Is Severus Snape's story more powerful if his motivation was initially Lily?

[fatairuq.livejournal.com]

I have loved Severus since I first read the Harry Potter books. Before the Snape discourse in Tumblr, I basically felt annoyed at how J K Rowling (JKR from here on) explained his motivations in DH. As someone who has gone through everything he went through except for poverty, I felt that she robbed us off one of the most important representations abuse and bullying survivors ever. You see prior to the Prince's Tale, Severus was angry and bitter even his thirties, he was competent in his line of work as a Professor, Potioneer and spy, he fell in with a fascist cult in order to survive and get ahead in life, and then he redeemed himself. He's everything survivors aren't allowed to be. He is the epitome of Bad Victim. To be Good Victims, we're supposed to forgive those who hurt us, be kind and compassionate to everyone without fail, work in small business or social work because we're not cut out for anything bigger, and while we are expected to help ourselves without support systems, we need someone us to guide us to redemption.

After the discourse which highlighted Severus' association with Lily to a ridiculous level, I hated that chapter even more. I could understand Severus loving Lily for years after her death because she seemed to be the only who gave half a crap about him but enduring torture, hate and even killing someone he cared about just for Lily? It felt so cheap. JKR didn't seem to think a Slytherin could do good and if they do it's for a Gryffindor. She takes this complex character, one of the few in her books, and constantly reduces his reasons to Lily and Severus' bitter, petty tendencies. It was maddening. I spent hours thinking about it and I'm starting to change my mind.

The truth is people don't trust survivors. It's why so many villains are survivors of some kind of violence. They think we're backstabbers and that we are taught to be selfish and violent. In pop culture Bad Victims aren't often loyal to anyone but themselves and if they are it's usually loyalty to another antagonist. Severus Snape is different. The people he is loyal to are considered the best people in canon. Lily is practically a saint and Dumbledore is a deity. Severus' loyalty is steadfast and it helps him do a lot of good. It could potentially be a powerful story on its own.

The problem is I'm not sure. I could be forcing myself to justify what felt like the flattest part of the series. What do you guys think?

Comments

[sunnyskywalker]

Part of the problem was just how few pages JKR tried to cram this whole subplot into, also. That made it feel extra flat. Just think if Harry had found out that Snape and Lily had been childhood friends in HBP instead, and Harry had time to wonder what exactly had happened and how much he didn't know. Finding out that Snape was the one who gave Voldemort the prophecy would have made him seem that much more like a clear villain--he was so mad about his friend ditching him that he got her and her husband killed, how evil can you get! Then the reveal of his true loyalties and affections would have been more powerful after the buildup.

But also, this would have given more time to hint at things like whether he had motivations besides Lily. Which would have made it much less flat as well, because how often to people have only one single motivation driving them for 16 years?

[fatairuq.livejournal.com]

You're right. There are about three instances that we see that Snape might have other motivation. The CoS one you mentioned, Snape trying to save Remus and “Lately, only those whom I could not save.”