the get-go, like a bomb that has been ignited. But Rowling simply put off the fire and moved the bomb aside in order to put Harry into the limelight alone. I know I felt like running against a stone wall when that huge confrontation didn't come -Rowling ignored the rules of good writing there very blatantly. I definitely think Rowling should get more outside input in her work, but apparently she's very strict in not showing her work to many people. Unfortunately, that shows.
I'm also seriously annoyed at the latest Dutch interview where she keeps repeating how "Harry is just very good, a great human being". It's almost laughable: Jo seems to see her characters SO differently than what she put on the page! But then, her being such a new writer (these are her first books!) probably plays a role here. She should seriously learn more about how to write fiction -especially characterisation and closing sideplots. Too bad she's so famous that nobody will very likely suggest that.
November 21 2007, 15:42:42 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
November 21 2007, 13:09:28 UTC 4 years ago
Then not to mention the lack of 'reflection moment' on Harry part where he suppost to realise that he was wrong about Snape. Then the lack of mention of Snape till the end. The 'Albus severus' does not count because Albus Severus is never Severus Snape.
Well that is the first and the last time I touch book 7. I never open it again since 21/7, that is how dissipointent I am with it.
Then come JK interview where she said Snape is 'not hero', he 'sidistic', 'hate harry till the end', 'bully' etc that I just cannot stumack it anymore. I just want to scream to JK to "Shut Up!!"
I sware, if movie 7 copy exacly the storyline of book 7 without correcting this mistake, I will never going to forgive the director/producer
November 21 2007, 15:44:18 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 21 2007, 13:28:54 UTC 4 years ago
Snape's emo hystrionics might also be associated with the more-emotional female gender. There is also the implication that Snape may have died a virgin (despite Voldemort's boasting to Harry during the final battle) therefore emasculating Snape further.
November 21 2007, 18:24:37 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 21 2007, 13:34:39 UTC 4 years ago
November 21 2007, 15:48:32 UTC 4 years ago
I think liznc and I may both be right about the answer. As I said above, this doesn't make me like the books any more than I did - far from it.
Only one point of disagreement: in my tradition, dying a virgin isn't emasculating. But I do think it would be to Rowling. I also think Snape, as written, has the potential to be a very good father, which is why I like to write him as one.
4 years ago
November 21 2007, 16:25:36 UTC 4 years ago
Snape being connected to traditional feminine things is interesting, but not something I feel too much grief over. In this day and age, it seems to me that women are more and more looked upon as strong, not weak.
And Snape's strength is a kind of feminine strength: he doesn't go out wielding his wand and firing hexes everywhere like an idiot. His heroism is more calculated and patient. I don't think JKR looks down on that sort of heroism, however, since she has her hero doing that by playing dead at the end of DH, so he can trick Voldemort. Just like Snape, he has to sit there and watch his friends get tortured not because he doesn't care, but because he has to follow through on his plans.
November 21 2007, 16:52:50 UTC 4 years ago
On the contrary, I really do think that Rowling, by associating Severus Snape with feminine symbols and imagery, *does* intend to criticize and minimize the character. And I think that's pretty weird, especially coming from a woman. There is little doubt that Rowling really does hate the character, and really doesn't understand him or his appeal. This essay was an exploration of one possible reason for that hatred, which seems very deep, very unexamined, and very unreasonable.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 21 2007, 16:26:42 UTC 4 years ago
The reason I wonder about that is that I heard JKR's first marriage was an abusive one--one that she had to get a restraining order for. Her first husband was Portuguese I heard. Supposedly it was a relationship both abusive and "passionate" according to one article I'd read.
So, who is the most famous "Salazar?" A dictator of Portugal. And what is the stereotypical foreigner a la Agatha Christie? Dark haired and eyed, sallow complexion, roman or hooked nose. Like a certain run of Slytherins: Salazar perhaps, certainly Tom Riddle (handsome, but darkly so) and Snape.
Hermione is supposedly Rowling's avator--and who is her first boyfriend? Viktor, who is described in terms that could fit a young Snape. And who does Hermione wind up with? Someone, red headed and lanky who looks very much like Rowling's childhood friend (I saw them together in an interview), but displays a lot of the traits of a classic domestic abuser--jealous, controlling, hypersensitive, cruel.
Rowling has called Snape a "gift of a character." Supposedly when asked in an interview about Snape, someone told me she said she'd "hesitate to say I love him" which implies that she does. She writes into Snape many admirable qualities which make us fall in love with him, then undercuts it in interviews by saying he's no hero and "horrible" and has no portrait because he "deserted his post."
Could it be that it's not that Rowling hates Snape--but she loves and hates him, and it has less to do with her mother or herself than a type of man she's attracted to but hadn't proved "good" for her? So that she says things like "who would want Snape in love with them?"
And yet she repeats some of that same mix of physical and personalty traits in the dark-haired, bullying James, the chosen mate of her other avatar, Lily.
November 21 2007, 16:46:30 UTC 4 years ago
Rowling and abusers/abuse is another very interesting question. What gets me here is that, though it's clear she consciously set out to write Snape as abusive, he does *not* come across as anywhere near as abusive as her Gryffindor heroes/heroines. (Yes, I am including Lily and Ginny, and even Hermione. They all act abusively in the course of the story, IMO). Instead, both Sirius (whom Rowling describes as 'sexy') and James (who 'gets the girl') come across as, potentially and actually, far more abusive than Severus. So I'd guess there are some unresolved issues there, as well.
But I was focusing on Rowling's rejection of/hatred for the feminine in the story. The abuse question is a whole different essay, though probably a worthwhile one. Altogether, the values and psychology of these books strike me as unhealthy.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 21 2007, 17:38:04 UTC 4 years ago
I think she hates Snape because we like him. I think she is jealous of the character, who has more personality in his handful of pages than any of the deluges of drivel she wrote about the Gryffindors, and a greater following among the readership than any other character, especially after she knifed Dumbledore, twice, ignored McGonagall, killed off anyone and everyone (almost) over the age of 17, and turned Hermione into more of a plot device than she already was.
No, I'm not angry (sniff) I'm quite calm...
Snape is a whole personality, not a cardboard cutout. He's no more "feminine" than I am masculine, and just as much. The "death scene" is so out of character as to make one wonder who wrote the other 6 books?
JKR truly doesn't understand the first thing about novel-writing. She could survive in pre-history, when an oral tradition provided time and space for anonymous "improvement" by generations of story-tellers. But once she's down in black and white, she needs an editor like Victorians needed corsets to fit into their clothes. In the case of DH, she also needs a sherpa.
November 21 2007, 18:16:34 UTC 4 years ago
I hope you realise that I agree with you? As I've said a couple of times, Severus isn't feminine, and his definite feminine characteristics are not weakness, and are not bad. On the contrary, the fact that he can consciously express a feminine aspect of his personality points to great goodness and strength in his character. At least, that's the way I see it.
But the point is, I don't think Rowling sees it that way.
She did manage, as you say, to write a vivid and complex person in Snape. But I also think Sigune is right in saying that she - Rowling - tried very hard to assassinate that character in DH, and one of the ways she chose to do that is by emphasizing his feminine aspects. That strikes me as distinctly odd. She favors the hypermasculine, unbalanced Gryffindors and demonizes the watery, "feminine" Slytherins. This isn't healthy, IMHO.
I guess that's all I was saying. I do think there is some deep compulsion causing her to write these books in this way. WHY does she think Harry, of all people, is simply good? Why does she insist Snape is a bully and therefore cannot be a hero? Over and over, what she thinks she has said does not match what is on the page. And she really seems to *hate* Snape. It's beyond all reason.
And now I'm rambling, and I'm sure you agree with me about the last paragraph, anyway. Thanks for your comment.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 21 2007, 22:54:22 UTC 4 years ago
But, hey, the reason we're all here is to over-analyze :)
I'm going to ignore Rowling's feelings on the whole matter, or even the theory that DH is a cathartic exercise for her mother's death. That's all speculation on our part, and unproven. You've made a very good case for it, but I tend to stay away from those sort of analysis unless there's factual evidence or the author is long dead and their whole life is up for review.
Snape as a female archetype is really intriguing. But perhaps he's not really a female archetype, like the Wicked Stepmother, but more the castrated hero ('hero' just as in, a male character). It seems to me more that Rowling has implied that there were certain trigger events (the castration) in Snape's past that influenced his actions and brought about his imminent demise, and not that he was female from the beginning and that was the influence/sway. One can also see how Snape struggles against these female images/symbols (namely in applying for the DADA position every single year).
November 23 2007, 00:11:25 UTC 4 years ago
Wow, I had never considered it in that light, very interesting.
4 years ago
November 22 2007, 00:03:21 UTC 4 years ago
(Just thought I'd throw that in!)
I loved reading this essay and the comments. Although I may not subscribe to all of the ideas, they make for lively reading and give ample food for thought. In a way, I suppose JKR's professed hatred of Snape may be a form of self-hatred. She definitely did NOT sit down and work through how she felt about the character, though. As one of the comments says, she's not introspective. It probably wouldn't have occurred to her to get it all hammered out before she wrote it. That's why her ambivalence shows in her writing and gives the lie to so many things she chirps out in her public appearances. She talks a lot of rubbish.
November 24 2007, 16:47:11 UTC 4 years ago
Deleted comment
November 23 2007, 00:37:10 UTC 4 years ago
If anything, it's Voldemort who has been loved (ok, in a freaky, obsessive, fangirly way, but still) by Bella.
But who loved Snape? Let's see:
NOT Lily, who took James' side over her supposed "best friend's" over the Shrieking Shack incident, and that was when she still hated the "arrogant toerag". And in SWM, she does nothing to stop the Scourgify spell that was CHOKING Snape. I thought she was apparently wonderful at Charms! Did ya forget a simple Finite! Lily? Then, she smiles when he is being hung upside down and humiliated. Her BEST FRIEND!!! No wonder he used an epithet. Even then, he is the one to debase himself yet again to beg her forgiveness, only to be slapped in the face and rejected. Kind and compassionate Lily? I think not! I know he used a racial slur in the heat of the moment, but were her actions those of a true friend?
Dumbledore then? Pre-DH, I believed that he cared for Snape, loved him like a son even. How wrong I was! He uses Snape's vulnerability against him time and again & Snape is honour-bound to comply. How dare old Dumbles say that Snape disgusts HIM, when his own actions are so despicable?
Who then, not his staff colleagues, not the DEs, not Voldemort, not the Marauders, not the Trio. We don't even see a glimpse of Eileen Prince, who I naively hoped might hold a key to Snape's motivations (a mother's love, after all)!
The short answer: No-one. Yet, he perseveres. He is honourable to the end. And for that, he has OUR love.
Anonymous
November 22 2007, 04:53:33 UTC 4 years ago
Snape is not the Wicked Step Mother, Father, Great Uncle
Victimizers and Victims, Winners and Losers, Gryffindors and Slytherins.Part 1: Severus Snape and the Feminine.
Snape had two role models when he was growing up: his father and his mother. From SWM, his father appears to has abusive towards his mother, and most likely himself. That would make his father the victimizer and his mother the victim, and between the two, he chose his mother. He might have even adopted the mindset of a victim. Notice we never see him with guy friends, and that the only person he calls his friend is Lily. Also when Narcissa started crying, he reacted! Seeing a woman cry troubled him. I think the reason that we see feminine symbols with Snape, is that he identifies with his mother and maybe with women in general.
Part 2: JK and the Not-Feminine.
To be fair I know little about the life of JK, but I do know the she lost her mother to long and debilitating illness and that death was a large factor in the Harry Potter cycle. Her mother was a victim to a disease, and that made probably made JK feel helpless. Prior to the onset of her mother's illness, her mother worked for the real-life counterpart to Snape, Mr. John Nettleship. I think it is noteworthy Mr. Nettleship was present in this part of her life. Wasn't Dumbledore dying from a long illness? Wasn't the act that Snape did an assisted Suicide? I think the reason we see the demeaning of the feminine with JK, is that her mother was a victim.
Part 3: Snape Hate
I still can't tell if she hates Snape consciously or unconsciously, so I can't argue on either side, but what can argue is why she hates him. Snape identifies with his mother, A victim, while JK identifies her mother AS a victim.* She doesn't want to identify with victims because she doesn't want to become one. She views feminine symbols as the qualities of a victim. She gave Snape feminine qualities because she hates him, and she hates him because he identifies with a victim.
*(I am NOT implying that she hates her mother, just that this was very awful moment in her life that she either wishes to avoid, or does not want to confront.)
Please excuse long post and yammering. (God, I hope this makes sense.)
*green_skiddles*
November 22 2007, 10:21:07 UTC 4 years ago
Thank You for the post, Anonymous! (too lazy to log in? :)
He might have even adopted the mindset of a victim. ...Also when Narcissa started crying, he reacted! Seeing a woman cry troubled him.I agree.
I think the reason that we see feminine symbols with Snape, is that he identifies with his mother and maybe with women in general.
I imagine this to be the case, as well as the whole Snape/Dumbledore Rowling/hermother parallel.
Anonymous
4 years ago
November 22 2007, 22:55:01 UTC 4 years ago
I LOVE that Snape appears as balanced with both masculine & feminine aspects. In fact, his Patronus is almost unique (except for Tonk's, I believe), in that it is of the opposite sex. It brings to mind Daemons in Pullman's "His Dark Materials" universe, where your daemon is always the opposite sex to yourself, balancing out the forces within yourself, making you whole. Unfortunately, JKR seems to scoff at this vision of Snape, preferring her bullying alpha-males. I also found it odd that Snape himself scoffs at Tonk's patronus when his own represents his love. And the way she (JKR) keeps dressing Snape in women's clothes the entire series (Neville's grandma's, his mother's smock as a child, a grey nightshirt), to ridicule and demean him further: badly done Jo, badly done!
Deleted comment
4 years ago
Deleted comment
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 25 2007, 13:27:28 UTC 4 years ago
I had a longer reply, but - wow. Just wow. JKR didn't write Snape the way you wanted, so you're commenting on her personal tragedy?
That's an ultimate low, you know.
November 25 2007, 19:31:06 UTC 4 years ago
This post is not an accusation --- it's just a theory to spur rationale discussion.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 25 2007, 16:05:56 UTC 4 years ago
Meanwhile, back in the menstrual hut...
Just wanted to add one last thing, mary_j_59. A wonderfully witty, ranty ficlet (creative-meta, as sylvana would say), by maelipstick back in 2005, pondering this very idea about Snape as the stereotypical stepmother/ witch crone. You can find it here:http://maelipstick.livejournal.com/1241
December 1 2007, 06:04:45 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Meanwhile, back in the menstrual hut...
Oh man, thank you for pointing to that! Lipstick is awesome, and I somehow I missed that when she posted it (probably in my unsuccessful attempts to avoid being spoiled for the books).November 25 2007, 19:32:55 UTC 4 years ago
This is interesting, but I honestly can't say that I ever got the impression that Rowling hated Snape. In fact, I thought DH was pretty sympathetic to him. He's redeemed in the end by our discovery that he was ultimately on the side of good, and that Harry was, in many cases, wrong about him and his motivations.
November 26 2007, 00:45:36 UTC 4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 26 2007, 18:44:27 UTC 4 years ago
I think that Snape was very much an almost (I hate to use this word, but I can't seem to find anyting else that fits) cruel character. Yes, he loved Lily, but what did that result in? He was initially on the dark side, but he only ever switched because he realized that by helping Voldemort (passing on the prophecy), he was responsible for Lily's death. And even then he made Dumbledore swear to never say anything about it. Then when Harry comes along, he takes out his hatred of himself for what he did (and his horrid jealousy of James) on Harry. And yet in the end we're able to forgive all that, see him as a good person even when he really wasn't very good at all, and even Harry honours him. So, I'm not really sure where you're getting 'Rowling is so mean to Snape'. I'd say she just doesn't like his character as a person, because he really isn't all that great.
And as to the argument that JKR used Deathly Hallows as only therapeutic writing... I think thats kind of ridiculous/unwarranted. She's had the ending and the main story planned from the very beginning, she said so herself the rest of the books were pretty much filling holes. Her mother died years and years ago - why now? Deathly Hallows stands out from the rest because it's so much more tragic and dark, there's less to no fuzzy feelings. Previous novels were smaller conflicts within the buildup, DH is the climax and denouement of the series; it's meant to stand out.
Maybe I just liked Deathly Hallows. Yes, it had some problems and parts that I didn't like, but as a whole I felt it completed the series pretty well. Either way, I don't understand why there's so much JKR hating in the fandom... and at this point the series is what it is, so take it or leave it.
December 1 2007, 23:04:13 UTC 4 years ago
But I'll give Snape an iota of credit, his protest at Dumbledore's "pig for slaughter" plan for Harry indicates that eventually he learned what it is to care for someone. He seemed genuinely concerned for Harry's well-being, not just Lily's son, an act to assuage his guilt.
Rowling has said that Snape is "a gift of a character." I don't think she shortchanged him at all. The fact that Snape wasn't a Death Eater croony in the end; that's more than she really owed Snape. What she did to Lupin in DH in my opinion, is much more appalling; she essentially destroyed Lupin in "The Bribe" - and I'm not even a big Lupin fan. Anyways, I agree...the JKR hate is really unwarranted. I may disagree with her opinions, her coming out with all these "revelations" - DD is gay, etc., but she's been really great to fandom. She allows fanworks, and I think as fans we should be appreciate that Rowling lets us play on her playground. She could be like Anne Rice and take everything away.
November 26 2007, 20:55:46 UTC 4 years ago
Which ones? I think they were aspects of this teacher's personality who was Snape's model. Not JKR's.
November 26 2007, 22:07:30 UTC 4 years ago
oh dear
Reading this essay and all the posts,i'm left in sheer wonder.In defence of a fictional character real people get merciless bashed.
Without the slightest bit of knowledge (or should i even say decency?) people make assumptions about the private life of the author that leaves me speechless.
I'm sorry to say that my respect for some of the lifejournalists here dropped a lot.
Everyone is free to interpret the text in whatever direction, but the text is the limitation.
Everything else is just mean gossip.
November 27 2007, 02:14:08 UTC 4 years ago
Re: oh dear
Rowling herself said Hermione was her. She's said that she married Harry. She said that she dated Ron. She said Snape was her old Chemistry teacher. She herself said her personal losses affected how she wrote the story.In such a context, linking Rowling to, and speculating how her personal life affected her fiction is hardly out of bounds or an attack. Read any critical essay about an author's work, and this kind of speculation and analysis about how the personal leads to the literary is inevitable. It's also natural to be critical of texts--even that of "great literature" like Joyce and such and for people to argue how the story does or does not hold water. Even Austen and Shakespeare are subject to this kind of analysis.
Anyone who writes fiction--even us poor deluded snape fan hacks know something else--that our own personal lives feed into our fiction. It's certainly not irrelevant.
I don't see this post as a personal attack on anyone. However, when people say that doing this is "gossip" and that those who discuss this have no "decency" and aren't worthy of respect, and even (as in upthread that those Snapefen arguing this should indeed be seen as "bugfuck bonkers"--you know what I call that?
Making it personal. And that's not an argument. It's a logical fallacy.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
Anonymous
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 27 2007, 15:40:10 UTC 4 years ago
re: Albus as a god
I thought that the character of Albus was very consistent in DH, people were surprised because they weren't paying attention before with the hints.I've always thought that if god exist, god can be many things, but god can not be all-powerful AND all-good. For one thing, it's difficult to define all good, but there are definite all-bad stuff in this world, which are allowed to happen, either because god doesn't care OR, isn't all powerful.
Dumbledore isn't all powerful, he's not even all knowing, he has done a lot of spectacularly stupid mentoring FAILS that made me wince. The prime example would be in Book 6(?), when he thought he could frighten some good into 11 years old Riddle, with the burning wardrobe. I wanted to smack him when I read that, because Dumbledore just taught Riddle to rule by fear and punishment! He does learn later though, with Harry, the third student (the second being Snape), Harry benefits from the mistakes Dumbledore has previously made and mostly learned from.
It wasn't just Harry, Draco the Slytherin benefited too. If Harry was Dumbledore making up for screwing up the Tom Riddle thing, I think Dumbledore going out of his way to protect Draco, was to make up for how he screwed up the Snape thing. Dumbledore thinks in grand schemes, if he did write off Snape (the way he did Sirius by not investigating his suspected responsibility of the Potter's death), it wasn't anything malicious, it was because a lot of things were already too late, and there was the looming bigger picture.
PS: came here via
PPS: I'm of the opinion that Dumbledore knows about Snape favouring the Slytherins and especially Draco, and doesn't disapprove of it. Again, hoping that Draco would turn out happier than Snape...and it kinda worked, in spite of being the son of Deatheaters, I don't think Draco could have cast a cruio and meant it, thanks to Snape's mentoring.
November 29 2007, 14:01:14 UTC 4 years ago
Er, no. Part 1
Very belatedly (saw this shortly before leaving on a short trip and didn't have time to consider a response).I have to say, I do not agree that Rowling hates Snape. I suspect if you haven't actually sat down and created your own characters (as opposed to borrowing hers) you will not get how important each and every one of your own creations are to you as an original author. In a very particular way, you love them, and I have not the slightest doubt that J K Rowling loves all her creations.
The nature of loving your characters is sometimes ambivalent. Certainly, you have those you utterly adore (and have to sometimes take a break from to avoid them becoming Sue-ish or Stu-ish), there are those you feel ambivalent about - they are wonderful characters, dominate the scenes they are in, but sometimes, like Snape, are not the nicest people you've ever encountered (I've always considered Snape falls squarely into the wonderful character you'd not wish to know in private life, and who, emphatically, you would not wish to have your children taught by). You love such characters as characters; you do not like the person. That's not hate - it's merely sober differentiation between your joy in your creation, and your actual (and right) dislike of some of the things they do and are. I cannot believe anyone can honestly defend some of the things Snape did in canon: his bullying of Neville is indefensible; his calling Lily 'Mudblood' - and indeed, Rowling makes it abundantly clear that Snape himself regretted that, and learned the lesson (too late - and sometimes we DO learn lessons too late). Oh, and in case no one gets it, joining the Death Eaters is, ipso facto, a bad idea.
And there are those who inhabit a third category (I'm talking major characters here) - villains. Many writers love their villains (Tolkien clearly did - and often, IMHO, his villains were far more compelling than his heroes, who were sometimes a bit stuffed shirt). Rowling did a great job with her full exposition of Riddle/Voldemort. She obviously loved him, too, but was fully aware that he was rotten, through and through.
As a starting novelist (one third of the way through) writing in an historical setting, I have a range of characters who pretty much run the moral gamut from good (a saintly monk) to very evil indeed (an actual mass-murderer who never got his comeuppance). My evil person is very nasty - cruel, sadistic, and not even with the saving virtue of a Tom Riddle of attractiveness. But I love him, because he's good value for money and makes a scene entertaining (though frightening). I'd not have wished to encounter this actual bogey in real life.
November 29 2007, 15:45:42 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Er, no. Part 1
I have sat down and created my own characters. I've been writing for years, and never wrote fanfic before 2006.I agree that Rowling loved Riddle, although I disagree that she did a wonderful job with him. He is not real to me at all, and comes across as alternately disgusting (in his more believable moments) and boring/irritating. OTOH, I can see that it would be hard to write a believable villain who was also the ultimate evil.
As for Severus Snape, I do not think Rowling really did see his possibilities, nor even what she actually did with him. If she had, I don't think she would have made such a concerted effort to minimize and dismiss him in her final book. Someone above accused me of not knowing literature, and claimed Rowling was not cruel to Snape. I know you haven't done the same, but you, too, don't seem to really understand how appalling the life and death Rowling gave to Snape are.
No one ever loved him. No one. Lily certainly didn't - he loved *her*, but there is no evidence that she returned that feeling. There's some evidence against that view.
He was bullied relentlessly in school, ignored by his teachers (from what we can see - they certainly did nothing either to stop the bullying, or to give him and the other Slytherins any moral guidance), and, at minimun, severely neglected and emotionally abused at home. Young Severus never had a safe place or a protector. It's no wonder he was paranoid.
Yes, he was responsible for joining the Death Eaters. But consider:
As I said, it's clear after DH that Dumbledore, in particular, wouldn't lift a hand to keep him from going down that road. Also, the only person who touches Severus in friendliness is Lucius Malfoy. Lucius! And we know how loyal Severus is.
Having joined the Death Eaters, he found himself in service to a psychopath who would kill him if he ever tried to leave.
He has (as I said in my earlier essay) no family that we know of, no friends who do not also use him (yes, I am including Lily in this), no person who loves him for himself or sees and acknowledges the better qualities in him. He is ridiculed repeatedly by "the good guys." He is, finally, completely isolated and condemned by all his closest colleagues. He dies a cruel, protracted, and pointless death, and he is not redeemed - not, at least, in the story. And now Rowling is denying that he is a hero. This does not seem like love to me.
It's pretty obvious that she doesn't like him. The best analysis I've come across about Snape and Rowling's treatment of him is Sigune's; have you read it? She points out that Rowling's books are plot-driven, and that Snape does not exist (in Rowling's mind) as a character in his own right, but rather as a device to further the plot. I think she also wanted readers to hate him and see him as a villain, and grew dismayed when so many of us didn't. She doesn't seem to realize that she did not write him as a villain.
That's how I see it. In any case, what I was writing about here was Rowling's deliberate feminization of Severus, which is quite clear in DH, if you look for it. It is part of the pattern of diminishing/dismissing him, or at least, I think, it's intended to be. Like her attempt to show Snape as a villain, I'm not sure it works.
Thanks for your comment, anyway. It's clear you enjoyed this book more than I did, so our views on it are bound to differ.
4 years ago
4 years ago
November 29 2007, 14:01:57 UTC 4 years ago
Er, no. Part 2
Neil Gaiman once made a good point in interview regarding the vast plethora of characters he created in the Sandman series. He said there were one or two who were so damn compelling, he kept their appearances minimal, because they were like the famous actor doing a cameo (like Brando in Superman). You need to see them as being on $XXXm per day, and therefore must limit their scenes) I suspect that's why Rowling had very little of Snape being in book 7 - so that his few appearances were strong and memorable. Goodness knows, Snape has had some brilliant scenes in the entire series (his importance is flagged by his being the only character who regularly gets chapters with his name on them throughout the saga). Stephen King also once said in interview that you love every single character you create... If you wish to see how King finally got rid of a disgraceful character he clearly loved in an "OMG what a dreadful creature" sort of way, I refer you to the final book in the Dark Tower series, and the fate of Randall Flagg. King had Flagg show up in book after book, but Flagg's ultimate fate is enough to make you squirm.Authors don't sit smirking when they put a character into situations that are hard and perhaps undeserved, or perhaps more appropriately, in the case of Snape - were deserved (sorry, he deserved to lose Lily and if she'd tolerated racist abuse, fandom would have called her a wimp). However, it's a dull tale when no one suffers (and Snape suffered less than some other characters, in my view). And I'd bet my house that Rowling was leaky around the eyes when she wrote Snape's final scene. It was a tragic lonely death, apt for a tragic and lonely character. Snape is perhaps the tragic figure (and almost in a Shakespearean sense, as his doom springs from one fatal act - alienating Lily) of this series.
The mistake in interpretation that a lot of fen have made in their vituperative reactions to book 7 is down to is overdependence on fanon. When I entered the fandom four years ago, I remember reading a good comment by a canon debater who said he would not read fanfiction as it taints the canon. I agree (and I've been guilty of letting my own fanon sometimes cloud my view). That's what I believe is at bottom of all this howling over Snape post DH. People read fanfiction and came to believe he MUST be the hero of the saga - had to be! Look at all the fics where he WAS the hero (and let's not get into the fact that in such fics he's inevitably so out of character as to be unrecognisable).
Except he wasn't the hero, Harry was. However, Snape was heroic. That's underlined at the very end of the saga, by Harry's tribute to him (and we can sense the author is speaking through Harry): One of the bravest men I ever knew.
How on earth can an author who hates a character allow that to stand as her last word on him? Sorry, she loves him. It's just she didn't write a fanon version of him - but then most of the fanon versions are not even closely related to the canon version.
Oh, and she's not working out some deep seated psychological agenda around Snape, either... Her grief at losing her mother is much more appropriately and explicitly stated in the presentation of Lily.
November 29 2007, 15:57:23 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Er, no. Part 2
Please name one character Rowling treats worse than Severus Snape, with reasons. See my previous comment. Heck, Riddle gets more joy in life, and a more diginified death, than Severus does.And I repeat, I came late to the fandom (after HBP, which upset me), and my picture of Snape, up to and including HBP, was based entirely on canon, and my close reading of it. Of course "my" Snape, in my fanfics, is a bit nicer than Rowling's. That's a given. I do know the difference, and nowadays I get positively irritated by fanfics that obviously use Alan Rickman as a model.
But, based on reading of the text alone, after HBP, it was impossible for me to see Snape as anything but the hero of the work. Or one of the heroes; Harry was very clearly the protagonist, and therefore took precedence over Snape, but you can have more than one hero in an epic. Sometimes, as in LOTR, you can even have more than one protagonist.
And Snape as tragic hero? Maybe that's what Rowling intended, but that seriously messes up the structure of her work, doesn't it? It's meant to be a coming of age tale - a hero's journey, if you like. Thus, the focus ought to be on Harry. But a tragic hero will inevitably take the focus away from the other protagonists. Also, it is quite clear from her post-publication comments, that Rowling did *not* intend Snape to be seen as a tragic hero, or any kind of hero. She has conceded his heroism only because of the pressure of the fans, as far as I can see.
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
4 years ago
December 1 2007, 23:30:08 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Snape's femmy-ness
Just curious, but1. Precisely what do you count as his 'femmy'-ness?
2. How do you ship Snape?
I think the Marauders were at least a little sexist, for one thing, James should have respected NO the first time around, but, the book overall, I feel I should point out that in lots of way, Dumbledore is much more femmy than Snape. As it has been pointed out by his own fans, Dumbledore dresses like somebody's grandmommy.
Albus Dumbledore;
- Wears a woman's bonnet during Christmas in Book 1, and then the witch's vulture hat in Book 3; it was in the Christmas cracker he had gleefully offered Snape.
- Phoenix; I'm well aware that the rebirth by fire bird is quite a different one from the just plain immortal rainbowy thing in Chinese mythology, but alas, the 'Chinese Phoenix', as the immortal rainbowy thingie has been dubbed, is on the side of yin, feminine, it usually represents the bride at weddings (whereas the dragon is the groom). Oh, and 'bird' is British slang for a lady?
- Loves sweets, women are generally depicted as loving sweets more than men. In Japanese anime, the 'girlier' one is always the one with the sweet-tooth.
- Is generally one of the softest and motherly authority figure of them all, and doesn't seem to give a damn that Fudge thinks of him as femmy, and I do think Fudge thinks that way...
Cunning: Both Snape and Dumbledore shares this trait, one that has often been attributed to women, and unfortunately as a method of condemnation. Dumbledore is more cunning than Snape, but he uses his cunning for the greater good. Which is why people trust Dumbledore.
The big difference between the femmy Dumbledore and the 'femmy' Snape, is that Dumbledore is much more comfortable with himself, and much happier. In his youth, Dumbledore went with his feelings, it lead to tragedy because they were young and stupid and Gellert was a dark wizard, but he went with his feelings. Snape on the other hand, have trouble telling Lily that he loves her, seem to have trouble with the very fact that he's so smitten with her...Snape was Not Comfortable with any power Lily has over him.
December 2 2007, 03:41:11 UTC 4 years ago
Re: Snape's femmy-ness
Snape was Not Comfortable with any power Lily has over him.That's a very good point. Snape is very emotional, but not actually very comfortable with his emotions. It seems to be one of his (several) problems. And he's got serious issues with control.
And I didn't know that the Chinese phoenix was a feminine symbol, so that's interesting, too. The question is, did JKR know it? She knows a lot about medieval Western mythology, obviously, but are there other asian resonances in the books, in your opinion?
← Ctrl← Alt
Ctrl →Alt →