...the Deathly Hallows Strikes back
Children, it's been twenty weeks since my last confession *cough* post. So it might take me a wee bit to pick up my thoughts about Deathly Hallows, but...
In the fifth book, J.K. Rowling gave us a temptingly complex picture of good and evil. The most blatant way in which this was depicted was, of course, Harry's possession by Lord Voldemort - and, slightly more subtlely, the bleeding of traits between their characters. While the latter was never stated baldly, Harry's frequent bursts of temper and his anger towards Dumbledore was an infiltration by the Wizarding World's bastion of evil - and a metaphor for the tumultuous teen years. Harry, who had always been good, was no longer completely so - no longer entirely innocent. Then there was the way that Dumbledore himself seemed to be drifting away from Harry, showing that even the symbol of great goodness in the Wizarding World couldn't help Harry all the time. Sirius Black, previously Harry's best hope for a home and a family he could trust, turned out to be irresponsible and not a wee bit delusional: calling Harry 'James' and in general being yet one more person Harry had to look after rather than the other way around. Last but certainly not least was the assertion that James Potter was not the man Harry thought he was - or, more accurately, desperately needed him to be. James Potter, golden Gryffindor and beloved by all who spoke of him save Snape, was nothing more than a schoolyard bully, much like Dudley Dursley.
By writing such a story, Rowling encouraged the reader to expand their horizons: to come to believe that the simplistic world Harry had been living in was not so very simple, after all. Dumbledore and Sirius were useless, Snape wasn't so evil after all, and Harry's parents maybe hadn't had the sunny relationship everyone had implied.
The fan reaction was astounding. We as a culture began to adore Snape: his dedication, his morality, his ability to persevere. I think it's also fair to say that the fandom enjoyed him because of his inherent complexity - he hated Harry, but constantly saved him. He detested teaching but somehow it was his life. He was a Death Eater member of the Order of the Phoenix.
Rowling told many audiences that she didn't understand the attraction to Snape - that he was a bad person, and that our love of his character was merely due to the romanticization of the 'bad boy'. It can't be denied that part of the attraction to Snape's character is in hoping for his redemption, but saying that is the sole reason is simplistic.
As if in attempt to prove us all wrong, witness the sixth and seventh books. The sixth book was - there is no other word for it - vapid. And the seventh, while incredibly satisfying as an action movie, was morally bankrupt.
First case in point - the main-character use of Unforgivables. A mere two years ago, and Harry would have considered anyone who cast Imperius or the Cruciatus Curse to be unworthy of anything but Azkaban. However, the Unforgivables become forgivable when it is he or one of his friends who uses them. This was certainly one of the more unsettling parts of the book...
...yup, continued again later...