Oh, TV Tropes...!

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

Quite honestly, the Harry Potter stuff on that site has gotten to the point where I can't read it because just about everything is fawning over how great and super-special-awesome the series is, oh, and how Snape is an evil douchebag who wanted to get Harry and James killed so he could keep Lily. But this... this makes me want to scream:

"Hermione... [is] one of the smartest and more pro-active females in the whole Harry Potter canon and English literature in general"

WHAT THE FUCK?!?!?!

How could they make such a claim?! Hermione is a better heroine than, say, Tiffany Aching?! How about Eliza Doolittle?! And I'm sure you could come up with other examples.

No, no, in Harry Potter it seems fairly obvious that the most powerful women in the series are antagonists. Sure, Hermione's perfectly independent and capable, but in the last several books it's like she becomes Harry's servant because he's too lazy to do anything himself!

God damn it, Harry Potter wouldn't bother me so much if everyone didn't insist it was the greatest thing since sliced bread!

Comments

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

You had me thinking with this, because sure, Snape did, like, save Harry's life there once or twice.

In the end I guess it's more reason to dislike Harry. For example, he ended up hating Snape with a passon at the end of book #5, yet we're told that the potions master had done all he could to notify the Order about where Sirius was. Harry was an idiot on that one; I remember thinking that when I read it.

Yet Snape also was part of the overall problem in that book. A grown man allowing his enmity for the boy's father to colour his 'teaching' the lad legilimency, thus allowing the whole mental attack thing to succeed.

And he was a nasty git overall. Wouldn't it have been nice if Snape had been a man big enough to step beyond his petty hate of Harry's father? Was there a solid canon reason for that? It's not like he had to 'pretend' the hatred as an act for Voldemort or anything.

I agree that Harry wasn't totally balanced/correct on his hatred of Snape, but there *were* grounds to dislike the man too.

I found the Malfoys the most sympathetic characters (after Snape and Percy) of the series, if only because the 'heroes' are so bloody awful!!

The 'heroes' weren't perfect but I think leaving them for the (evil) Malfoys is something of an extreme reaction. I mean, the 'heroes' included HERMIONE GRANGER, how could anyone leave her??!????!?!?!? :-)

[sunnyskywalker]

The Occlumency lessons puzzled me. Is "clear your mind" actually the best, most practical instruction you can get? In that case, the effort was pretty much doomed no matter what, wasn't it? But even then Snape did give Harry a backhanded compliment or two, iirc - something like "it wasn't as bad as it could have been for a first attempt." So it seems like initially it was kinda sorta almost working, if unpleasant. Some of the comments Snape makes during the lessons are hard to interpret (like, "who did the dog belong to?" was not described as a taunt, iirc, and for all I know might have been a glimmer of sympathy from Snape, or at least not antagonistic). But it's hard to say, overall, how the lessons were on the balance, especially since we have no basis for comparison on what the usual teaching methods are or how Harry's doing (it isn't like we ever see McGonagall or Lupin trying to teach Occlumency, or Bellatrix teaching Draco).

Kicking Harry out after Harry started prying in Snape's memories in the Pensive, though, I can understand. It isn't just about emotion (although I'm sure that's a factor too): depending on what else Snape put in there, Harry might stumble on something that reveals Snape's true loyalties, which would endanger Snape's life, since Voldemort is peeking into Harry's mind. If Harry can't be trusted, then what are they supposed to do - sacrifice the only agent in Voldemort's circle for lessons which are only partly successful at best, to no other purpose? It's a tough spot they're in.

[sharaz-jek.livejournal.com]

"Clear your mind" and "it's similar to resisting Imperius" are better than "I'll cast Imperius on you until you get it right" and Harry learned pretty well there.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Considering that Harry had a Voldievision right there, in his first lesson, I doubt Severus could have afforded to do anything more overt.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

It's also worth noting that we don't actually know how effective such advice is because Harry *doesn't regularly practice it.* He tries once, IIRC, and then gives up. He doesn't seek out more detailed advice - from Snape, from Dumbledore, or from the library - he just gives up.

I, however, am personally of the same opinion as Jodel RE the lessons as a whole: to wit, that there was something else going on that year (Watsonian view - Doyalist is clearly that JKR's a hack who didn't think it through). Because the way it's set up, the very un-Slytherin emphasis on the contents of the Pensieve (Snape couldn't do it ahead of time and hide the blasted thing?), the *impossibility* of Snape being seen to have *effectively* taught Harry (recall that Voldemort knows he's teaching the boy, and would expect him to make only minimal effort)... none of it adds up right for me.

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

I've also noted that the M&NM, himself, says absolutely nothing to Harry about James until Harry's third year, when he catches the boy sneaking out of the castle at a time when he's the target of a supposed mass murderer. IMO, Severus's remarks on how Harry is extraordinarily like his father are completely justified in this instance.

[condwiramurs.livejournal.com]

In trying to determine how accurate the "it's all about James" reading is, I find it telling that he only brings up James when he is comparing specific behaviors of Harry's to James' behavior. And in a way that suggests that behaving like James is not the way to go. This tells me that he isn't acting so much out of wild hatred as he's trying to teach Harry *not to behave that way* and that he thinks using the example of his father is going to stand a chance of *getting through* to Harry.

Of course his wording my be influenced by some residual negative feelings - not surprising given that these are moments when Harry explicitly reminds him of James - but it's a far stretch from that reading of a few particular events to the assertion that everything he ever does or says to Harry is motivated only by an unreasoning hatred of him due only to his parentage. And not, say, legitimate frustration of a teacher dealing with a disrespectful, lazy and inattentive student. Or the need as a sleeper spy to put on a highly visible display of wanting nothing to do with the son of the Muggleborn woman whose life he had begged Voldie for and then not received. Or even, the pain of being confronted day in and day out with the living reminder of the woman he loved, had been treated badly by and had accidentally gotten killed. I'd say it's probably not one thing, either. There's a lot going on in his head, and Harry doesn't exactly have the greatest track record of reading Snape correctly.

As to the topic of lingering feelings regarding James in general: what never gets pointed out is the fact that he's a spy and an Occlumens, who knows that he will probably have to face Voldie again when he returns and had better have a convincing case to set out when he claims to be a still-loyal Death Eater. His feelings about James and co were likely known to Voldie, and quite possibly played a greater or lesser role in his joining up in the first place. Given this, it makes a lot of sense for him to decide that a good strategy would be to go back to Voldie and show him that his feelings are still quite genuine and he's still basically got the same attitudes he had as a teenager. Therefore he not only would not attempt to "get over" the James thing completely, he would make sure to fan the flames from time to time so as to keep a little spark alive. It's not like being in his position would *allow* him the space to do the sort of psychological housecleaning that others get - not when his credibility as a spy basically rests on the contents of his head.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Sorry, didn't want to take up your time.

Now we know that the 'schoolboy grudge' was not about 'being better at quidditch' but about being systematically bullied and harrassed and nearly murdered by the boy's father and his cronies for seven years.

*Whatever* the reason for Snape's hatred of James ... it's still a fact that he was a nasty git to James's son. You've tried to paint Harry as 'misbehaving' in Potions, but that's not really correct; I don't believe Harry did so at all. Certainly his behaviour was within normal parameters for children, which a good teacher should have been able to handle without personal attacks and insults, etc.

Knowing all that, why do people still regurgitate old and outdated opinions that have been PROVED TO BE WRONG?!

Because Snape's case is one of the few things that Rowling got right?

It's funny ... I discovered deathtocapslock around the time of Montavilla's excellent sporking of DH, and I know there are many here who happily criticise Rowling and all of her bad writing. It's sort of discontinuous when we broach Snape territory and some here switch over to the canon side. I get dizzy. :-)

Basically you and Rowling are much of an accord when it comes to Snape, right? She tried to keep his allegiance a mystery until the end, when it was revealed that he was on the side of the good guys. In order to keep the mystery and doubt going for seven books she tried her utmost to make him unlikeable ... to Harry and we readers. Seven books of nasty git behaviour and Harry going overboard on his reciprocating hate.

And then, at almost the last page, we find two things that showed that he was honestly a 'good guy' - that "those I could not save" line, and the fact that there was a period there, after Dumbledore told him that Harry was destined for sacrifice, that he no longer had the reason - that had kept him going for so long - protecting Lily's son - to continue. Yet he didn't break away from Dumbledore, but kept to the plan.

I dunno. Do you think Rowling erred in not making the proof of Snape's motivation more 'obvious'? I recall noting the "those I could not save" thing but didn't realise there was an interval where he didn't have protecting-Lily's-son to keep him driven; that was pointed out to me by another fan.

On the other hand ... 'Albus Severus'. You can't get more obvious than that as to what Rowling wanted readers to think.

I still stand by what I said before. I acknowledge that Snape was on the side of the good guys. And that it appears he was thus even without the obligation/promise to save Lily's son.

I also note that Harry's hatred of Snape - which Rowling needed to drive home to keep her mystery going for seven books - was lopsided, exaggerated or unwarranted in places.

But Snape was still a nasty git. And a bad guy at the start, please remember. They don't hand out Death Eater badges for reciting poetry, after all.

I guess one reason why I just scoff at Snape's rendition and turn away is because I found the whole loves-Lily thing, as rendered by Rowling, too weak to hold the weight it was under. Pretty hard to believe, that a man would keep going under duress for 18 years due to an unrequited crush on a girl who not only spurned him but married his worst enemy. Plus I don't believe that Snape truly 'loved' Lily - I've mentioned that before in this community. So for me the whole issue of Snape has holes in it. I do acknowledge that the official canon line is that he was redeemed by the end, though.

But he was still a nasty git. :-)

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

"And a bad guy at the start, please remember. They don't hand out Death Eater badges for reciting poetry, after all."

They don't, no, but it seems unlikely that the original DEs were particularly evil, at least in public. Sirius mentions that a lot of people initially supported Voldemort, which would be fairly unlikely if his supporters were going around murdering and torturing people. Snape might have joined without really knowing what he was getting himself into, and then been unable to escape when he found out what Lord Voldemort was really like.

Also, none of the main characters seem to know that Snape was a former DE -- as opposed to, say, Lucius, whose sinister past is common knowledge. Whatever Snape was doing, it can't have been very public, so he probably wasn't out there committing mass murder and wide-scale torture.

[sunnyskywalker]

I was just checking the Occlumency lessons, and there's a very interesting bit where Harry accidentally breaks into Snape's mind with Protego. Unlike in the movie, this isn't the point where Harry sees SWM, nor is it the point where Snape throws Harry out. Harry sees bits of some very personal memories - Tobias yelling at Eileen, a girl laughing at kid!Snape trying to get on a broom, things like that.

And Snape basically just tells him that was unexpected, good job, let's keep going. No yelling or nasty comments, at a time you would definitely expect it. I think he's often nasty rather than just firm with students - but then, even the supposedly kind Flitwick has students writing "I am a wizard, not a baboon with a stick," McGonagall is often unjustifiably awful to Neville imo, and turning students into small rodents and bashing them against stone floors is something you just get a warning for, so I can't really say his classroom behavior stands out at Hogwarts. (The teaching there is truly awful.) Harry doesn't seem to see anything wrong with Flitwick or McGonagall, or even "Moody," so it seems like his problem isn't so much that Snape can be nasty as that Snape is nasty to him and not Seamus, Neville, or Draco. *dislikes Harry even more*

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

turning students into small rodents and bashing them against stone floors

I've seen people refer to the Ferret!Draco incident as involving a rodent before, but that's not true. Members of the weasel family are carnivores, not rodents. /pedant point

[sunnyskywalker]

Good to know! I thought a carnivore was any meat-eating creature in general, though? (Lions, eg.)

[oryx_leucoryx]

There are all sorts of carnivorous animals, but specifically members of the order Carnivora include several mammalian families, among which are Felidae (cats), Hyaenidae (hyenas and similar), Herpestidae (mongooses), Canidae (dogs), Ursidae (bears), Mephitidae (skunks and stink badgers), Mustelidae (weasels, badgers, ferrets, otters and the like), Procyonidae (racoons and the like), Odobenidae (walrus), Otariidae (sea lions, fur seals) and Phocidae (true seals). Go to the wiki article to see why they are grouped together and how they are interrelated.

[sunnyskywalker]

Ooh, that's very cool! I was sick through a lot of freshman biology and don't remember anything, so this is awesome. (Though that teacher was also the one who described the Big Bang as "the explosion when the Earth was created, which is why the rest of the universe is rushing away from us," so she might not have explained this properly either...)

Re: part I

[oneandthetruth.livejournal.com]

'Snape hated James' (and therefore ill-wished James' friends Lupin and Sirius) and that this presumed hatred of James was based on Snape childishly still minding as an adult that James was 'better at Quidditch' and thus on his abiltity to 'hold a schoolboy grudge' (which makes him sound extremely petty).

It's also ludicrous on its face. Snape is a nerd, and one almost never sees nerds who are jealous of the athletic prowess of jocks. On the contrary, they're usually contemptuous of it.

Nerds and jocks

[terri-testing.livejournal.com]

But it is common to see jocks expecting others to be jealous of their sole claim to glory!

[danajsparks.livejournal.com]

----You've tried to paint Harry as 'misbehaving' in Potions, but that's not really correct; I don't believe Harry did so at all. Certainly his behaviour was within normal parameters for children...

Was it within normal parameters to throw a firecracker into another student's cauldron?