Regarding DTCL's frequent attitude toward two certain HP characters

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

You're all familiar with the Draco in Leather Pants and Ron the Death Eater tropes, right?

After seeing the way some--not all--members of this comm treat Snape and Dumbledore, I'm seriously tempted to rename the tropes "Severus in Leather Pants" and "Albus the Death Eater."

I'm sorry if I've offended anyone, but I joined DTCL under the impression it was about analyzing the more problematic parts of the HP books, not about glorifying characters you like/bashing characters you don't like. It looks like I was wrong.

Comments

[traverse.livejournal.com]

So, what exactly is the problem? Perhaps what these people find problematic is the representation of these characters in canon and this is what they want to discuss? It is not stopping anyone from analyzing/debating other parts which they find more important/interesting/problematic.

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

That's not what bothers me. What bothers me is seeing people on here construct these amazingly elaborate arguments that Dumbledore is responsible for [insert bad thing here] and had sinister motives for even the good things he did, or that Snape is a paragon of morality and shining figure of redemption whose mistakes and bad decisions were clearly all the fault of [insert Gryffindor character here], based on little to no canon evidence.

I'm not saying there aren't reasons to like Snape and dislike Dumbledore. I just hate it when characters are made out to be better/worse than they actually are.

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

- yes, Snape was right: James Potter was an arrogant so-and-so who used to strut around as if he owned Hogwarts

So? That in itself isn't a crime.

- yes, Draco really WAS mauled by a Hippogryff and yes those 'lessons' by Hagrid are bloody dangerous

Which was his own fault for not listening to Hagrid. And I can't recall anyone else in Hagrid's class getting seriously injured like that, can you?

- yes, Lucius was right: Albus Dumbledore really WAS the worst thing that ever happened to Hogwarts

How so?

- yss, Lupin was lying when he claimed that Snape 'hated James because James was better at Quidditch'

No. Either he was telling the truth because JKR hadn't thought Severus's crush on Lily up yet, or he thought he was telling the truth because he didn't know Severus had a crush on Lily.

- yes, Dumbledore was lying when he claimed that 'Snape hated Harry because he hated Harry's father because James and once saved his life and Snape resented the 'Lifedebt'

Maybe he was. Or maybe he was telling the truth because JKR didn't write in Snape's obsession with Lily until sometime between HBP and DH.

- yes, Sirius was lying (or at least lying to himself) when he claimed that Snape 'deserved' the bullying dealt out by the Marauders because 'he was eyeball deep into the Dark Arts and came to Hogwarts knowing more Dark curses than anyone else' - I mean, who would've taught Snape those spells? His muggle father? Sheez!)

How do you know Snape (and possibly his Death Eater buddies) wasn't equally nasty to them in return? I don't even like Snape and I refuse to believe the guy who invented spells like Sectumsempra in his spare time couldn't have taken on all four Marauders with both hands tied behind his back. And we all know he's not exactly a doormat.

This means, among other things, that we point out the many, many faults of the Sainted Albus Dumbledore (so sainted that his name even means 'white') and, among other things, point out the good things Snape does.

I won't deny that Dumbledore has faults (my opinion of him went down quite a bot after reading DH), or that Snape does good things. I just wish people would stick to discussing their canon flaws and good deeds respectively without resorting to coming up with wild theories unsupported by the text.

Or at least the way the text tries to manipulate the reader into believing that Snape does Awful Things (aka 'red herrings') while it's later revealed that he was actually doing Good Things.

So emotionally abusing your students for years, blatantly favoring your House above all the others, taking your old grudge out on your rival's son, and attempting to murder a child's beloved pet are good things?

There is this weird perception among Potter fans, however, that if you like the Snape character, warts and all, or even - God forbid! - try to understand - but not excuse - his faults, this must mean that these 'Snape Apologists' MUST think that Snape is sexy (aka 'Snape in Leather Pants') and therefore must be either attracted to 'Bad Boys' (Snape is a Bad Boy?!!) or, at best, "only likes Snape because they like/are attracted to/want to get in bed with Alan Rickman".

I've never quite understood if they truly believe that, or if they just use this rather weird straw man to fling at anyone who dares to suggest that Dumbledumb is less than saintly or that Snape is actually a pretty good teacher and so prevent any deep analyses of the text (and thus any criticism of their beloved HP characters).

I've no doubt some do, but maybe the rest of them just don't like seeing a perfectly good character stripped of all his canon depth and complexity, which is what the Snape apologists do, not the true Snape fans. You like Snape, fine. You think he's good-looking, fine. You start making excuses for him and insisting that the morally-questionable things he does in canon aren't really that bad, we have a problem on our hands. Which, if you'll click that link again, is the essence of the Draco in Leather Pants trope, not merely finding someone attractive.

She knew the evil that narcissists like Dumbledore do

Since when is Dumbledore a narcissist?

[penguinsuzie.livejournal.com]

I've no doubt some do, but maybe the rest of them just don't like seeing a perfectly good character stripped of all his canon depth and complexity, which is what the Snape apologists do, not the true Snape fans. You like Snape, fine. You think he's good-looking, fine. You start making excuses for him and insisting that the morally-questionable things he does in canon aren't really that bad, we have a problem on our hands. Which, if you'll click that link again, is the essence of the Draco in Leather Pants trope, not merely finding someone attractive.

I've never seen anyone on this forum act like Snape is some kind of saint, he's a seriously damaged bitter person who lashes out at people.

The difference though is that the crappy things he does are called out, unlike the actions of characters that are designated as "good": Dumbledore left Harry with the Dursely's even though he knew they were abusive, Minerva locked Neville out in the halls as punishment when she thought there was a serial killer prowling the halls, Lupin kept Hogwarts' secrets to himself because he didn't want to let Dumbledore down even after he believed that Sirius had used them to sneak into Harry's room and attempt to murder him, Hermione kept Rita as a prisoner for several months, the Twins almost killed a student and showed zero regret when he was hospitalized for months (we never even find out if he actually recovered), Harry regretted almost killing Draco for a short while before deciding that it was completely unfair that he got detention for it. It goes on and on and these things are barely mentioned. Dumbledore is treated like the golden mentor, Minerva as if she's actually strict but fair, the Twins like good natured tricksters, and Harry as some kind of martyred Jesus figure.

I like these characters but the double standard bothers me. IMHO Snape is a strong example of Good is Not Nice.

[traverse.livejournal.com]

when characters are made out to be better/worse than they actually are

But this is the entire problem. What the characters 'actually are' to you, may not be to somebody else. We are engaging in a range of interpretations here, and, fine, some may look wrong, preposterous or over-elaborate to you, but it's ultimately horses for courses. There is no scientific standard of fidelity to canon.

Also, trying to understand the character's internal motivations and reasons for action inevitably destroys the rather black-and-white moral judgment passed on them by canon. Thus Snape who people feel did not get a fair hearing from his author receives heaps of sympathy and the whitewashed Dumbledore gets a hard time. Scales of balance and all that - they may sway the other way occasionally.

[chicory-fics.livejournal.com]

Honestly, I'm a little confused. I read the previous entry and didn't see anything outrageous there--people discussed their interpretations of both Snape and Dumbledore quite neutrally. And those interpretations varied from Snape basically being "a creepy stalker" to being "an embittered asshole who still did good things".

The problem with literature--or any story medium--is that it is open to interpretations and there will be as many interpretations as there are people who have read it. For example, one girl in my middle school fancied Snape to be a hot emo-rocker and was quite disappointed with his actor in the movies.

Within Harry Potter this problem is, well, quite exacerbated because Rowling honestly isn't that good of an author. What she told and what she showed was usually starkly different. Harry Potter is also the series where the only moral code was that what matters is the person doing the doing rather than what is being done.

That is why her "good characters" could be as petty, horrible, cheating, manipulative and sadistic as they wanted to be and still be special little downtrodden snowflakes whose ultimate power was the "power of love".

But that, again, really is just my opinion of the books.

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

If you don't like the poster's opinions, you can critique them on their own posts (based on their arguments, obviously, no personal attacks); or post your own recaps.

I personally have little interest in either Snape or Dumbledore, beyond thinking DH left Snape more 2D and Dumbledore even more of a dick than previously suggested; but then I just stay out of posts going into depth on them.

There is diversity of opinion between individual posters (look at Hermione discussions, you've got all the way from 'she's awesome and the only really well-written female character' to 'she's a junior Umbridge') but I think an introductory post in which you complain about 'bashing' (idk what the definition of this even is - who is the arbitrator of which interpretation is correct?), complain about the comm not offering what you wanted from it without contributing anything yourself, and then decide you're the decider on what is canon and what isn't; with this veering between these overly personal Watsonian approach (it's bashing to criticise characters, and fans are crushing the depth and complexity of the canon, which naturally you are the expert on interpreting correctly) to this Doyleist 'well, an excuse for this characterisation flaw is that the author hadn't thought out the plot properly!' bit...
I mean, this dramatic 'I thought I was wrong' bit seems like a flounce, so...flounce away.

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

I was going to offer a rebuttal, but....

then decide you're the decider on what is canon and what isn't

yeah, there's no reasoning with that mindset. just a bit hypocritical to go from 'how do you know Snape and the other Death Eaters weren't bullying the Marauders' to 'people should stick to canon and not come up with their own theories on what happened'. okay, then...

[merrymelody.livejournal.com]

I really don't know where to start with someone defending Hagrid. Hagrid. I thought there was no consensus or hive mind, but tbh, I'm considering put that in the comm info. 'Everywhere there's Hagrid hate is our community.'

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

Who's defending Hagrid? And from what?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Who's defending Hagrid? And from what?

You defended Hagrid in a previous comment you made:

- yes, Draco really WAS mauled by a Hippogryff and yes those 'lessons' by Hagrid are bloody dangerous

Which was his own fault for not listening to Hagrid. And I can't recall anyone else in Hagrid's class getting seriously injured like that, can you?

I'd like to take Hagrid's side, as Rowling intended her readers to do, but really, he's a bad teacher, plain and simple. I've read *fanfics* where he's displayed a depth of knowledge in his subject which made his position of educator tenable, but there's no evidence of that in Rowling's canon. Just a happy-go-lucky uneducated man who delights in raising dangerous creatures and who uses his students to facilitate same.

OotP is my favourite HP book for a couple of reasons, one of which is there are a number of scenes which highlight the friendship between Harry and Hermione (my favourite character). But there's one passage in the novel which makes me hang my head in shame on Hermione's behalf; their conversation right after Hagrid has revealed the existence of Grawp to the pair:

"Oh, come off it, Harry!" said Hermione angrily, stopping dead in her tracks so that the people behind had to swerve to avoid her. "Of course he's going to be chucked out and, to be perfectly honest, after what we've just seen, who can blame Umbridge?"

There was a pause in which Harry glared at her, and her eyes filled slowly with tears.

"You didn't mean that," said Harry quietly.

"No... well... all right... 1 didn't," she said, wiping her eyes angrily. "But why does he have to make life so difficult for himself for us?"

Hermione's answer is, I suppose:

* Because Dumbledore always coddled Hagrid;

* Because Hagrid's 'promotion' to a teaching position was a mistake and the result of favouritism;

* Because Hagrid just can't take the risk of danger to others seriously (the official reason being because he's so tough himself);

* Because he is a child at heart.

* Because he only thinks of himself?

But I'm ashamed of Hermione, who backs down on this point. Harry's blindness to Hagrid's recklessness is also due personal bias; as usual he's not thinking. That's Hermione's job. :-) It's perhaps a pity that she let herself be cowed by her best friend.

I've come across as somewhat anti-Hagrid here, which surprises me, because really I almost never think of the character. But the evidence is there that he's a lousy teacher, and dangerous. I'm not too impressed by the presentation of the occasion when Draco was 'mauled' by the hippogriff as evidence of this - because Hagrid *did* warn the students first, and Draco *wasn't* really 'mauled', only slightly hurt - but I would assume modern educational standards would/should provide for students' safety even if they are careless or don't obey the rules? I don't really know, I'm not a teacher.

But when I think 'Hagrid' I think of other silly or dangerous lessons - like a year of doing nothing but conducting useless experiments with the dangerous blast-ended skrewts in GoF - how *even Harry*, I think, has to admit that the substitute teacher brought in while Hagrid is away does a much better job of teaching useful material, and so forth.

Hagrid doesn't mean any harm, but he doesn't invest any real effort that we can see in protecting his students either, or teaching them useful material. Maybe 'Care of Magical Creatures' isn't supposed to be a serious subject, so Hagrid can be let off the hook for the latter. But the kids' nervousness around his creatures is still warranted. As is the charge that hanging around Hagrid is dangerous, and that he's a bad teacher.

[borg-princess.livejournal.com]

the blast-ended skrewts was definitely my main example - it was SUCH a waste of the school year, the kids learned nothing and they all had bruises, burns and scrapes from looking after those things. that Hagrid shouldn't have even created because I'm pretty sure it was prohibited to create new species...

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

The 'illegal to cross-breed magical creatures' things rings a bell for me too but I don't remember where it's mentioned in the books.

But yes, GoF year was an entire waste of time, with the entire class just dedicated to assisting Hagrid in his (illegal) experiment. And clearly dangerous.

[for-diddled.livejournal.com]

I think one of Rita Skeeter's hit pieces in GOF mentions that breeding new kinds of dangerous animal is illegal.

[nx74defiant.livejournal.com]

illegal to cross-breed magical creatures' things rings a bell for me too but I don't remember where it's mentioned in the books.

It is in Care of Magical creatures with a "handwritten" note: did any tell Hagrid?

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

If Hagrid were an actual expert on all that goes into caring for magical creatures, he surely would know without needing a handwritten note in an elementary-level text. The legal requirements of animal-keeping and breeding are a part of the knowledge a teacher would be expected to have.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Not quite illegal:

Hagrid has no intention of ceasing his campaign of intimidation, however. In conversation with a Daily Prophet reporter last month, he admitted breeding creatures he has dubbed "Blast-Ended Skrewts," highly dangerous crosses between manti-cores and fire-crabs. The creation of new breeds of magical creature is, of course, an activity usually closely observed by the Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures. Hagrid, however, considers himself to be above such petty restrictions.

"I was just having some fun," he says, before hastily changing the subject.

Thanks for pointing me at the place.

Given Rita's penchant for hyperbole and her negative attitude towards Hagrid I think we can assume from this that breeding magical creatures *isn't* illegal. Not from this quote anyway. 'Usually closely observed' doesn't equate to 'against the law'.

Although nx74defiant in another comment right after yours says there's a piece in 'Care of Magical Creatures' - maybe she means 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them? - which says it's outright illegal?

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

It is in Care of Magical creatures with a "handwritten" note: did any tell Hagrid?

Do you mean the 'charity' book 'Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them'? I never read that book, or 'Quidditch Through the Ages'.

for_diddled thought that Rita's article in GoF stated that cross-breeding was illegal but it didn't quite go that far IMO.

[oryx_leucoryx]

Fantastic Beasts is an old book. Maybe crossbreeding was illegal when it was published, and then someone created a loophole.

[nx74defiant.livejournal.com]

Sorry it was 'Fantastical Beasts and Where to Find them'.

I had it in a boxed set with 'Quidditch Through the Ages'.

The gimmick was that the Beast book was Harry's "actual book". So you had the text book with notes written by Harry and Ron. I think it was Ron (or it could have been Harry) wrote the note about did Hagrid know.

Hagrid, however, considers himself to be above such petty restrictions

After all Hagrid is a Gryffindor. And it is ok if a Gryffindor does it.