See, you are approaching this in a logical fashion and Snape's problem - and what makes him an interesting character - is that he is completely irrational about Harry and his father. Does he have cause to be? Well, yeah, a bit. James Potter and Sirius Black first pantsed him when Snepe was minding his own business, he started hating them, he started following them around, and they tried to off him. Immature on all parts? Sure, but I'd be a little bitter about that as well.
Problem with Snape is that he's been bitter about it for twenty years. The interesting question is why. My guess is it's because he's been a double agent for that long and everyone still treats him like crap. Sure, one could argue that he floated his boat when he joined the Death Eaters and now he should have to live with it - excpet, oh, wait. He was Harry's age then. Harry gets away with everything and Snape's stuck paying for his mistakes.
For someone who is not a very good person, like Snape, that's got to be irritating.
And, well, some Snape apologists might feel the way you described, but I don't give two shits about Harry. I think he's uninteresting as a character, which has nothing to do with his being a dumbass. That's just secondary. I don't care if he acts like a man or not. I'd rather not hear much about him at all.
For all that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince = "Harry Potter and Snape", he's still the protagonist, the star of the show, the one the book is *named* after. Expecting not to hear much about Harry in a book named after Harry is, I'm afraid, remarkably stupid, or at least counter-logical.
This no doubt explains much about Harry Potter fandom.
Well, since Harry is in nearly every scene, I can't really blame Brucha for thinking it might not be worth it for someone who'd "rather not hear much about him at all". I'm sure you're not the only one in the fandom who feels like that, but it seems silly/masochistic. I finished His Dark Materials despite Lyra though, so I'm hardly one to talk.
I also despised Buffy the character but liked Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I don't have that level of pure hatred for Harry, but I find him uninteresting. Still, I find Rowling's little fictitious universe interesting, and I derive enjoyment from the stories. Rather sillier to me is for someone to dictate that one can/cannot enjoy something based upon one's feelings about the protagonist.
See, you are approaching this in a logical fashion and Snape's problem - and what makes him an interesting character - is that he is completely irrational about Harry and his father.
This is actually a take on the guy I can accept--that he's indefensibly a git and that makes him interesting. I suppose this applies to my appreciation of Anakin Skywalker--I think half the stuff he does is wrong or stupid, but at least he's wrong and/or stupid in a way that fascinates me.
My guess is it's because he's been a double agent for that long and everyone still treats him like crap.
Well, that's kind of the point of being a double agent, isn't it? He's supposed to make it look like he's a nasty Death Eater spy right up until his mission is complete, which won't be until somewhere in Book 7. So it's not as if there's some point halfway in where the good guys figure out Snape's a double agent and stop giving him crap--if they could do that he wouldn't be doing his job right.
I'm not saying Snape shouldn't be angsty about that, because even though he surely foresaw these consequences it would still suck to live with them. But I do find it odd that some Snape fans resent the other characters for failing to uncover what Snape is deliberately trying to conceal from them.
Sure, one could argue that he floated his boat when he joined the Death Eaters and now he should have to live with it - excpet, oh, wait. He was Harry's age then. Harry gets away with everything and Snape's stuck paying for his mistakes.
That doesn't make sense to me--the "everything" Harry gets away with doesn't include joining the forces of evil (or at least the appearance of same), so how can you compare that to Snape's reckless youth? Snape's clearly got more to live down than Harry does, given the story's internal logic that helping Voldemort rule the universe or whatever is virtually unpardonable, while mutilating a ferret merely warrants detention.
I'm not saying Snape shouldn't be angsty about that, because even though he surely foresaw these consequences it would still suck to live with them. But I do find it odd that some Snape fans resent the other characters for failing to uncover what Snape is deliberately trying to conceal from them.
Well, up until book 6 (yes, I can see why after that people would be undecided), everyone in the Order knew what Snape was doing was supposedly for the side of good. Harry knew that as well. Now, it doesn't excuse Snape's behavior towards Harry in the classroom, but surely that is enough reason to hate him instead of thinking that he is behind every single evil plan that was ever invented?
That doesn't make sense to me--the "everything" Harry gets away with doesn't include joining the forces of evil (or at least the appearance of same), so how can you compare that to Snape's reckless youth? Snape's clearly got more to live down than Harry does, given the story's internal logic that helping Voldemort rule the universe or whatever is virtually unpardonable, while mutilating a ferret merely warrants detention.
Point taken, but equivalency of wrongdoing isn't really going to be an issue with Snape. All he sees is that the boy is constantly doing ridiculously stupid things and is never punished for them. In fact, he tends to be applauded for them. Is that the attitude of a healthy adult? Obviously not, but I am not claiming the man is healthy.
Well, up until book 6 (yes, I can see why after that people would be undecided), everyone in the Order knew what Snape was doing was supposedly for the side of good. Harry knew that as well.
They've been told he left the Death Eaters and he's really truly no kidding back with the angels, correct? That doesn't mean they believe it. People are so scared of Voldemort they won't even say his name, so it's not a considerable stretch that they would be suspicious of someone claiming to have left his employ. I mean, put yourself in Harry's shoes:
BIG AL D-DORE: What up, Harry, this is Professor Snape. Seems he used to work for the guy who killed your parents but he swears he's cool now, so I'm letting him earn his redemption.
LEGENDARY SUPER DUMBASS: Well, I don't know...say, what are you doing with that there?
SNAPE: Never you mind, Potter. You should shut the hell up. Ten gajillion demerits for Griffinwhatever. Also your mom was a total bitch. But I'm not evil.
I mean, the guy is clearly trying to make people believe he's a double agent, pretending to work for Hogwart's while spying for the Death Eaters, to keep anyone from realizing he's a triple agent, infiltrating the Death Eaters while pretending to pretend to work for Hogwart's while he's spying for the Death Eaters. That whole setup requires several layers of pretense, the most critical of which being that he appears to have earned the trust of the authorities (i.e., Dumbledore) while retaining the suspicion of the general public (i.e., Harry) and the confidence of the villains (i.e. Voldemort).
If there was something that made Harry realize Snape's not so bad, it might also make Voldemort realize Snape's not really working for him, which is too great a risk for Snape to take. So he goes out of his way to make sure people like Harry distrust him, which is why I wouldn't blame people like Harry for doing just that. For Harry (or any character) to see through this facade he'd have to either know this is all a plot device in a story like we do; or he'd have to have some motivation to vindicate Snape, and since Snape makes sure he doesn't I can't blame him for that.
Hehehe, yes, but your premise relies upon the fact that a) Harry isn't supposed to be in the know, despite being the one person whom the good guys are really relying upon in the war against Voldemort, and b) that Harry is, indeed, a super dumbass.
Fact of the matter is that Harry is supposed to be in the know about the methods of the Order (granted, not at this point, but his complete mistrust of Snape in the later books is still based on the same principle it always was - he's a dickweed to Harry in class.) Now, if Harry were really intelligent, he's just play along with everything about Snape that everyone reading the books has already figured out. And I don't think Rowling actually *wants* the readers to think that Harry is a super dumbass, even if he is.
I just can't take it both ways. Either Harry is intelligent and is just being stupid about Snape, or he's a complete fuck-up. Neither option is going to let me cut the boy much slack.
The third option is that Snape and Dumbledore planned out this whole thing far in advance, anticipating when Harry was going to be stupid and when he wasn't, and relying on Harry's absolute trust of Dumbledore and absolute mistrust of Snape in order to orchestrate six years of a grand scheme in which his anger became so finely honed and directed at Snape - out of a need for revenge - that he could actually hold his own in a battle with Voldemort, despite the fact that Voldemort is far more powerful than he is. And that would be a pretty cool story, but I don't think Rowling is that smart.
Hehehe, yes, but your premise relies upon the fact that a) Harry isn't supposed to be in the know, despite being the one person whom the good guys are really relying upon in the war against Voldemort, and b) that Harry is, indeed, a super dumbass.
On point a) he's obviously not in the know and somebody else (probably Dumbledore) is to blame for that. Whether this is a good idea or not remains to be seen. On the possibility that b) might not be true, I think the evidence is staggering.
And I don't think Rowling actually *wants* the readers to think that Harry is a super dumbass, even if he is.
OK, that's certainly a good point. We're supposed to think Harry is of at least average intelligence and doing as well as the reader could under the circumstances. But I also think we're supposed to think that Harry's judgement is justifiably clouded by his emotions, and that Snape being a mean teacher is really supposed to make it impossible for him to figure out that Snape may be on his side. But as I've noted, the book is written for teenagers and completely unprepared to get deconstructed at the level its actual fanbase is capable of.
Well, if Harry's judgment is supposed to be clouded by his irrational crap-thinking, then isn't Snape allowed the same excuse? I mean, Snape is a total moron when it comes to anything that has to do with Sirius Black or James Potter - he just gets testy and whiny and goes into the same idiotic capslock mode Harry does.
Yes, one can bring up the argument here that Harry is just a child...but really, he's like fourteen in this book and sixteen in HBP. It's pathetic. Snape is being pathetic, too, but he doesn't have the "just a child" excuse, nor does he have the "I am the protagonist" fallback, so his whininess is far more interesting. What made him so whiny? How can he be brilliant at potions, a double-triple-sundae-supreme-agent, a trusted member of the order, an trusted member of the death eaters, and still such a petulant fuck? That intrigues me far more than Harry, the excuse-for-everything deus-ex-machina kid.
I suppose, yeah, we adults overanalyze. And I also assume we'll never get the payback we want. ctually, I am sorta counting on it at this point. I actually get just as much pleasure from these snarky-ass reviews ripping the books to shreds as I do the actual books. Both are fun.
Still, damn, some writers who construct books written for pre-teens manage to do it in some fashion that is not limited to one audience. Adults can read them, kids can read them, all is good. Even Spongebob manages that. One doesn't have to break down why Batman TAS is fucking cool into child viewer/adult viewer distinctions. That's where Rowling is fucking up.
Problem with Snape is that he's been bitter about it for twenty years. The interesting question is why. My guess is it's because he's been a double agent for that long and everyone still treats him like crap. Sure, one could argue that he floated his boat when he joined the Death Eaters and now he should have to live with it - excpet, oh, wait. He was Harry's age then. Harry gets away with everything and Snape's stuck paying for his mistakes.
For someone who is not a very good person, like Snape, that's got to be irritating.
And, well, some Snape apologists might feel the way you described, but I don't give two shits about Harry. I think he's uninteresting as a character, which has nothing to do with his being a dumbass. That's just secondary. I don't care if he acts like a man or not. I'd rather not hear much about him at all.
Reply
For all that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince = "Harry Potter and Snape", he's still the protagonist, the star of the show, the one the book is *named* after. Expecting not to hear much about Harry in a book named after Harry is, I'm afraid, remarkably stupid, or at least counter-logical.
This no doubt explains much about Harry Potter fandom.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
This is actually a take on the guy I can accept--that he's indefensibly a git and that makes him interesting. I suppose this applies to my appreciation of Anakin Skywalker--I think half the stuff he does is wrong or stupid, but at least he's wrong and/or stupid in a way that fascinates me.
My guess is it's because he's been a double agent for that long and everyone still treats him like crap.
Well, that's kind of the point of being a double agent, isn't it? He's supposed to make it look like he's a nasty Death Eater spy right up until his mission is complete, which won't be until somewhere in Book 7. So it's not as if there's some point halfway in where the good guys figure out Snape's a double agent and stop giving him crap--if they could do that he wouldn't be doing his job right.
I'm not saying Snape shouldn't be angsty about that, because even though he surely foresaw these consequences it would still suck to live with them. But I do find it odd that some Snape fans resent the other characters for failing to uncover what Snape is deliberately trying to conceal from them.
Sure, one could argue that he floated his boat when he joined the Death Eaters and now he should have to live with it - excpet, oh, wait. He was Harry's age then. Harry gets away with everything and Snape's stuck paying for his mistakes.
That doesn't make sense to me--the "everything" Harry gets away with doesn't include joining the forces of evil (or at least the appearance of same), so how can you compare that to Snape's reckless youth? Snape's clearly got more to live down than Harry does, given the story's internal logic that helping Voldemort rule the universe or whatever is virtually unpardonable, while mutilating a ferret merely warrants detention.
Reply
Well, up until book 6 (yes, I can see why after that people would be undecided), everyone in the Order knew what Snape was doing was supposedly for the side of good. Harry knew that as well. Now, it doesn't excuse Snape's behavior towards Harry in the classroom, but surely that is enough reason to hate him instead of thinking that he is behind every single evil plan that was ever invented?
That doesn't make sense to me--the "everything" Harry gets away with doesn't include joining the forces of evil (or at least the appearance of same), so how can you compare that to Snape's reckless youth? Snape's clearly got more to live down than Harry does, given the story's internal logic that helping Voldemort rule the universe or whatever is virtually unpardonable, while mutilating a ferret merely warrants detention.
Point taken, but equivalency of wrongdoing isn't really going to be an issue with Snape. All he sees is that the boy is constantly doing ridiculously stupid things and is never punished for them. In fact, he tends to be applauded for them. Is that the attitude of a healthy adult? Obviously not, but I am not claiming the man is healthy.
Reply
They've been told he left the Death Eaters and he's really truly no kidding back with the angels, correct? That doesn't mean they believe it. People are so scared of Voldemort they won't even say his name, so it's not a considerable stretch that they would be suspicious of someone claiming to have left his employ. I mean, put yourself in Harry's shoes:
BIG AL D-DORE: What up, Harry, this is Professor Snape. Seems he used to work for the guy who killed your parents but he swears he's cool now, so I'm letting him earn his redemption.
LEGENDARY SUPER DUMBASS: Well, I don't know...say, what are you doing with that there?
SNAPE: Never you mind, Potter. You should shut the hell up. Ten gajillion demerits for Griffinwhatever. Also your mom was a total bitch. But I'm not evil.
I mean, the guy is clearly trying to make people believe he's a double agent, pretending to work for Hogwart's while spying for the Death Eaters, to keep anyone from realizing he's a triple agent, infiltrating the Death Eaters while pretending to pretend to work for Hogwart's while he's spying for the Death Eaters. That whole setup requires several layers of pretense, the most critical of which being that he appears to have earned the trust of the authorities (i.e., Dumbledore) while retaining the suspicion of the general public (i.e., Harry) and the confidence of the villains (i.e. Voldemort).
If there was something that made Harry realize Snape's not so bad, it might also make Voldemort realize Snape's not really working for him, which is too great a risk for Snape to take. So he goes out of his way to make sure people like Harry distrust him, which is why I wouldn't blame people like Harry for doing just that. For Harry (or any character) to see through this facade he'd have to either know this is all a plot device in a story like we do; or he'd have to have some motivation to vindicate Snape, and since Snape makes sure he doesn't I can't blame him for that.
Reply
Fact of the matter is that Harry is supposed to be in the know about the methods of the Order (granted, not at this point, but his complete mistrust of Snape in the later books is still based on the same principle it always was - he's a dickweed to Harry in class.) Now, if Harry were really intelligent, he's just play along with everything about Snape that everyone reading the books has already figured out. And I don't think Rowling actually *wants* the readers to think that Harry is a super dumbass, even if he is.
I just can't take it both ways. Either Harry is intelligent and is just being stupid about Snape, or he's a complete fuck-up. Neither option is going to let me cut the boy much slack.
The third option is that Snape and Dumbledore planned out this whole thing far in advance, anticipating when Harry was going to be stupid and when he wasn't, and relying on Harry's absolute trust of Dumbledore and absolute mistrust of Snape in order to orchestrate six years of a grand scheme in which his anger became so finely honed and directed at Snape - out of a need for revenge - that he could actually hold his own in a battle with Voldemort, despite the fact that Voldemort is far more powerful than he is. And that would be a pretty cool story, but I don't think Rowling is that smart.
Reply
On point a) he's obviously not in the know and somebody else (probably Dumbledore) is to blame for that. Whether this is a good idea or not remains to be seen. On the possibility that b) might not be true, I think the evidence is staggering.
And I don't think Rowling actually *wants* the readers to think that Harry is a super dumbass, even if he is.
OK, that's certainly a good point. We're supposed to think Harry is of at least average intelligence and doing as well as the reader could under the circumstances. But I also think we're supposed to think that Harry's judgement is justifiably clouded by his emotions, and that Snape being a mean teacher is really supposed to make it impossible for him to figure out that Snape may be on his side. But as I've noted, the book is written for teenagers and completely unprepared to get deconstructed at the level its actual fanbase is capable of.
Reply
Yes, one can bring up the argument here that Harry is just a child...but really, he's like fourteen in this book and sixteen in HBP. It's pathetic. Snape is being pathetic, too, but he doesn't have the "just a child" excuse, nor does he have the "I am the protagonist" fallback, so his whininess is far more interesting. What made him so whiny? How can he be brilliant at potions, a double-triple-sundae-supreme-agent, a trusted member of the order, an trusted member of the death eaters, and still such a petulant fuck? That intrigues me far more than Harry, the excuse-for-everything deus-ex-machina kid.
I suppose, yeah, we adults overanalyze. And I also assume we'll never get the payback we want. ctually, I am sorta counting on it at this point. I actually get just as much pleasure from these snarky-ass reviews ripping the books to shreds as I do the actual books. Both are fun.
Still, damn, some writers who construct books written for pre-teens manage to do it in some fashion that is not limited to one audience. Adults can read them, kids can read them, all is good. Even Spongebob manages that. One doesn't have to break down why Batman TAS is fucking cool into child viewer/adult viewer distinctions. That's where Rowling is fucking up.
Reply
Leave a comment