Uh...

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

Even the god Set (or Seth) – a god of chaos, the dry lifeless desert, foreigners, and other things threatening to the Egyptian mindset, and usually falsely mischaracterized today as the “God of Evil” (nonsensical term) because of his role in the slaying of Osiris – was ultimately an upholder of ma’at. Indeed, it is his strength upon which the world’s continued existence depends: Set is the god who stands in the prow of Ra’s solar boat and slays the serpent every night. He is the one god, in fact, who is strong enough to do so, and his scepter is both his personal symbol and a symbol of strength in general. (Yes, I have strong feelings about Set. And another frequently misunderstood myth figure, the Norse god Loki, who I might or might not make reference to sometime later.)

~condwiramurs, "Indestructible - Part V - The Wheels of Heaven"

Will someone please explain to me what the hell ANY of the above has to do with Severus Snape?

Also, this:

You know, when you think about it, a very, very last-minute gamble by a dying man to undergo Merlin’s initiatory ordeal might have many motivations. As indeed might Tom’s usurpation of that cave.

Some of the legends about Merlin, after all, state that he vanished from the world of men because he was imprisoned through a woman’s wiles. Imprisoned, not killed.

Some legends say, further, that Merlin’s protégé was immortal. "Rex quondum, rexque futurum,"

The legends hint that there may be a fourth route to immortality. Not the Philosopher’s Stone, not the Hallows, not a Horcrux. A mystery known only to Merlin… and perhaps to be revealed to a successor proven worthy by passing the ordeal of the cave.

~terri_testing, "Albus and the Birdbath"

Nice theory. Too bad there's no evidence that the damn cave was ever anything but a cave. And as usual, terri turns it into an opportunity to bash Albus.

Comments

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

I don’t think star_dragon5 should stop posting. She is the only one who’s been posting anything at all for quite some time, and I thought there were seeds of reasoned criticism lurking in her first post, waiting to be developed by an intelligent exchange of ideas. I have been hoping that she would read some of our exchanges, learn how this sort of debate is done, and grow beyond mere accusations of bashing.

I’ve been reading over the history of this community, and it is interesting to see how the snarking and the disagreements have changed over time, and how hostility and admiration for different characters has ebbed and flowed. Let’s not drive out star_dragon5. I think she can learn from us, and at the same time she can provide us with some badly-needed stimulus. We have, alas, become stagnant of late. It’s true that today’s post, with its unsupported complaints about bashing, is no great stimulus to discussion, but her first post did stir things up a bit. I’m willing to give her a chance to blossom into a valued member of our community. I think the potential is there.

Maybe it won’t work out, but it’s too soon to be cutting a new person off. Especially not when no one else (including me) is posting anything of interest.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

She did ask a question:

Will someone please explain to me what the hell ANY of the above has to do with Severus Snape?

You're right. We've been too quiet of late. It can't hurt to revisit some of our older posts as they're brought up.

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

While reading some of our old postings, I happened to come across the essay star_dragon5 was asking about, and saw that she had first posted her question there, at the original posting-site. I gave her a short answer [“Set and Loki, like Severus, are figures of darkness often interpreted simply as evil, but who are, in fact, considerably more complicated than that.”] and we exchanged a couple of cordial comments. But if I hadn’t been re-reading the series, no one one would have responded to her on a nineteen-month old posting. For her to ask about it now instead of on the old post is therefore not unreasonable. It would have helped, however, if she had started with a friendly introduction, explaining what she was asking about. I myself tend to be short and direct when I write, not wanting to waste time on explanations, but I know I sometimes come across as brusque and aggressive. I think that’s what happened here. By presenting two short, unconnected comments without context, it sounded like “What crazy stuff were you people writing about, anyway?” instead of “I read this interesting post from a couple of years ago, and have some questions about it. Does anyone want to discuss it?”

Does anyone want to discuss it?

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was immature of me. I'm sorry. I read a few old posts implying some pretty disturbing things, to say the least. I couldn't stop myself from lashing out. Also, I was annoyed that the author compared someone I dislike (apologies, Snape fans, but cruelty to children is an issue of mine) to two people I like. Again, immature. But jana_ch's explanation made sense, and I feel better about that now. Personally, I think Loki has a lot more in common with Ron, but to each their own.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

I don't know. Loki goes pretty dark toward the end of the Eddas.

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

True, but...Red hair. Deadpan snarker. Hero's under-appreciated sidekick. Perpetual comic relief. Would've made an excellent Slytherin. The unfavorite of at least one of his parents.* Prone to brutal honesty. Resistant to Sues and Stus. Narrative constantly screws him over. Awesome.

Tell me that doesn't describe Ron fairly well. :D

Ron: ...*backs away from the crazy fangirl*

*There's a theory floating around on TvTropes that Loki's father disowned him, hence "Laufey's son" rather than "Farbauti's son." I have no idea if this is accurate.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

Sure, I see that point, not to mention some self-sacrifice (though Ron doesn't go so far as to give birth to an eight-legged horse.)

Looked Loki up on Wikipedia. Since I've been out of school a while, I figure I can use Wikipedia for a quick reference. Anyway, in traditional mythology, Laufey is Loki's mother. In the Marvel movie Wikia, Laufey is his father.

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

Sure, I see that point, not to mention some self-sacrifice (though Ron doesn't go so far as to give birth to an eight-legged horse.)

Ron: And thank Merlin for that!

Looked Loki up on Wikipedia. Since I've been out of school a while, I figure I can use Wikipedia for a quick reference. Anyway, in traditional mythology, Laufey is Loki's mother. In the Marvel movie Wikia, Laufey is his father.

x.x Makes me glad I'm not into superhero movies. Mythology fail drives me NUTS.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

x.x Makes me glad I'm not into superhero movies. Mythology fail drives me NUTS.

I've decided to look at the Marvel movies as a universe unto themselves. It helps, and Tom Hiddleston is cute.

Oh. On Loki's hair - no one's really sure about the color. He's been depicted with dark hair and with light by later imaginers. Not so sure about red, that seems to have been Thor's color until the old Marvel Comics version appeared.

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

Thor's hair was certainly red in Norse mythology. Loki's was never specified in myth, but it was black in the old Marvel Comics that I collected in the Sixties and Seventies. Stan Lee's original version of Loki was a straight-up "God of Evil" with no ambiguity about him. I would never compare him with Severus Snape.

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

One of myth!Loki's nicknames was "Flame-hair," so yeah, he was a redhead. I wouldn't compare him or Set with Severus Snape, either. They each have a different fatal flaw, for one thing: Set's is jealousy, Loki's is malice, and Snape's is his inability to put the past behind him.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

I don't think I'd compare either Marvel!Loki or Eddas!Loki with Snape. They're both darker figures, but that's about it. Short reason: Snape is revealed as an agent of the Light by the end of the series while Loki gets darker and darker.

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

So we're all agreed, then? Good!

[jana-ch.livejournal.com]

We’re not necessarily all agreed, and that is good. The purpose of intellectual discussion is not universal agreement, but the stimulation of thought. It would be terribly boring if we were all agreed.

For example, if it were not off-topic, I would note that being “flame-haired” does not necessarily make Loki a redhead. He is, after all, a god of fire—a characteristic which is more obvious in Wagner’s version of the character than in Marvel’s or in the Eddas. But this is a Potterverse community, not a Marvel community, Norse myth community, or opera community, so I will refrain. But if anyone wants to discuss whether or not it works dramatically to have Loge show up in person at the end of Walküre to ignite the magic fire…

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

We’re not necessarily all agreed, and that is good. The purpose of intellectual discussion is not universal agreement, but the stimulation of thought. It would be terribly boring if we were all agreed.

It would.

Sorry about going off-topic. I can't EVER resist a chance to talk about mythology...

[oryx_leucoryx]

If cruelty to children is such a hot issue for you why do you object to Albus-bashing? After all, he was the one who was running the dystopic mess that was Hogwarts for decades. He was the one who enabled and engaged in cruelty to children.

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

I object to character-bashing, period, regardless of whether I like the character or not.

Since when is Hogwarts a dystopic mess, aside from Umbrige's reign in OotP and the events of DH? Maybe its safety standards were not always the highest, but I wouldn't call it a dystopia.

[madderbrad.livejournal.com]

Some people in the fandom define 'bashing' as 'negative opinions on or criticisms of character X', where X is a person those people behold in a favourable light. They don't like their favourite character being maligned and so rush to label the opposing view as 'bashing', hoping such a (pre-emptive) move means they are excused from any real debate on the criticism which might require their mustering a defence.

I myself think the proper definition should have a qualifier prepended - 'unjustified negative opinions on or criticisms of ...'. And the fun is then in seeing how someone you first thought was a simple 'basher' might just have good rational reasons for his portrayal of the character.

Maybe 'bashing' is a little more complicated, only pertaining to criticism of characters that Rowling/Harry want us to like? There's probably not many people who worry about Umbridge bashing, after all. So change the above to "where X is a person those people/Rowling/Harry behold in a favourable light".

I guess 'bashing' in fanfics is a little different - "unjustified exaggeration of a character's negative characteristics"? I'm thinking of some Ron-bashing stories I've read ... very funny, but still 'bashing' - I'd never try to argue that the characterisation in those stories was accurate.

(Ginny bashing, on the other hand, is impossible ... :-))

[star-dragon5.livejournal.com]

Some people in the fandom define 'bashing' as 'negative opinions on or criticisms of character X', where X is a person those people behold in a favourable light. They don't like their favourite character being maligned and so rush to label the opposing view as 'bashing', hoping such a (pre-emptive) move means they are excused from any real debate on the criticism which might require their mustering a defence.

Maybe so, but I'm not one of them.

And Ginny-bashing is entirely possible. I've seen far too much of it.

[seductivedark.livejournal.com]

It couldn't hurt to discuss it. Like you said, we've been too quiet lately - so quiet I've stopped checking every day. Snape is one of the reasons why I couldn't quite believe the stories were supposed to be simple or cartoonish. There were most definitely subtle but recognizable signs of nuance. That nuance was what prevented me from being wholly on board for the Dursleys being your run-of-the-mill cartoon villains. They seem like it, and I still think it's a possibility, but there is a seed of uncertainty there.

[penguinsuzie.livejournal.com]

The Dursley's stick out like a sour thumb once the series becomes more adult and grey and we're encouraged to take it more seriously. Vernon & Petunia being caricatures made sense in the first book but the rules changed, and looking back they do often come across as one-dimensional and cartoonish.