I was disappointed. Not that Snape died, really -- I expected it and don't blame her for that, it's the tried-and-true way of dealing with complex characters -- but I disliked some of the messages the book seemed to reinforce, unless one reads subversively (and I really don't think JKR intended readers to do that for "Deathly Hallows").
For instance:
--Unforgivables are OK if you mean well, or even if you're just in the mood as long as you're on the Right Side. Seriously -- why oh why did she have Harry cast Cruciatus and then toss off a quip about how Bella was right, you have to mean it? At the time I thought JKR must have put that in for a reason and would give Harry a nasty moment of "what have I become, I'd better watch myself, every one of us must be vigilant against our worst instincts" -- sort of Dumbledore Lite -- but no. Nothing.
--With a depressingly few exceptions, Slytherin House really is the refuge of jerks and Death Eaters-to-be. No, I didn't expect or want Slytherin House to fight en masse for Harry Potter. But life under Voldemort was terrible for some in the wizarding world and lousy for most. Surely some of Slytherin House was affected. Surely some of them, if not personally affected, would feel this was not in the best interest of society -- not in their OWN best interest, for why would they want to spend their lives kowtowing to a dangerous Dark Lord? But no. By having not one -- not ONE -- Slytherin student stand up with the other houses to protect Harry, JKR seems to say that it really is as simple as she suggested in Book One: Your choices define you, most particularly your sort-of choice at age eleven about which Hogwarts house to join.
--Dumbledore's worth admiring and naming your son after, never mind how he treated Snape. I can easily forgive Dumbledore for his misspent youth -- I can forgive Snape's, after all -- but I was astonished to see how the men interacted. I expected Dumbledore to be understanding, drawing on his own experience. "Ah," I said, "this explains why he's willing to give second chances." But no -- he was cold. He was outright cruel in spots. "You disgust me" I can get over, since he hasn't yet seen how Snape will willingly risk everything, but afterward -- when I read those scenes for a third time, I actually started crying angry tears. What would it have cost Dumbledore to treat Snape with half the kindness he showed Harry? Where is the love he insisted was so important? But Rowling doesn't seem to think this is significant, at least not enough to have Harry address this with Dumbledore or to give "Albus Severus Potter" another name. ALBUS SEVERUS. Argh.
--Another James Potter. Wonderful. Harry's son seems to live up to the name, teasing his little brother about Slytherin and then aiming a kick at him for no reason.
In conclusion: NO, ALL IS NOT BLOODY WELL.
Sorry, feeling a bit upset.
There were lots of parts I did like; they were just overwhelmed by the parts I detested.
*hugs* I'm sorry you were so disappointed in the book, even though you did like a few spots.
The Unforgiveables did bother me, as well. I thought Rowling was inconsistent because, earlier in the book, Harry was lecturing Remus Lupin about not becoming Voldemort. I'm not sure what was going on in that scene he used Crucio. Like you, I didn't mind that he used the curse ... but i did mind that he didn't really reflect on it afterwards. I think that was a plotting/pacing problem. There was so much happening at that point. I think, if I had been her editor - hah! - I'd have suggested that he use the curse in the middle of the book, at some point when he and Ron and Hermione had so much time to reflect and muse over their helplessness and such. But then Rowling probably would have fired me. ;-D
Strangely enough, I'm not bothered about the Albus Severus name. The fact is, both men taught Harry lessons: Dumbledore - to be cool in the face of battle - and Snape - to be brave, even in the face of no reward. And I think this was a brilliant switch on Rowling's part. It was the Slytherin who taught Harry bravery and the Gryffindor who taught him cunning and cool logic. The Houses didn't really matter, after all.
Of course, your previous point refutes that. I don't think seaislewitch is on your f-list, but she's a bit Draco/Pansy shipper, and she's had some really interesting things to say about Rowling's treatment of the Slytherins. She actually applauds the fact that none of the Slytherins stood up at the end ... not because she thinks they're evil but because they were behaving in their own best interest there. They don't know Harry, trust Harry, or feel certain that Harry will win.
But yes, I was a little disappointed that there wasn't at least one Slytherin who stood up at the table ... or came running back in when the others had left, or something like that. I suppose Snape was our one "fight for the greater cause" Slytherin.
I have an essay in my head that I will probably never write. But I think Rowling dislikes ambition and political power. We see this in her treatment of Slytherin and the Slytherin house, Voldemort, Snape, Dumbledore, Grindelwald, Percy, Umbridge, the Ministry as a whole, really, and in other cases that I can't think of at the moment. Harry is her hero because he doesn't want power and has it.
Anyway, none of this is making you feel better, I'm sure. I do hope you're doing well ... which may sound kind of silly, but I know I'm feeling strange after reading the book, and I actually liked the book as a whole.
To be honest, I'm trying not to think of what I didn't like. It's my solution to all things in life. Just like Elizabeth Bennet. Think on the past only as it gives you pleasure, or something like that. :-D
And I think this was a brilliant switch on Rowling's part. It was the Slytherin who taught Harry bravery and the Gryffindor who taught him cunning and cool logic.
A good point. I'll have to think about that.
I do acknowledge that the Slytherins had no reason to trust Harry or believe he'd win. But I would argue that seeing Voldemort overthrown IS in their best interest -- why on earth ambitious people would make up the majority of Voldemort's hem-kissing crowd is beyond me. If they can see that everyone else in the school seems to be united in the overthrow-Voldemort plan, it's less about trusting Harry than taking this last best chance.
The problem is, Snape isn't our one "fight for the greater cause" Slytherin, at least not if you think greater causes are things like Individual Rights or Good Rather Than Evil. He seems motivated by nothing but love for Lily.
By the way, I agree with you about Lily. I don't think less of her for doing what she thought was right for her own health and sanity. I don't even think Snape loved her, I think he was in love with the idea of her.
I do feel bad for Snape, however, looked down on by almost everyone for his house or his poverty or his unloveliness (or possibly all three) -- all he had was his friendship with Lily and with his housemates. I don't think he would have joined the Death Eaters if he hadn't lost her. He couldn't have reconciled joining, even if for non-blood reasons like power or knowledge.
Thanks for your well wishes! I'm doing all right. The end of the series would have been a bummer even if it had been made of awesome -- endings are like that.
The problem is, Snape isn't our one "fight for the greater cause" Slytherin, at least not if you think greater causes are things like Individual Rights or Good Rather Than Evil. He seems motivated by nothing but love for Lily.
Yes, you're right. Also, I agree that the Slytherins could have been better handled. I think someone - sigune, perhaps? - said that Rowling bit off more than she could chew. She ended up creating more characters than she could actually deal with effectively.
This has made me think back to Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, oddly enough. True, it's only one book, not seven, but I've really come to appreciate how most all of the characters fit so well into the larger story.
I also agree with everyone who's said that Rowling rushed to publish this book. I don't know if she'd have considered taking more time. Maybe she felt like she had the story the way she wanted it and dammit, she wanted to end this nonsense! But had she taken a little more time, reread her own books, had editors who pushed her a bit more, and I think DH could have been a better book.
As for Snape, I see the issue of his joining the DEs differently than you.
I don't think he would have joined the Death Eaters if he hadn't lost her. He couldn't have reconciled joining, even if for non-blood reasons like power or knowledge.
I think Rowling is trying to say that he already had joined the DEs. There's that scene outside the Gryffindor common room when Lily says something like - You're planning to become Death Eaters ... see, you're not even trying to deny it! I see Snape as torn between two opposing desires: power/ambition and love. And I think Rowling has little mercy for those who chose power over love. Voldemort, Dumbledore, and Snape all, at one point or another, chose power over love. Dumbledore and Snape were able to gain "redemption" by serving the rest of their lives - unfair, I agree, but apparently their tragic flaw led to a tragic death in Rowling's mind. So, I think Rowling sees Snape differently than most of us in the fandom do. She sees Snape as having foresaken Lily - or the idea of Lily - for the Death Eaters. He didn't "lose" Lily; he gave her up. Now, I'll admit that it's entirely possible to read the story in a different way. But I think that was Rowling's intent.
This raises one of the most interesting lit crit debates: how much should authorial intent matter? I've seen so many people on the web saying that Rowling didn't understand the character (Snape) she'd written. Part of me wants to laugh at this; it's her character! On the other hand, they could be perfectly correct. PErhaps she doesn't understand. For no matter what she intended, the creation is in fact separate from her now. That's a freaky and really awesome concept, really. That text becomes something wholly separate from its creator ... really makes the "giving birth" to a book analogy work!
If you made sense out of any of that, you deserve a prize. ;-D
It makes perfect sense, as usual! I'm endlessly fascinated about the difference between authorial intent and what readers take from a book.
I think Rowling is trying to say that he already had joined the DEs.
You may be right. I didn't see it that way: I saw Snape as teetering near a major life decision without entirely realizing it.
Lily says, "You and your precious little Death Eater friends -- you see, you don't even deny it! You don't even deny that's what you're all aiming to be! You can't wait to join You-Know-Who, can you?"
Snape's silence can be taken in several ways: "yeah, you're right," or "actually, I already have joined him" or -- and this is how I read it -- "I don't want to choose between you and my other few friends." By refusing to choose, he made his choice. I don't think that's quite the same as choosing power over love (it's more pitiful, actually, the action of someone who desperately tries to hold on to everything he has in the face of general dislike). But perhaps I'm giving him too much credit. Certainly the power-vs.-love issue is one that runs through the Harry Potter series and would be thematically consistent.
I agree with your point about Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell: I thought it tied up much better than Deathly Hallows tied up the series. Perhaps all her threads just got too unwieldy for Rowling. I'm sure more time would have helped -- and yes, better editing. There's nothing worse for an author than editors who declare, "It's all perfect! Don't you dare change a thing!"
I just stumbled upon this essay about the book and, naturally, was agreeing loudly with it the whole time until DH (husband, not book) had to stop me and have me read it to him.
Interesting. I'm not sure I agree with it, but it's very interesting.
Here's what I don't agree with: - Harry doesn't change or grow. But I think he does. Just because there's never a question of him choosing the side of "good" doesn't mean he is a static character. Sawyer of the article says "puberty aside" as if this change were less important than the question of good versus evil. I think about my students reading these books. They don't, for the most part, question that they're "good" people. (Most people think they're "good," I think.) They're not looking to choose the "good" or the "evil" path in life. But they do know that they have flaws: they don't work hard enough; they're too emotional; they're not willing to listen to advice; they isolate themselves when they should call on friends to help. These are very adolescent concerns, I think. In this sense, Harry grows up. This is a coming of age story more than anything else. At least, that's how I read it. The "good" versus "evil" debate is more of an adult one (IMO). - This story, like most all modern commercial stories, has no authentic moral. Sawyer says that she doesn't want to return to the Victorian didacticism of Victorian stories. Strangely enough, I find HP to be more like Oliver Twist than any modern Disney flick. (Have you read Oliver Twist? If not, minor spoilers ahead ...) A seemingly ordinary orphan, in the care of so-called "moral" individuals of the middle class who are really corrupt and sick. Several villains - one, Fagin, who is mean and bad but not really evil; the other, Sikes, who is truly evil and brutal. A dead mother who is key to everything. A helpful old man, some friends along the way, and in the end, a very settled life the hero deserves. It's not an exact match, of course (or else Charles Dickens would have risen from the grave and sued Rowling ;-D), but Harry Potter is much more Victorian than I expected. There is a clear good and evil, and yet, some of the supporting cast - Snape, the Dursleys, the Malfoys, the Ministry officials etc. - show the various shades of good and evil. Like Oliver Twist, Harry will always make the good choice ... but not before you , the reader, see the other options.
I do agree with Sawyer, though, that Snape would have been the more interesting protagonist. But he would have been the more interesting protagonist for a series aimed at adults. I'm not trying to argue that teens are too stupid to recognize and appreciate the struggle Snape undergoes. But I don't think many teens are in an emotional place to really appreciate that struggle. I know I wasn't. (Though I wish I could say that I was. sigune and the-bitter-word both said that, when they were teens, they would have been rooting for Snape. But I was still very much in a black and white world, only just beginning to accept that decent people do some really nasty things.
And I think that most of my students really could have cared less about Snape (based on the few HP club meetings when we actually talked about character development ...) They identified with the Trio ... or Draco. Probably in part because of the movies, but also because these were fellow teenagers. Their experiences, even in a fantasy world, were so much closer to the experiences they had. Of course, I teach at a private school, and most of my students are privileged (though not necessarily wealthy).
In this sense, Harry grows up. This is a coming of age story more than anything else. At least, that's how I read it. The "good" versus "evil" debate is more of an adult one (IMO).
It's true, he's certainly not static. The reason I agreed with the essay is it seems Harry's issues -- particularly jumping to conclusions and his hatred of Snape -- are resolved without any struggle on his part. Jumping to conclusions? It's OK! He happens to be right! Except where Snape is concerned, at least -- which brings us to No. 2, and ... well, that just went away for no apparent reason. I don't mean when he viewed Snape's memories; I was struck long beforehand that his raging anger at the end of Half-Blood Prince had petered out. We get that one moment of him yelling "Snape!" when we learn who sliced off George's ear, but that's it. I expected him to have to work through this, and it was odd that he didn't.
It's the same with his flashes of dark-ish behavior. Back in OotP, when his interaction with Dudley made me think of Snape at his most sarcastically bitter, I thought: Oh, this is really clever, Rowling's making her hero more like the anti-hero -- what possibilities. Then you have him gleefully using Snape's questionable spells in HBP (I flinched when he cast something -- can't remember what now -- at Filch just because he could). And finally the Cruciatus in DH, which bothered me more than the botched one in OotP because the second time, Harry is in full control of himself and treats it as a bit of a laugh. All this ought to be leading somewhere, but it doesn't. Harry is Goodness Itself because ... just because. "All was well."
Maybe I'm being too harsh? I'm not a Harry-hater, really -- I don't want him exposed as a terrible person. I just wanted these things to be dealt with, rather than swept under the carpet.
Anyway, I completely agree with you that most kids, even older ones, don't identify with Snape. Why should they? I think you have to be older to personally understand the appeal of a flawed character slouching toward redemption.
I was struck long beforehand that his raging anger at the end of Half-Blood Prince had petered out. We get that one moment of him yelling "Snape!" when we learn who sliced off George's ear, but that's it. I expected him to have to work through this, and it was odd that he didn't.
You're exactly right. It did seem, at the end of HBP, that Rowling was setting us up for a major confrontation between Snape and Harry. And it never came. Now that I think about it that way, I'm pretty disappointed! Not in her characterizations, exactly ... but in her plotting. It's just another one of those instances when she seemed to promise a story that didn't develop. I read over a transcript of her most recent Q&A chat (post-DH) and someone asked about the character who was supposed to develop magic late in life. Her response was something like "Oops, wasn't able to fit that in. Sorry." And I thought, wow, that's something I'd do in a fanfic (if I ever finished). But I didn't expect Rowling to do this! Makes me realize I expected a little too much. I guess, if I were being objective, I'd have realized this last year when I went to the NYC book reading. When she read an excerpt from HBP just after John Irving read an excerpt from "A Prayer for Owen Meany," I remember thinking - Wow, Irving is pretty damn good. I didn't think - "Wow, Rowling isn't nearly as good." But I think that was the reality of it. ;-D Don't get me wrong. I'm still a fan of the book, the series, and Rowling. But the more we continue these conversations, the more I'm forced to admit that the story could have been much stronger. I guess what I'm trying to articulate (badly) is that there are some disagreements over the characterizations (should Snape have loved Lily, should Harry have been so angry, should Hermione have been so whiny, etc.). I think this is the author's choice, and if a reader doesn't like those characterizations, that doesn't necessarily mean the author lacks skill ... only that reader and author see things differently. But then there are some issues that readers have that really stem from flaws in the storytelling. I think Harry's strange lack of anger toward Snape in much of DH is one of those problems because the author told us he was angry but then didn't really show that anger as being important.
Wow, I took a really long paragraph to tell you what you just told me. And I'm criticizing Rowling for the way she writes? ;-D
Maybe I'm being too harsh? I'm not a Harry-hater, really -- I don't want him exposed as a terrible person. I just wanted these things to be dealt with, rather than swept under the carpet.
No, you're not being too harsh. This makes complete sense.
Part II of the abovesophieromJuly 29 2007, 12:09:30 UTC
Sorry, I couldn't finish the response below in one comment. I'm too long-winded ... and I'm not really saying anything. Amazing! ;-D
I think this is what disappointed so many people about the series ... that it ended up being the children's story that the NYT and others always claimed that it was. We were hoping for an adult story "masked" as a children's story. But it wasn't.
I realize this is Sawyer's point ... it should be a more complex children's story. Children need a protagonist who struggles with redemption and guilt. Maybe. I don't think Snape should have been the protagonist, though. I also don't think Harry should have had a moment when he considered going to the "dark" side so that we could see the struggle. I would have been completely satisfied if Harry had - as you pointed out in an earlier response - struggled with his use of Unforgivables. Perhaps even considered - or even used - the AK. I don't think we need stories about people who struggle for redemption so much as we need stories that question "ends justify the means" mentality. I think power was one of the most interesting themes in the series. She could have had Harry struggle with the use of power a bit more.
Okay, I'm really rambling now. Thanks for sending along the article! I see that Sawyer is a children's lit critic. Well, maybe she knows more of what she's talking about than I do. ;-D Makes me wonder if she's seen the cartoon Avatar: The Last Airbender. Have you? Have I ever mentioned it before? (Don't ask me how my husband and I began watching a show on Nickelodian aimed at 6-11 year olds. I don't know if this is a comment on our maturity level ... or on the lack of good television for adults!) It's the story of this world with four peoples - Air, Water, Fire, and Earth. Each tribe has - or had - benders ... people who could manipulate their nation's element. Then there's the Avatar, someone who can manipulate all four elements. She or he keeps the four nations in balance and in check. But 100 years before the story starts, the Avatar dies, and the next Avatar goes missing. The Fire Nation starts a brutal war, and the world is in chaos. These two water tribe kids find the last Avatar - a 10 year-old kid who has been literally frozen in time since the war started. (Sounds silly, I know, but it makes more sense if you watch the show. ;-D) These three are the protagonists. The antagonist is the Prince of the Fire Nation. He's actually been banished by his father. He can only return home if he brings the last avatar with him. The Prince is the most interesting character in the series. He desperately wants to be loved and recognized by his father, so he really wants to nab the Avatar. But he's not really a bad kid at all. He has to make some really hard choices. He's not the protagonist, and most of the episodes aren't about him. (They're about the avatar, who is still learning to master the elements.) But it reminds me a great deal of the Harry Potter series. The third season is still being produced. I think it's supposed to be ready in the fall or winter.
Re: Part II of the abovedeebleJuly 30 2007, 20:19:18 UTC
I haven't seen that show -- it sounds interesting. (I found Smallville interesting for a similar reason -- young Lex Luthor is teetering at the edge of Good and Bad, wanting his screwed-up father's approbation.)
Anyway -- I've just realized that we're sort of making the same point about Harry. I didn't want him to considering going Dark, either. That wouldn't make sense for his character.
I think this is what disappointed so many people about the series ... that it ended up being the children's story that the NYT and others always claimed that it was.
Re: Part II of the abovesophieromJuly 30 2007, 21:24:53 UTC
(I found Smallville interesting for a similar reason -- young Lex Luthor is teetering at the edge of Good and Bad, wanting his screwed-up father's approbation.)
Yes! I actually haven't watched Smallville since Season 3 (I think, maybe Season 2). But I watched it for Lex rather than Clark. Sure, Clark was nice to look at in his corn-fed manly way, but give me the tortured bald guy and his devious father any day of the week! ;-D (The father reminded me a great deal of Lucius ... wait, was his name Lucius? What was his name?) Have you kept up with the show?
Hope all is well with you.
It is, thanks! (Well, I have my econ class in an hour, and I'm getting a test back. I feel like I'm in high school all over again. ;-D Otherwise, I'm grand.)
For instance:
--Unforgivables are OK if you mean well, or even if you're just in the mood as long as you're on the Right Side. Seriously -- why oh why did she have Harry cast Cruciatus and then toss off a quip about how Bella was right, you have to mean it? At the time I thought JKR must have put that in for a reason and would give Harry a nasty moment of "what have I become, I'd better watch myself, every one of us must be vigilant against our worst instincts" -- sort of Dumbledore Lite -- but no. Nothing.
--With a depressingly few exceptions, Slytherin House really is the refuge of jerks and Death Eaters-to-be. No, I didn't expect or want Slytherin House to fight en masse for Harry Potter. But life under Voldemort was terrible for some in the wizarding world and lousy for most. Surely some of Slytherin House was affected. Surely some of them, if not personally affected, would feel this was not in the best interest of society -- not in their OWN best interest, for why would they want to spend their lives kowtowing to a dangerous Dark Lord? But no. By having not one -- not ONE -- Slytherin student stand up with the other houses to protect Harry, JKR seems to say that it really is as simple as she suggested in Book One: Your choices define you, most particularly your sort-of choice at age eleven about which Hogwarts house to join.
--Dumbledore's worth admiring and naming your son after, never mind how he treated Snape. I can easily forgive Dumbledore for his misspent youth -- I can forgive Snape's, after all -- but I was astonished to see how the men interacted. I expected Dumbledore to be understanding, drawing on his own experience. "Ah," I said, "this explains why he's willing to give second chances." But no -- he was cold. He was outright cruel in spots. "You disgust me" I can get over, since he hasn't yet seen how Snape will willingly risk everything, but afterward -- when I read those scenes for a third time, I actually started crying angry tears. What would it have cost Dumbledore to treat Snape with half the kindness he showed Harry? Where is the love he insisted was so important? But Rowling doesn't seem to think this is significant, at least not enough to have Harry address this with Dumbledore or to give "Albus Severus Potter" another name. ALBUS SEVERUS. Argh.
--Another James Potter. Wonderful. Harry's son seems to live up to the name, teasing his little brother about Slytherin and then aiming a kick at him for no reason.
In conclusion: NO, ALL IS NOT BLOODY WELL.
Sorry, feeling a bit upset.
There were lots of parts I did like; they were just overwhelmed by the parts I detested.
Reply
The Unforgiveables did bother me, as well. I thought Rowling was inconsistent because, earlier in the book, Harry was lecturing Remus Lupin about not becoming Voldemort. I'm not sure what was going on in that scene he used Crucio. Like you, I didn't mind that he used the curse ... but i did mind that he didn't really reflect on it afterwards. I think that was a plotting/pacing problem. There was so much happening at that point. I think, if I had been her editor - hah! - I'd have suggested that he use the curse in the middle of the book, at some point when he and Ron and Hermione had so much time to reflect and muse over their helplessness and such. But then Rowling probably would have fired me. ;-D
Strangely enough, I'm not bothered about the Albus Severus name. The fact is, both men taught Harry lessons: Dumbledore - to be cool in the face of battle - and Snape - to be brave, even in the face of no reward. And I think this was a brilliant switch on Rowling's part. It was the Slytherin who taught Harry bravery and the Gryffindor who taught him cunning and cool logic. The Houses didn't really matter, after all.
Of course, your previous point refutes that. I don't think seaislewitch is on your f-list, but she's a bit Draco/Pansy shipper, and she's had some really interesting things to say about Rowling's treatment of the Slytherins. She actually applauds the fact that none of the Slytherins stood up at the end ... not because she thinks they're evil but because they were behaving in their own best interest there. They don't know Harry, trust Harry, or feel certain that Harry will win.
But yes, I was a little disappointed that there wasn't at least one Slytherin who stood up at the table ... or came running back in when the others had left, or something like that. I suppose Snape was our one "fight for the greater cause" Slytherin.
I have an essay in my head that I will probably never write. But I think Rowling dislikes ambition and political power. We see this in her treatment of Slytherin and the Slytherin house, Voldemort, Snape, Dumbledore, Grindelwald, Percy, Umbridge, the Ministry as a whole, really, and in other cases that I can't think of at the moment. Harry is her hero because he doesn't want power and has it.
Anyway, none of this is making you feel better, I'm sure. I do hope you're doing well ... which may sound kind of silly, but I know I'm feeling strange after reading the book, and I actually liked the book as a whole.
To be honest, I'm trying not to think of what I didn't like. It's my solution to all things in life. Just like Elizabeth Bennet. Think on the past only as it gives you pleasure, or something like that. :-D
Reply
A good point. I'll have to think about that.
I do acknowledge that the Slytherins had no reason to trust Harry or believe he'd win. But I would argue that seeing Voldemort overthrown IS in their best interest -- why on earth ambitious people would make up the majority of Voldemort's hem-kissing crowd is beyond me. If they can see that everyone else in the school seems to be united in the overthrow-Voldemort plan, it's less about trusting Harry than taking this last best chance.
The problem is, Snape isn't our one "fight for the greater cause" Slytherin, at least not if you think greater causes are things like Individual Rights or Good Rather Than Evil. He seems motivated by nothing but love for Lily.
By the way, I agree with you about Lily. I don't think less of her for doing what she thought was right for her own health and sanity. I don't even think Snape loved her, I think he was in love with the idea of her.
I do feel bad for Snape, however, looked down on by almost everyone for his house or his poverty or his unloveliness (or possibly all three) -- all he had was his friendship with Lily and with his housemates. I don't think he would have joined the Death Eaters if he hadn't lost her. He couldn't have reconciled joining, even if for non-blood reasons like power or knowledge.
Thanks for your well wishes! I'm doing all right. The end of the series would have been a bummer even if it had been made of awesome -- endings are like that.
Reply
The problem is, Snape isn't our one "fight for the greater cause" Slytherin, at least not if you think greater causes are things like Individual Rights or Good Rather Than Evil. He seems motivated by nothing but love for Lily.
Yes, you're right. Also, I agree that the Slytherins could have been better handled. I think someone - sigune, perhaps? - said that Rowling bit off more than she could chew. She ended up creating more characters than she could actually deal with effectively.
This has made me think back to Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, oddly enough. True, it's only one book, not seven, but I've really come to appreciate how most all of the characters fit so well into the larger story.
I also agree with everyone who's said that Rowling rushed to publish this book. I don't know if she'd have considered taking more time. Maybe she felt like she had the story the way she wanted it and dammit, she wanted to end this nonsense! But had she taken a little more time, reread her own books, had editors who pushed her a bit more, and I think DH could have been a better book.
As for Snape, I see the issue of his joining the DEs differently than you.
I don't think he would have joined the Death Eaters if he hadn't lost her. He couldn't have reconciled joining, even if for non-blood reasons like power or knowledge.
I think Rowling is trying to say that he already had joined the DEs. There's that scene outside the Gryffindor common room when Lily says something like - You're planning to become Death Eaters ... see, you're not even trying to deny it! I see Snape as torn between two opposing desires: power/ambition and love. And I think Rowling has little mercy for those who chose power over love. Voldemort, Dumbledore, and Snape all, at one point or another, chose power over love. Dumbledore and Snape were able to gain "redemption" by serving the rest of their lives - unfair, I agree, but apparently their tragic flaw led to a tragic death in Rowling's mind. So, I think Rowling sees Snape differently than most of us in the fandom do. She sees Snape as having foresaken Lily - or the idea of Lily - for the Death Eaters. He didn't "lose" Lily; he gave her up. Now, I'll admit that it's entirely possible to read the story in a different way. But I think that was Rowling's intent.
This raises one of the most interesting lit crit debates: how much should authorial intent matter? I've seen so many people on the web saying that Rowling didn't understand the character (Snape) she'd written. Part of me wants to laugh at this; it's her character! On the other hand, they could be perfectly correct. PErhaps she doesn't understand. For no matter what she intended, the creation is in fact separate from her now. That's a freaky and really awesome concept, really. That text becomes something wholly separate from its creator ... really makes the "giving birth" to a book analogy work!
If you made sense out of any of that, you deserve a prize. ;-D
Reply
I think Rowling is trying to say that he already had joined the DEs.
You may be right. I didn't see it that way: I saw Snape as teetering near a major life decision without entirely realizing it.
Lily says, "You and your precious little Death Eater friends -- you see, you don't even deny it! You don't even deny that's what you're all aiming to be! You can't wait to join You-Know-Who, can you?"
Snape's silence can be taken in several ways: "yeah, you're right," or "actually, I already have joined him" or -- and this is how I read it -- "I don't want to choose between you and my other few friends." By refusing to choose, he made his choice. I don't think that's quite the same as choosing power over love (it's more pitiful, actually, the action of someone who desperately tries to hold on to everything he has in the face of general dislike). But perhaps I'm giving him too much credit. Certainly the power-vs.-love issue is one that runs through the Harry Potter series and would be thematically consistent.
I agree with your point about Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell: I thought it tied up much better than Deathly Hallows tied up the series. Perhaps all her threads just got too unwieldy for Rowling. I'm sure more time would have helped -- and yes, better editing. There's nothing worse for an author than editors who declare, "It's all perfect! Don't you dare change a thing!"
Reply
Perhaps you'll be interested too:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070725/cm_csm/ysawyer;_ylt=Ai2wauD9Mc0r6j
Reply
Here's what I don't agree with:
- Harry doesn't change or grow. But I think he does. Just because there's never a question of him choosing the side of "good" doesn't mean he is a static character. Sawyer of the article says "puberty aside" as if this change were less important than the question of good versus evil. I think about my students reading these books. They don't, for the most part, question that they're "good" people. (Most people think they're "good," I think.) They're not looking to choose the "good" or the "evil" path in life. But they do know that they have flaws: they don't work hard enough; they're too emotional; they're not willing to listen to advice; they isolate themselves when they should call on friends to help. These are very adolescent concerns, I think. In this sense, Harry grows up. This is a coming of age story more than anything else. At least, that's how I read it. The "good" versus "evil" debate is more of an adult one (IMO).
- This story, like most all modern commercial stories, has no authentic moral. Sawyer says that she doesn't want to return to the Victorian didacticism of Victorian stories. Strangely enough, I find HP to be more like Oliver Twist than any modern Disney flick. (Have you read Oliver Twist? If not, minor spoilers ahead ...) A seemingly ordinary orphan, in the care of so-called "moral" individuals of the middle class who are really corrupt and sick. Several villains - one, Fagin, who is mean and bad but not really evil; the other, Sikes, who is truly evil and brutal. A dead mother who is key to everything. A helpful old man, some friends along the way, and in the end, a very settled life the hero deserves. It's not an exact match, of course (or else Charles Dickens would have risen from the grave and sued Rowling ;-D), but Harry Potter is much more Victorian than I expected. There is a clear good and evil, and yet, some of the supporting cast - Snape, the Dursleys, the Malfoys, the Ministry officials etc. - show the various shades of good and evil. Like Oliver Twist, Harry will always make the good choice ... but not before you , the reader, see the other options.
I do agree with Sawyer, though, that Snape would have been the more interesting protagonist. But he would have been the more interesting protagonist for a series aimed at adults. I'm not trying to argue that teens are too stupid to recognize and appreciate the struggle Snape undergoes. But I don't think many teens are in an emotional place to really appreciate that struggle. I know I wasn't. (Though I wish I could say that I was. sigune and the-bitter-word both said that, when they were teens, they would have been rooting for Snape. But I was still very much in a black and white world, only just beginning to accept that decent people do some really nasty things.
And I think that most of my students really could have cared less about Snape (based on the few HP club meetings when we actually talked about character development ...) They identified with the Trio ... or Draco. Probably in part because of the movies, but also because these were fellow teenagers. Their experiences, even in a fantasy world, were so much closer to the experiences they had. Of course, I teach at a private school, and most of my students are privileged (though not necessarily wealthy).
Reply
It's true, he's certainly not static. The reason I agreed with the essay is it seems Harry's issues -- particularly jumping to conclusions and his hatred of Snape -- are resolved without any struggle on his part. Jumping to conclusions? It's OK! He happens to be right! Except where Snape is concerned, at least -- which brings us to No. 2, and ... well, that just went away for no apparent reason. I don't mean when he viewed Snape's memories; I was struck long beforehand that his raging anger at the end of Half-Blood Prince had petered out. We get that one moment of him yelling "Snape!" when we learn who sliced off George's ear, but that's it. I expected him to have to work through this, and it was odd that he didn't.
It's the same with his flashes of dark-ish behavior. Back in OotP, when his interaction with Dudley made me think of Snape at his most sarcastically bitter, I thought: Oh, this is really clever, Rowling's making her hero more like the anti-hero -- what possibilities. Then you have him gleefully using Snape's questionable spells in HBP (I flinched when he cast something -- can't remember what now -- at Filch just because he could). And finally the Cruciatus in DH, which bothered me more than the botched one in OotP because the second time, Harry is in full control of himself and treats it as a bit of a laugh. All this ought to be leading somewhere, but it doesn't. Harry is Goodness Itself because ... just because. "All was well."
Maybe I'm being too harsh? I'm not a Harry-hater, really -- I don't want him exposed as a terrible person. I just wanted these things to be dealt with, rather than swept under the carpet.
Anyway, I completely agree with you that most kids, even older ones, don't identify with Snape. Why should they? I think you have to be older to personally understand the appeal of a flawed character slouching toward redemption.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
You're exactly right. It did seem, at the end of HBP, that Rowling was setting us up for a major confrontation between Snape and Harry. And it never came. Now that I think about it that way, I'm pretty disappointed! Not in her characterizations, exactly ... but in her plotting. It's just another one of those instances when she seemed to promise a story that didn't develop. I read over a transcript of her most recent Q&A chat (post-DH) and someone asked about the character who was supposed to develop magic late in life. Her response was something like "Oops, wasn't able to fit that in. Sorry." And I thought, wow, that's something I'd do in a fanfic (if I ever finished). But I didn't expect Rowling to do this! Makes me realize I expected a little too much. I guess, if I were being objective, I'd have realized this last year when I went to the NYC book reading. When she read an excerpt from HBP just after John Irving read an excerpt from "A Prayer for Owen Meany," I remember thinking - Wow, Irving is pretty damn good. I didn't think - "Wow, Rowling isn't nearly as good." But I think that was the reality of it. ;-D Don't get me wrong. I'm still a fan of the book, the series, and Rowling. But the more we continue these conversations, the more I'm forced to admit that the story could have been much stronger. I guess what I'm trying to articulate (badly) is that there are some disagreements over the characterizations (should Snape have loved Lily, should Harry have been so angry, should Hermione have been so whiny, etc.). I think this is the author's choice, and if a reader doesn't like those characterizations, that doesn't necessarily mean the author lacks skill ... only that reader and author see things differently. But then there are some issues that readers have that really stem from flaws in the storytelling. I think Harry's strange lack of anger toward Snape in much of DH is one of those problems because the author told us he was angry but then didn't really show that anger as being important.
Wow, I took a really long paragraph to tell you what you just told me. And I'm criticizing Rowling for the way she writes? ;-D
Maybe I'm being too harsh? I'm not a Harry-hater, really -- I don't want him exposed as a terrible person. I just wanted these things to be dealt with, rather than swept under the carpet.
No, you're not being too harsh. This makes complete sense.
Reply
~dances around joyfully~
~realizes that you've been convinced that DH isn't quite as enjoyable as you thought it was; feels guilty~
I don't feel as disappointed with DH as I was with the Star Wars prequels, so I suppose it could be worse. Perhaps I'll go read some John Irving.
Reply
I think this is what disappointed so many people about the series ... that it ended up being the children's story that the NYT and others always claimed that it was. We were hoping for an adult story "masked" as a children's story. But it wasn't.
I realize this is Sawyer's point ... it should be a more complex children's story. Children need a protagonist who struggles with redemption and guilt. Maybe. I don't think Snape should have been the protagonist, though. I also don't think Harry should have had a moment when he considered going to the "dark" side so that we could see the struggle. I would have been completely satisfied if Harry had - as you pointed out in an earlier response - struggled with his use of Unforgivables. Perhaps even considered - or even used - the AK. I don't think we need stories about people who struggle for redemption so much as we need stories that question "ends justify the means" mentality. I think power was one of the most interesting themes in the series. She could have had Harry struggle with the use of power a bit more.
Okay, I'm really rambling now. Thanks for sending along the article! I see that Sawyer is a children's lit critic. Well, maybe she knows more of what she's talking about than I do. ;-D Makes me wonder if she's seen the cartoon Avatar: The Last Airbender. Have you? Have I ever mentioned it before? (Don't ask me how my husband and I began watching a show on Nickelodian aimed at 6-11 year olds. I don't know if this is a comment on our maturity level ... or on the lack of good television for adults!) It's the story of this world with four peoples - Air, Water, Fire, and Earth. Each tribe has - or had - benders ... people who could manipulate their nation's element. Then there's the Avatar, someone who can manipulate all four elements. She or he keeps the four nations in balance and in check. But 100 years before the story starts, the Avatar dies, and the next Avatar goes missing. The Fire Nation starts a brutal war, and the world is in chaos. These two water tribe kids find the last Avatar - a 10 year-old kid who has been literally frozen in time since the war started. (Sounds silly, I know, but it makes more sense if you watch the show. ;-D) These three are the protagonists. The antagonist is the Prince of the Fire Nation. He's actually been banished by his father. He can only return home if he brings the last avatar with him. The Prince is the most interesting character in the series. He desperately wants to be loved and recognized by his father, so he really wants to nab the Avatar. But he's not really a bad kid at all. He has to make some really hard choices. He's not the protagonist, and most of the episodes aren't about him. (They're about the avatar, who is still learning to master the elements.) But it reminds me a great deal of the Harry Potter series. The third season is still being produced. I think it's supposed to be ready in the fall or winter.
Thanks again for the article!
Reply
Anyway -- I've just realized that we're sort of making the same point about Harry. I didn't want him to considering going Dark, either. That wouldn't make sense for his character.
I think this is what disappointed so many people about the series ... that it ended up being the children's story that the NYT and others always claimed that it was.
Yep, pretty much. ;-D
Hope all is well with you.
Reply
Yes! I actually haven't watched Smallville since Season 3 (I think, maybe Season 2). But I watched it for Lex rather than Clark. Sure, Clark was nice to look at in his corn-fed manly way, but give me the tortured bald guy and his devious father any day of the week! ;-D (The father reminded me a great deal of Lucius ... wait, was his name Lucius? What was his name?) Have you kept up with the show?
Hope all is well with you.
It is, thanks! (Well, I have my econ class in an hour, and I'm getting a test back. I feel like I'm in high school all over again. ;-D Otherwise, I'm grand.)
How about you?
Reply
Leave a comment