Love in HP

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Since Valentine's Day is close by, I thought this topic would be fitting to bring up and ramble about until I get it off my chest.

Here comes a few (potentially) silly questions I have about love as a reoccurring and major theme in the HP books: is love a redemptive and saving force? Is it a reflection of our inner nature and morals? Does it make us better or worse than we are? Is it proof we’re capable of good? Or is it simply a nice message to have in a children’s series i.e. love is more powerful than anything?

Voldemort is said to be incapable of love. He’s the product of an unhappy and coercive union; therefore, he’s doomed from the moment he’s born. Little Tom Riddle never had a chance.

Harry is said to have an amazing ability to love. His parents died trying to protect him and Lily gave him her magical protection because of her sacrifice. It doesn’t matter if Harry grew up in a terrible and neglectful household and grows up to experience a great deal of horrible things; he’s saved from the moment he’s born. He has the love of his friends and mentor figures too.

Dumbledore fell in love with the wrong man and suffered for it. He tries to rectify his mistake and… I’m not sure. Dumbledore confuses the heck out of me. He’s made critical mistakes in the name of love for Grindelwald but is still venerated despite his morally dubious self. He leads a long and admirable life and is seen as the epitome of good. I suppose he’s “saved” in a way too?

And then there’s Snape. He fell in love with the right woman but chose to follow his harmful ambitions and suffered for it. He gets Lily killed, shows remorse and strives to atone for the rest of his life. He remains slavishly devoted to Lily in exchange for nothing. He leads a miserable, isolated, and brutal life and succumbs to a miserable, isolated, and brutal death. He’s doomed from the moment he called Lily a “mudblood” (maybe even before - when he’s sorted into Slytherin). Beyond being branded a pitiful and tragic figure, I don’t think he was saved or redeemed by love at all. Although some fans disagree. I go back and forth sometimes too.

Lastly, we have the Malfoys. They’re established as a selfish and craven prejudiced family. And yet - they love each other. It’s Narcissa’s love for Draco which pushes for his protection. They walk away relatively unscathed from the war, other than their hurt pride and reputation. Love saved them, although it didn’t fully redeem them as moral figures in the story.

(There’s also love between other characters, such as the Dursleys’ love for their son, Bellatrix’s love for Voldemort, Tonks/Lupin, other romances, and so on. But I’m focusing on the big examples with the most significance to the overall plot.)

Love is important in the HP series. It’s heralded as a great power to have against evil and corruption. But does it - in a strange way - reveal how frozen the characters are? Harry is empowered by love because he’s the hero and innately good. Voldemort has no use for love because he’s the villain and innately evil. Dumbledore screws up greatly for love, but it’s all cool because he’s innately wonderful. Snape is innately a horrible person who made bad choices, but he loved Lily - so let’s be magnanimous and grant him a modicum of praise (but no proper redemption). The Malfoys are innately selfish and shady people, but they have love as a family - so let’s be magnanimous and grant them some praise too (but no proper redemption either).

My thoughts are all over the place. I’m a rambling type of thinker. I think JKR was going for the idealistic message that love is powerful and the most valuable thing in the world capable of defeating evil and revealing the humanity in unscrupulous individuals. However, it’s also connected to who you are innately as a person. But why does it have to be?

Why does Voldemort have to be “incapable of love” to be evil rather than his actions and choices as a person? Why does Harry have his parents and his ability to love praised to prove he’s capable of being a hero rather than his own actions and choices as a person? Why does love make Snape and the Malfoys worthy of recognition instead of their own actions and choices regardless of love? If it were not for their love for someone, they would be considered despicable and unworthy of mercy? And Dumbledore - well, he gets to love a big bad boy, mess up, and move on to be ultra powerful and admired because he’s untouchable (despite JKR’s attempt to give him shades of grey in DH).

And why is Lily’s love for Harry so special that it creates a unique protection spell? Have no other mothers or fathers in the history of the Wizarding World died to protect their child? Because only Harry can be the ultimate hero empowered by love?

Ah, I’m done for now. A lot of rhetorical questions. Love is weird. Or maybe I need to not take it too seriously… but I’m going to anyways.

Comments

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/telling us how his ability to love is ultra-special in comparison to Voldemort's inability to love/

I think that the issue with what the books were telling and showing about Harry's love can be summed up in one word: Snape.

I think that you're right about Voldemort being written more like a plot device, especially when you notice the difference between how he's treated by Harry versus how Snape is treated. Voldemort killed Harry's parents, which resulted in Harry being sent to live with the Dursleys, who treated him badly. Voldemort's campaign of terror involves the persecution and murder of Muggle-borns, which resulted in one of Harry's best friends being attacked in his second year. Voldemort inspired his followers to commit horrible acts in his name, which include the torture of the Longbottoms and Peter's betrayal of the Potters, which led to the Potters' deaths and Sirius's imprisonment.

Yet how many times does Harry feel a surge of righteous rage towards him? How many times does Harry fixate on Tom and blame him for everything wrong in his life? Yes, he sometimes thinks about how it's due to Voldemort that he has to live with the Dursleys and how Voldemort ruined many lives. But does he think of such things with the same seething hatred that he reserves for Snape? Pettigrew was the one who betrayed Harry's parents, leading to their deaths. How often does Harry think about him?

And even if you can make the case that those things all happened when Harry was a baby, then what about Bellatrix? She killed Sirius, whom Harry was old enough to know and love. Yet how many times does Harry curse her name? Sure, he tries to cast the Cruciatus Curse at her instantly after Sirius dies, but afterwards? When he sees her dueling Molly, does he feel an instinctive rush of hatred for her? No.

Instead, who gets the brunt of Harry's hatred? Snape. Peter betrayed the Potters and Voldemort killed them, but let's hate Snape for leaking the prophecy. Bellatrix killed Sirius, but let's hate Snape for sneering at him.

And what were Snape's crimes? What did he do to earn Harry's hatred, to rank below a traitor and a genocidal despot and a murderous fanatic?

He sneered at Harry and embarrassed him in class. Which is not nice and I wouldn't want Snape as my teacher, but...really, this is the boy who's supposed to teach Voldemort about love? A boy who cares more about a mean teacher taking points than a psychopath who wants him dead? Who cares more about a jerk who gives him detention than the people who killed his loved ones?

One reason that the HP fandom hated Umbridge more than Voldemort was because Umbridge was more in Harry's face than Tom was, but at least Umbridge actually did terrible things. She forced Harry to carve words onto his skin and tried to shut him up. And yet she's a one-book menace who briefly comes back to cause trouble in DH, but is quickly dealt with, while Snape earns Harry's undying hatred book after book simply for being unpleasant.

If the series was just a light children's romp in a magical boarding school, then, yes, a mean teacher could be the worst thing that the hero had to face. But then the books bring in war and politics and prejudice and yet their hero still thinks that his mean teacher is the worst person ever? Even after he sees how badly the Marauders treated Snape, he still brushes it aside and jumps back into hating Snape. And yet we're supposed to admire his ability to love?

/it makes no damn sense to me how a teenage boy wouldn't be weirded out by the man they hated being obsessed with their dead mom/

Yes, Harry's complete lack of reaction to the news was too unrealistic for me. I know that there's a war going on, but that's never stopped Harry from fuming about Snape before. Now he learns that Snape was obsessed with his mother for no reason and yet he doesn't react at all?

/JKR telling us how perfect Lily Evans was/

Or how pathetic Snape is. He can't be moral in his own right; he has to be forever pining away for a hypocrite who treated him like dirt in order to do something right for once, and then magnanimously forgiven by her son who's hated his guts for years.

Part 1

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Yet how many times does Harry feel a surge of righteous rage towards him? How many times does Harry fixate on Tom and blame him for everything wrong in his life?

There was that moment in HBP when Harry tells Dumbledore he wants Voldemort finished, all the while Dumbledore praises Harry for never having the slightest desire to be one of Voldemort's followers. It's a strange chapter for me; Dumbledore acknowledging Harry's furious desire for revenge while praising his ability to love. It's one of the few times Harry acknowledges his hatred for Voldemort head-on.

Yet how many times does Harry curse [Bellatrix's] name? Sure, he tries to cast the Cruciatus Curse at her instantly after Sirius dies, but afterwards?

Yes, you'd think Harry would have as much of a furious desire for vengeance or justice against the woman who took down his godfather. But he has more ire towards Snape for goading Sirius instead of the Death Eater who directly murdered him.

And what were Snape's crimes? What did he do to earn Harry's hatred, to rank below a traitor and a genocidal despot and a murderous fanatic?

I believe it was mary_j_59 who mentioned that Snape was Harry's adversary in daily life, not Voldemort. Voldemort is the distant monster Harry has to exterminate, while Snape is the human adversary Harry deals with on a regular basis - proximate and personal. I think it's easier for Harry to direct his hatred towards Snape because Snape is someone Harry has to see routinely in Hogwarts unlike Voldemort. From the POV of a child or teenager, it makes sense for Harry to be more focused on immediate cruel comments from a spiteful teacher than the threat of Voldemort lurking in the background. But you bring up a good point here:

If the series was just a light children's romp in a magical boarding school, then, yes, a mean teacher could be the worst thing that the hero had to face. But then the books bring in war and politics and prejudice and yet their hero still thinks that his mean teacher is the worst person ever?

When I first read the books, I thought the purpose of building up Harry's hatred of Snape was to present the eventual reveal that Harry was wrong about Snape's role in the war. It would be a learning moment for Harry to realize that the man who was an awful teacher, an ex-death eater, and an unpleasant person wasn't actually evil to the core. It kind of happened, but in a very anticlimactic way. No confrontation, no conflict, no reconciliation, no introspection on Harry's side - it was all done quick and easy through watching Snape's memories. And then Harry went off to die, kill Voldemort, and that was it.

It's really, really strange to me how JKR built up this intense animosity and prejudice between Snape and Harry, and then let it fizzle out with a small bit of acknowledgment through the naming of 'Albus Severus.' I never expected the two of them to become best buds, but I did expect something more consequential in Harry's character arc. I know some people were against Harry and Snape reconciling because it would've been too "cheesy"...but if you're going to write the hero as a loving Christ-like figure, compassion for one's enemies - for the people who don't "deserve" it - is part of the package. Other than sparing Peter and saving Draco, Harry doesn't show much compassion for his foes. Dumbledore even discourages Harry for sympathizing with Tom.

Re: Part 1

[sunnyskywalker]

Fred and George taunted Sirius about staying safe at home too. But Harry couldn't spare any hatred for them. He had another, safer target for that!

I do wonder whether Snape was a "safe" target for hatred in a sense. He's unpleasant and lots of people don't like him, so Harry doesn't have to feel bad or conflicted about hating him. They're never on friendly terms, so he doesn't have to grapple with how to feel about someone he likes and trusts doing bad things. And after the first book, he has Dumbledore's reassurance that no matter how mean Snape is, he won't try to kill Harry. So he can safely hate Snape without any painful conflict or self-examination or fear of Snape treating him any worse than he already does. Any negative feelings he has about James and co., Dumbledore, the Twins, or just about anyone else can be safely displaced onto Snape. What a relief--in the short term. Not such a helpful response in the long term, but in the Potterverse, growing up doesn't require learning how to think long term.

Re: Part 1

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Fred and George taunted Sirius about staying safe at home too. But Harry couldn't spare any hatred for them. He had another, safer target for that!

Yes, Sirius already felt restless in his home, with or without Snape's sneering. Why would Sirius care about proving himself to Snape? The man he had no respect for and traded insults with like they were schoolboys again?

If Snape's to blame for being derisive, then Harry's to blame for being reckless, rushing off into a trap, and putting himself in a dangerous situation which compelled Sirius to finally act. Regardless, I don't put the blame on either of them for Sirius' death. It was Sirius' decision to leave, and it was Bellatrix who killed him.

But Snape is a safe target for hatred, as you've said. So it's simpler for Harry to condemn the man he loathes rather than consider the other obvious factors which led to Sirius being killed. If Harry initially blamed Snape out of anger and grief, it would make sense for his character. After some time, as a sign of growth and character development, Harry should've realized he couldn't place guilt on Snape alone (or at all).

But growth and character development don't exist in the HP world, so... who needs things like self-examination and learning how to think in the long-term? XD

Part 2

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Now he learns that Snape was obsessed with his mother for no reason and yet he doesn't react at all?

I think this was another case of JKR treating her characters like plot devices. Snape fulfilled his role in getting the info to Harry, and then was discarded. Harry saw the memories, learned the truth, and then had to go and fulfill the rest of the plot to keep the story moving.

Or how pathetic Snape is. He can't be moral in his own right; he has to be forever pining away for a hypocrite who treated him like dirt in order to do something right for once, and then magnanimously forgiven by her son who's hated his guts for years.

I don't think JKR cared for any of her Slytherin characters, but she disliked Snape in particular. Having Snape redeem himself through his own choices and not be dependent on another Gryffindor would've been blasphemous in JKR's eyes. His redemption wasn't written well because JKR herself did not have compassion for Snape as a character. Redeeming a character requires believing in the good within them, and JKR clearly did not believe Snape could be capable of good on his own. Hence, the obsession over Lily, the manipulation by Dumbledore, and the off-screen forgiveness from Harry.

Sorry for the long 2-part comment, but I agree with you all the way!

Re: Part 2

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

I also think it was because she needed a "good" motivation for Snape. And by good, I don't mean a motive that made sense, but one that made it absolutely impossible for Snape to renege on it and go back to Voldemort. Moreover, she needed a fairytale motive.

Snape's title (The Half-Blood Prince) bears an obvious resemblance to fairy tales (Prince Charming rescuing the princess after a hundred years asleep, braving untold dangers for her sake). In this case, of course, Snape has no hope of rescuing his beloved physically, since she's been killed by the villain. But as long as she remains "alive" for him, in the form of the doe patronus, and in one Harry James Potter, the same principle still holds. According to this logic - or lack thereof - it's much more powerful and redemptive that Snape is under the "spell" of his abiding love for Lily.

The Hallows are also examples of fairy-tale logic applying to a series that was trying to be increasingly dark and gritty. Suddenly these artefacts come back out of legend and fall into the protag's lap? Why couldn't the cloak be just a cloak?

Re: Part 2

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

According to this logic - or lack thereof - it's much more powerful and redemptive that Snape is under the "spell" of his abiding love for Lily.

I do wonder if JKR was going for a powerful pure "fairy tale" love which brought a bit of "princely" goodness within a dark troubled man. It's interesting how different fans interpret it. Some fans believe Snape's love for Lily wasn't love at all, but an obsession or infatuation which inadvertently caused him to accomplish something decent in his life. I agree with you and think that JKR was going for the former (fairy tale motive) in an attempt to make Snape at least somewhat redeemable, but I think she did it terribly. Snape's love for Lily doesn't come across as powerful and romantic, but pitiful and pathetic. I'd find it more profound if Snape was capable of good of his own volition and not because he couldn't let go of his perfect childhood crush. But JKR adores her idea of having love be the answer to everything wonderful and pure in the world, so Snape had to remain an obedient "knight" to his one and only lady love. He wasn't worth it on his own, I guess.

And I do find it illogical how Snape, a character who is consistently portrayed as deeply spiteful and unforgiving, would be obsessed with a girl who chose his group of bullies over him. It makes sense for him to grieve for Lily and feel great guilt over her death, but I find it odd how someone so spiteful would continue to hold an undying love for Lily even after she left him and hooked up with his enemy. But Lily's never allowed to be in the wrong unlike Snape, James, Remus, Sirius, Peter, and every other flawed character in her benevolent presence.

Ugh sorry, my ranting about this knows no bounds lol. I've tried and tried to find something to like about Lily being Snape's only motivation but I just...can't. I've never been a fan of one character acting as a "morality guide" or symbol of purity for another character, which is essentially what Lily ended up being for all the men in her life. James was changed by marrying her, Snape dedicated his entire life to her, and Harry was saved by her unique love protection.

Good point about the Hallows being another fairy tale aspect in the books. Just as the whole re-framing of wand ownership seemed convoluted to me, the sudden strong focus on magical relics seemed a convenient way for JKR to give Harry advantages over Voldemort he wouldn't have on his own, regardless of his "ability to love" or not.

The last book really disappointed me with how it handled Harry, Dumbledore, Snape, and Voldemort's characters. So many missed opportunities for interesting character development thrown aside in favor of writing ridiculously opportune plot devices to help the hero in the last minute....

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

“Instead, who gets the brunt of Harry's hatred? Snape. Peter betrayed the Potters and Voldemort killed them, but let's hate Snape for leaking the prophecy. Bellatrix killed Sirius, but let's hate Snape for sneering at him.

And what were Snape's crimes? What did he do to earn Harry's hatred, to rank below a traitor and a genocidal despot and a murderous fanatic?”

Late reply, but rereading old sporks of DH has got me thinking about how Harry’s emotions are very close to the surface, he has a hair-trigger temper, he lacks empathy, he is impulsive, he develops something of a violent streak as the series goes on, and he’s quite self-centred. Especially towards the end of the series.

Snape is a trigger for Harry. Not only is he right in Harry’s face for six years, he is also a convenient target/outlet because of his curt demeanour, his high standards in a subject Harry cannot be bothered with, and (in Harry’s defence) his awarding Harry zero on at least one occasion for perfectly adequate Potion-making. Not always at a conscious level, either: Harry no doubt suffers from, among other things, PTSD and high anxiety. He trusts some authority figures (Sirius, Dd) far too quickly. Furthermore, in fifth year, the invasive, vague manner in which Snape teaches him Occlumency doesn’t help matters. (Though, even then, Harry gets his own back in SWM, albeit not with the results he’s expecting.)

Dumbledore, who has done much worse, is also under Harry’s nose at school. But because Dumbledore is nice to him, until DH Harry is so blind to Dd’s faults that he takes everything that comes out of his mouth as gospel. It’s only when he’s dead (out of sight, again) that H starts to question his motivations — and even then, he chooses to be not a Doubting Thomas but “Dumbledore’s man through and through”.

Pettigrew, Bellatrix and the other DEs are out of sight, out of mind; Voldemort likewise. Harry doesn’t care about the plight of the werewolves, or any of the Muggles and Muggleborns slaughtered, because they don’t affect him personally. From a Doylist POV, it’s not as sexy to have Harry actually stand up for the rights of Muggles and Muggleborns, or plausibly fight a competent villain, as it is to have him doing things like unlocking secret chambers, pulling swords out of hats and fighting off a hundred dementors at once. JKR can’t seem to make up her mind about the genre/tone of the books, either. There is serious Genre Whiplash going on. Are they traditional boarding school books with purely school-based problems? Or are they epics whose focus is on vanquishing a powerful dark wizard? As late as HBP, we have Harry sitting passively at school trying to work out the author of his. mysterious Potions textbook, as if Dark Lords and prophecies were trifles.

Really, he does whatever the author wants him to. One minute he loses it at Sirius because he thinks he killed his parents. The next, he can’t be bothered to expend any effort on defeating LV, one of the two people who is responsible for one of the greatest tragedies of his life.

Dumbly has stuffed up H’s life far more pervasively by:

a) needlessly placing Harry at PD in the first place and not bothering to check up on him (don’t tell me Arabella Figg was anything but a failsafe, and Mundungus obviously didn’t take his duty seriously).

b) lying through his teeth about it, rather than fessing up to Harry that he should’ve handled things differently

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Pettigrew, Bellatrix and the other DEs are out of sight, out of mind; Voldemort likewise/

So, all that Snape had to do was to leave Hogwarts after first year and Harry would stop hating him so much? Yeah, that bodes well for a boy with 'the power of love.'

/Harry doesn’t care about the plight of the werewolves, or any of the Muggles and Muggleborns slaughtered, because they don’t affect him personally/

Which is where the whole disconnect with the themes of racism comes in. Voldemort is bad for hating Muggles and Muggle-borns, but the only Muggles that Harry knows are ones that he hates (the Dursleys). The only Muggle-born that Harry is really close to is Hermione and the most pushback at school that she gets is from Draco, who already dislikes her and mostly just calls her names. It's only in COS and DH where she's placed in serious danger, and Bellatrix would've tortured her anyway just for being Harry's friend. And Harry himself is neither Muggle-born nor Muggle and nobody gives him grief for being a half-blood (except for Bellatrix's one line in OOTP).

/it’s not as sexy to have Harry actually stand up for the rights of Muggles and Muggleborns/

True, but then why put that stuff in there if you're not going to address it? Hermione tries to stand up for house elf rights, but that's treated as a joke and then ultimately dismissed.

/Are they traditional boarding school books with purely school-based problems? Or are they epics whose focus is on vanquishing a powerful dark wizard?/

I wonder what would've happened if Harry had gone to school with Tom, as he's done in fanfics and as the hero has done in other fantasy books. There would be the focus on school problems, but since Tom would end up becoming a dark wizard, the series could delve more and more into a fantasy epic as the books got darker.

/Really, he does whatever the author wants him to. One minute he loses it at Sirius because he thinks he killed his parents/

And the next minute, he yells at Snape and calls him pathetic for hating Sirius. And after they all knock Snape out, he tells Lupin that "I'm still not saying I believe you."

So, you can be a murderer and a traitor, but if Snape doesn't like you, you're still better than him in Harry's book. The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and all that.

/The next, he can’t be bothered to expend any effort on defeating LV, one of the two people who is responsible for one of the greatest tragedies of his life/

It's not just Harry. Sirius broke out of Azkaban and he and Remus were all set to kill Peter in front of the Trio because they so badly wanted revenge for Lily and James.

Then comes the next book: "Peter? Who's he?"

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

You’re quite right that it’s like a fan forum. JKR likes Harry, Hermione and Dumbledore to the extent that she can’t see their faults and gives them informed attributes that are in direct contradiction to the text. The way she sees them is not congruent with at least some of their behaviour in canon.

Even Snape, the most complex of Rowling’s characters, gets this treatment. https://www.deviantart.com/cabepfir/art/Taming-the-Prince-66617660. In this essay caprefir says essentially that it was only after Umbridge had come onto the scene that JKR could allow herself to “redeem” Snape.

A similar essay below:

https://www.google.com.sg/amp/s/lettersfromtitan.com/2011/07/11/harry-potter-severus-snape-as-a-representation-of-female-heroism/amp/

And, of course, there’s the Snape/Lily issue in and of itself. As I said in another comment, I don’t think Rowling sees any of her characters, except Dumbledore, as complex, flawed, fully realised agents of their own destinies. IOW they are plot devices rather than developed characters. If JKR’s plot requires Harry to be selfish, he is; if the emo!capslock!Harry we saw in OOTP, he is that too. He isn’t a fully realised character by any means.

Duh, you’re right about PoA, got the timelines mixed up. I went back and reread properly, and Peter does as good as admit his guilt. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something here, but the Potters’ justification for swapping Secret Keepers doesn’t make any sense. The retcon in DH aside (people are able to be their own Secret Keepers), I still don’t understand why they needed to switch from Sirius to Peter if the Fidelius charm isn’t breakable by torture.

If it *is* breakable by torture, do what Chantaldormand suggested (https://deathtocapslock.livejournal.com/341663.html#comments), and make three people SKs.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I want to jump in the middle of your conversation with aikaterini to say that the essays you posted are interesting and bring up the connections between Slytherin and femininity in the series. Gryffindor does seem like a representation of the more masculine type of heroics, while Slytherin encompasses traits that are deemed "lesser" due to their emphasis on cunning, subtlety, manipulation, and working from the shadows, rather than an in-your-face boldness and chivalry.

Edit: It also makes me wonder if this is why JKR played off and excused Dumbledore's manipulative side; he's a Gryffindor and the epitome of good, so any manipulation from him is justified and perfectly fine, unlike those selfish slimy Slytherins. As long as it's for the greater good, everything is fine: Dumbledore's cold and callous chess master tendencies, Snape's single and pitiful fixation on a crush aka ~True Looove~....

As for Snape's complexity, as the years went on, I had started to believe that JKR never intended for Snape to be that complex of a character. He came close, but it was his fans that saw him as deeper and more complicated than he was. I believe JKR intended Snape to be nothing more than a 2-dimensional tragic terrible man whose sole "redeeming" feature was his worship of a Gryffindor girl. JKR never liked or cared about her Slytherin characters - they existed only to bring opposition to Harry and to make him look good and heroic in contrast. Snape couldn't live and/or redeem himself on his own because that would've gone against JKR's strong distaste for Slytherin and their demoralization in the text.

This leads into a quote that stuck with me from the first essay:

No living Snape is allowed a confrontation with Harry or with other characters. Thus, Deathly Hallows displays a constant displacement of Snape from the main action, confining him to the beginning and the end of the narrative, bringing his voice to silence, precluding him to steal the scene to Rowling’s best loved creatures. After a dead Snape, no more able to threaten Harry/JKR’s present, Rowling can even name Harry Potter’s second son.

I admit, I have a hard time understanding why many Snape fans like the way his redemption was handled in DH. To me, Snape's death in the Shack and the reveal of his Lily-centered motives did nothing to redeem him. It was another way for JKR to give an example of a Slytherin character being dubious at best, and more praise heaped upon a Gryffindor character. Lily ends up being the star of the show, not Snape - it's Lily's wonderfulness and perfection that is emphasized, while Snape is shown as pathetic, weak, damaged, and selfish. Complimenting his bravery is another way of emphasizing the "correct" type of heroics that Gryffindors embody and are awarded for. Snape is not redeemed because of his own choices as a person or for utilizing his Slytherin traits.

And Harry naming his son after Snape was less about Snape himself and more about showing Harry's ability to forgive and heal from the past. Again, this supports my theory that Snape was forgiven in the books, but not redeemed or saved by his adolescent idealization of Lily.

To reiterate what I've mentioned in other comments, it's easier to write Harry forgiving Snape if the terrible teacher is long dead and gone. Killing Snape off gave JKR an easy and nonthreatening way out of writing difficult scenes of Snape still alive and still as bitter as ever. Having Harry forgive a living Snape was probably impossible for JKR to envision, so as the quote implies above, Snape had to be permanently silenced and displaced after he finished his role as a plot device.

Also, Snape being alive wouldn't have fit in JKR's sugary sweet ending of an epilogue. He's a character that represents brokenness, trauma, ambiguity, and all sorts of painful and challenging things that cannot neatly fit into the "all was well" safe ending.

As for the Secret Keepers, I'm going to keep it simple and say that it's a mistake on Rowling's part. She doesn't go back and reread her books, so she probably ended up making a misjudgment or error in the text herself.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

ITA about Slytherin. The Slyth characters in the main books, with the exceptions of Slughorn and Snape, are one-note.

Pansy is just a sneering girl infatuated with Malfoy, JKR tries to redeem Malfoy in HBP but he still (again, others have pointed this out) comes off as weak. He simply doesn’t act to kill Dumbledore, which we can expect from someone of his age. He never shows any real strength (mind you, nor do any of our Trio from OotP on - the closest anyone comes in the later books is Neville and his epic battles in DH).

Crabbe and Goyle are Malfoy’s gormless henchmen for most of the book, and the unwitting agents of the Horxcrux’s destruction.

For a house of ‘cunning’ people, Slyth sure is full of weaklings and idiots.

Mind you, a lot of the minor characters from other houses come off the same: Lavender and Parvati, Justin, Ernie.

I guess I just expected... higher stakes and a lower scope, really, for everyone. I think if Harry et al had been solid characters or had had anything interesting happen to them in DH, the rest would have held up. But, from CoS onwards they just become stock-standard heroes.

I’m thinking of the Rowan books by Emily Rodda, which is a children’s series I absolutely adore. The heroes in that series are quite simplistic archetypes, but because the prose/tone is so simple and consistent, the scope remains so comparatively small over the series and the plot utilises the characters’ archetypes, it works much better. As long as HP kept its plot localised to a magical school with cosy domestic mysteries to solve, it worked better. As soon as it started bringing in wizarding wars and secret organisations and Horcrux hunts and the like is when it started to loosen up, in terms of plot.

There are plenty of other problems with the series, but most of the books have a ‘localised’ mystery element that works quite well, although the solution may leave something to be desired. In PS it’s the trapdoor, in CoS it’s the Chamber, PoA has the mysterious Sirius Black, GoF has the ‘mysteries’ of the clues to be solved - and it’s such an interesting book besides that I can’t help but like it. OOTP tried for mystery but came off as bloated IMO; HBP had the Potions book and the poisoner (Malfoy).
(Although the Prince’s book in HBP did make me think of it, this is again not my idea - Sister Magpie has written a very good essay on Red Hen about it.)

It is the characterisation and, often, the adventure where the books fall apart.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

For a house of ‘cunning’ people, Slyth sure is full of weaklings and idiots.

Yep, which is even more insulting because JKR can't let her Slytherin characters be skilled or confident when it comes to their own House characteristics!

Harry, Hermione, Ron, the Weasley twins, and Dumbledore are all shown as occasionally cunning, ambitious, and ruthless. But, since they're Gryffindors, their crafty and driven ways are considered good or neutral. Slytherins represent the bad or "dark" side of ambition and cunning. Therefore, they have to be weak, selfish, dumb, evil, and/or morally dubious.

I remember reading DH for the first time and theorizing that JKR made the notable Slytherin characters extra pathetic for the sake of not having any attention taken away from her Gryffindor characters. Weak, weepy, and helpless characters are not cool or interesting, so what better way to cut down on the fans' fascination for Slytherin characters like Draco and Snape by making them weaklings and not giving them the chance to show off any Slytherin strengths. Draco is rendered passive, reliant on his mother and Harry to save him, and is more of a bystander in the battle than an active participant. Snape is killed off and has his memories speak for him instead of staying alive to speak or stand up for himself.

All the Houses have minor obnoxious characters, but it's no debate that Gryffindors are painted in the best light the majority of the time because that's where our heroes (and the author's favorites) reside.

As long as HP kept its plot localised to a magical school with cosy domestic mysteries to solve, it worked better. As soon as it started bringing in wizarding wars and secret organisations and Horcrux hunts and the like is when it started to loosen up, in terms of plot.

I don't have much else to say other than I completely agree. Once JKR attempted to make her world bigger, darker, and more mature, that's when her weaknesses as a writer came out. The biggest flaw was her inability to mature and develop her characters along with the serious shift in tone and story.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

I also agree about unintended authorial consequences when fans saw Snape as deeper and more complex than he really was. Even from book 1, as you said in earlier comments, he had interesting potential from a textual perspective due to his ambiguity (in PS he is the most ambiguous character). His narrative as a DE spy has a lot of potential for intrigue and... angst :)

I think the Lily thing is incredibly unrealistic and comes out of left field. It does kind of make sense when looked at from a certain perspective, which is probably the perspective a lot of Snape fans have:

a) Snape is quite young even in PS, had an abusive childhood and really had no chance to form real friendships
b) Snape doesn’t really have the maturity to move on from things like James nearly killing him.
c) Lily is therefore the closest thing to romantic love that he has ever received. He’s therefore fixated on her, after a fashion.
d) In all other spheres of his life, he’s discontented (he missed out on his favoured career due to throwing himself on DD’s mercy); he doesn’t appear to have friends due to his sunny personality
d) They like the romantic, angsty fairytale justice of it. “After all this time? Always.”

And according to JKR, Snape ‘imprinted on’ Lily. Really, that’s the only way to describe it. So, this ‘justifies’ the carrying-on of Lily-into-Harry.

“Harry, Hermione, Ron, the Weasley twins, and Dumbledore are all shown as occasionally cunning, ambitious, and ruthless. But, since they're Gryffindors, their crafty and driven ways are considered good or neutral. Slytherins represent the bad or "dark" side of ambition and cunning. Therefore, they have to be weak, selfish, dumb, evil, and/or morally dubious.”

Very well said. I entirely agree with you about the way Slyths’ negative characteristics are always used to flavour their characters in unsavoury ways, and the potentially positive characteristics (such as house loyalty, ambition, and indeed self-centredness) are flipped and used against them, character-wise.

Slyth is only allowed to have negative characteristics, whereas Gryff!Harry’s Parseltongue comes in handy. Gryffs’ and Puffs’ demonstration of other houses’ characteristics (Harry and Ron’s loyalty to their families, Ernie’s pomposity) are treated as neutral. If anything, Draco has more reason to be loyal to his family because he’s been raised by them. Harry never knew his family, so it’s not that he should hate them or anything, but he should at least understand why Draco doesn’t hate the Malfoys (and by the same token, Draco should display some empathy towards the Weasleys). Harry (and by ext the narratorial voice) has very poor theory of mind, and he lacks empathy.

Draco‘s loyalty is not loyalty unless it is to the ‘right’ side and the plot requires it. Nor Snape’s.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Even from book 1, as you said in earlier comments, he had interesting potential from a textual perspective due to his ambiguity (in PS he is the most ambiguous character). His narrative as a DE spy has a lot of potential for intrigue and... angst :)

Snape did exemplify the "Good Is Not Nice" trope to the zenith in PS/SS. Having the mean and cruel teacher not be the villain behind everything was an intriguing direction for a children's book. And yes, his role as a spy provided an extra fascination to his character.

I do have sympathy for Snape despite his many harsh flaws. His life, as you've pointed out, was full of misery, abuse, loneliness, bad choices, bad circumstances, and all around unhappiness. It makes sense how he'd "imprint" on Lily because of her being the one close friend he had, but I still find it disappointing (and unrealistic) to have his entire reasoning for doing everything be a childhood crush.

Maybe it depends on how fans of Snape perceived or interpreted his character beforehand. I admittedly never saw Snape as a romantic, sensitive, or even tragic figure prior to DH. Morose, stunted, and sympathetic to an extent? Yes. A sentimental man driven by an undying unrequited love and nothing else? No. I saw Snape as a bitter and dark survivor of sorts; greatly flawed and focused on self-preservation, but also capable of stepping away from true evil when it went too far. Maybe there was some truth to that, but I think canon!Snape ended up being a lot more "emo" (for a lack of a better word lol) than I thought he would be. His redemption didn't work for me because I didn't find it romantic and poignant like many Snape fans did.

Then again, I found about 98% of the romances written by JKR to be boring, trite, or downright awful. The only couple I found to be okay was Arthur/Molly (and maybe Bill/Fleur). The rest? Ron/Hermione were meh. Harry/Ginny were terrible with barely any development or chemistry. Remus/Tonks were a mess and not an entertaining mess either. James/Lily were dead before the story began, so I never cared about them. Hermione/Krum were kind of cute but didn't matter much. Harry/Cho didn't matter either. The way JKR wrote her romances didn’t appeal to me at all, so it's no surprise I found Snape/Lily to be such a dull dud too and a diminishing of Snape's character by making him all about his Lily "Always" Love.

It's so damn strange because I'm often teased for being an emotional sap in real life. Maybe I'm deader inside than I thought? XD

And yes once more to Slytherins not getting the chance to show off their own House traits in a positive or skillful way. Hermione gets to be ruthless with no problems. Dumbledore is a manipulative mastermind and praised to high heavens for it. Harry can be sneaky, sly, and snarky and is all the more charming for it. The Weasley twins are driven and have their dreams of opening a shop come true. Ron is ambitious and envious of others’ success, and while it causes him to clash with Harry, it’s never presented as nefarious enough to break their pure and strong friendship.

Gryffindors can embody Slytherin traits in a positive or neutral manner, but Slytherins can’t embody their own House traits without being some flavor of evil, bad, and/or incompetent. Ravenclaws and Hufflepuffs don’t really matter much either. Sure, they have some fun representation in the form of Luna, Cedric, and others, but they obviously take a backseat when it comes to the Gryffindor vs. Slytherin animosity.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

It’s a weird sort of hypocrisy or tautology, isn’t it?
Draco is evil, therefore everything he does is evil, even if he’s displaying positive characteristics such as familial loyalty. Snape is evil (except when he’s good), so everything he does is evil (except when the plot requires it to be good, such as his spying). Character serves plot; plot is not subordinate to character in this series.

In fairness to JKR, she does try to bring in some nuance via Capslock!Harry’s episode when he arrives at the Dursleys’. But I think your word ‘mature’ is the key word there. None of the characters (at least, none that we see) display real maturity, except perhaps Dumbledore.

Like you, I have trouble believing that a man as dedicated as Snape would have allowed his teenage crush and childhood grudges to overshadow his now-career. Far from being the reclusive “dungeon bat” he would have had friends, a romantic partner (or equivalent, such as a Heterosexual Life Partner/BFF) and a social life. Maybe even a child.

It seems we’re meant to read Snape as essentially non-sexual and antisocial in HP. To some extent I can understand this, given it’s from Harry’s perspective and given the thoroughly unrealistic courseload Hogwarts sets its teachers, plus spying and Order meetings. He seems to be intended (at first) as the archetypal reclusive-but- brilliant scientist skulking in his lab.

But his double life only begins after Harry’s fourth year. Are we to believe that he sits there brooding over Lily and doing nothing else for thirteen years? It seems we are. Even taking into account the different expectations of teachers in the real world vs Hogwarts, surely the teachers must have had some social life. Did he never go out with Sprout and Pomfrey for a Butterbeer in Hogsmeade? What about going to Diagon Alley? Are readers to believe that because of his unpleasant personality, people didn’t like him? Or is it just lack of page time?

I’ve read wonderful fics where Snape has friends, has a relationship, has a child, has a social life and generally acts like a rational adult rather than an emo teenager.

For that matter, I’d love to read some fics about McGonagall’s life outside Hogwarts, too.

To sum up: for Rowling, her characters start and end with the books. They don’t, on the whole, come off as realistic human beings.

(Sorry for the double comment, mine exceeded LJ’s character limit.)

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Draco is evil, therefore everything he does is evil, even if he’s displaying positive characteristics such as familial loyalty. Snape is evil (except when he’s good), so everything he does is evil (except when the plot requires it to be good, such as his spying). Character serves plot; plot is not subordinate to character in this series.

The reverse is also true: if a character is good, then everything they do is good (or excusable) too. Harry nearly slices Draco to death? No big deal and it's hardly spoken of again. Hermione scars Marietta? Eh, she was a traitor anyways. James was a big arrogant bully? He married Lily and became Harry's dad, so it's cool. Sirius nearly killed another student using his werewolf buddy Remus? Eh, nobody got hurt and Snape deserved it for existing as his greasy Slytherin self, so let's call it a prank gone wrong. And we all know about Dumbledore....

But his double life only begins after Harry’s fourth year. Are we to believe that he sits there brooding over Lily and doing nothing else for thirteen years?

Probably. It's not True Love unless you're brooding, obsessing over the past, and weeping over her special green eyes. :P But in all seriousness, with the way JKR wrote Snape as emotionally stunted and immature as he is, she most likely didn't see him as having any inclination to accomplish much in his short-lived life beyond begrudgingly serving Dumbledore, working at Hogwarts, and mostly keeping to himself in his free time. He could've put his intelligence and skill in Potions to good use outside of his profession as a teacher, but he didn't. Snape's personal life ended the moment Lily died; from then on, his guilt and malleable loyalty to Dumbledore took top priority. He wasn't allowed a life of his own or any reason to live beyond atoning for Lily's death.

Fanfics can thankfully come to the rescue to make things more interesting.

To sum up: for Rowling, her characters start and end with the books. They don’t, on the whole, come off as realistic human beings.

Oh definitely. They have potential and even a certain charm, but they never develop beyond what they're expected to do for the sake of the plot.

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/I admit, I have a hard time understanding why many Snape fans like the way his redemption was handled in DH/

So do I, and I'm not even much of a Snape fan! Then again, I'm the same person who doesn't understand why many fans of Amon, a character that I am a fan of, liked the season one finale of "The Legend of Korra," because I thought that it did a similar disservice to his character.

/Snape's death in the Shack and the reveal of his Lily-centered motives did nothing to redeem him/

And indeed it did not in the eyes of many HP fans. To this day, there are fans who view his obsession with Lily as pathetic, who think that he's a Nice Guy (TM) stalker who's just bitter that he didn't get the girl. There are fans who openly state that they don't care that Snape was obsessed with Lily, they'll never forgive him for insulting Hermione's teeth/bullying Neville/outing Lupin/sneering at Harry/etc., etc.

JKR spent six books building Snape up as this horrible, nasty person and making her protagonist hate his guts. Then, all of a sudden in the seventh book, she randomly makes him obsessed with Lily, and Harry instantly reverses his opinion of him, to the point of naming his *son* after him? Come on.

That's why it doesn't really matter to me if JKR planned Snape's backstory from the beginning or not. The way that it was *written,* how the concept was *executed,* made it look like a sloppy, contrived, last-minute retcon that came out of nowhere, made all of the characters involved look awful, and didn't make any sense with what happened in previous books.

/it's Lily's wonderfulness and perfection that is emphasized/

Even though JKR made her look like a complete failure as a friend. How hard would it have been to make Lily actually act like a friend? Actually make her genuinely worried about Snape? Have her acknowledge that he exists before he throws out the Mudblood insult instead of ignoring him in favor of arguing with James? But, wait, that's right, she wasn't horrified or concerned about Snape in OOTP, so we can't have her act like that now in DH...and yet we're still supposed to believe that they were still friends during that scene and it was only meanie Snape throwing out that insult that destroyed their 'friendship'. The entire Lily/Snape farce is JKR trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

/And Harry naming his son after Snape was less about Snape himself and more about showing Harry's ability to forgive and heal from the past/

Especially when he couples Snape's name with Dumbledore's. Yeah, Harry, you sure do understand Snape now. I'm sure that he would've been delighted by your decision.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

To this day, there are fans who view his obsession with Lily as pathetic, who think that he's a Nice Guy (TM) stalker who's just bitter that he didn't get the girl.

The HP fandom on Tumblr goes on and on about how Snape was a misogynistic creepy Nice Guy who stalked Lily and felt entitled to her. I may hate how Snape's redemption was handled, but even I disagree with the assertion that Snape was a stalker or a Nice Guy. Snape had legitimate reasons to hate James and the Marauders that had nothing to do with them "stealing" Lily. There's also nothing in canon to support the view that Snape only wanted to get into Lily's pants. But that's the interpretation a lot of HP fans have.

Funnily enough, James can be interpreted as sexist or chauvinistic. He demands Lily go out on a date with him while he's bullying her friend, and threatens to hex her. But Snape spitting out the slur "mudblood" while being physically and mentally tormented in front of a group of teenagers is the ultimate evil act. -_- If it's wrong for me to sympathize with Snape in that moment, then I don't want to be right, tbh.

The way that it was *written,* how the concept was *executed,* made it look like a sloppy, contrived, last-minute retcon that came out of nowhere, made all of the characters involved look awful, and didn't make any sense with what happened in previous books.

Agreed. Writing Snape as a spiteful, antagonistic, and morally questionable person for 6 books and then pulling out the plot twist of "he did it for True Love" at the last second didn't do his character any favors. It was lazy, sloppy, and underdeveloped. It gave a one-note ending to his character arc where everything potentially interesting about Snape could be summarized with his love/obsession for Lily. But, in a way, it makes sense because I don't think JKR intended for Snape to be all that complex. From her POV, it was throwing crumbs of pity towards a horrible man. But she executed the storyline so poorly that many HP fans can't even pity Snape for his unrequited love that propelled his depressing life.

she wasn't horrified or concerned about Snape in OOTP, so we can't have her act like that now in DH...and yet we're still supposed to believe that they were still friends during that scene and it was only meanie Snape throwing out that insult that destroyed their 'friendship'.

Weird thing is, Lily and the Marauders look worse once it was revealed that SWM happened after the Werewolf prank. So after endangering a student, James and Sirius proceed to physically attack Snape with no remorse, and Lily leaves her friend to their mercy because he called her a bad word and deserved to be bullied and assaulted? Snape doesn't hold this against her - he feels bad, apologizes, and doesn't force her to remain his friend.

While Lily was under no obligation to forgive him, I still found it cold and callous for her to leave her close friend behind to be tormented, and then go on to date one of his bullies like nothing happened. But she's portrayed as a flawless Saint through and through. I've noticed most Snape fans are careful to not criticize Lily too much in fear of being accused of excusing Snape's flaws.

I think both Snape and Lily were poor friends to one another as teenagers and their friendship was built on mainly child Snape's loneliness and longing for affection. Once they got older, they were already going their separate ways even before the "mudblood" incident. I never bought their friendship as being all that strong or wonderful.

Especially when he couples Snape's name with Dumbledore's.

Yes, that's another indication that 'Albus Severus' wasn't really about either characters for who they were, but a way for JKR to show Harry's noble forgiveness of the two men who treated him terribly in their own ways. Snape's cruelty and Dumbledore's manipulations were absolved all in one name.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

Admittedly I can’t remember DH very well, but I agree that their friendship probably was based not only on Snape’s loneliness as a child, but also Lily’s fascination with magic. I really think she just wanted a magical playmate (they were, what, ten?).

I think the whole Mudblood insult doesn’t work for me - either here or in CoS, when Malfoy says it to Hermione - because there is no actual oppression going on. We never see Hermione (or Muggleborns) being unduly hurt, stigmatised, discriminated against or otherwise hard done by by the general student body. Both she and Lily are Prefects, and it is only because of Hermione’s.. shall we say, her social skills, that she probably has no friends other than Harry and Ron. We don’t hear of other Muggleborns, like Justin, struggling to make friends or fit in. Furthermore, if Hogwarts is so tiny that there’s about five people per house per year, how does ‘Mudblood’ even get big enough to be a thing, except among certain families like the Malfoys? If there are so few Muggleborns, Mudblood shouldn’t be read as a racial slur, but as an insult, like ‘twat’, that may have have had connotations of pureblood supremacy but has since just become a synonym for ‘idiot’.

Snape might as well have called Lily a bitch.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

The mudblood insult doesn't work for me either and I admittedly can't take it seriously on the level of real life slurs. A lot of HP fans bring up how "mudblood" is similar to racial/homophobic slurs, but I find that argument weak.

As you've said, there's no actual systemic oppression going on. Muggleborns aren't oppressed on the same level as Black Americans were (and still are) in the US. There are no laws preventing Muggleborns from marrying who they want and adopting like there are for gay men and lesbians in many countries. Muggleborns aren't prevented from participating in the Wizarding world on a larger level. Other than Death Eater raids and harmful words, I don't find the oppression of Muggleborns in the HP universe to be all that frightening or convincing. It only gets serious when Voldemort rises to power in DH. Half-bloods aren't treated all that terribly either despite not being considered "pure."

I think having Snape call Lily any bad word in that moment was to show how he's not the perfect victim, and therefore, "deserved" to be left behind at the mercy of his bullies. Which, I admit, I can't ever agree with.

People talk about how there's no such thing as the "perfect" or "good" victim, and how no one reacts to abuse or trauma the same way. Snape doesn't react to being bullied by begging for help, passively shrinking, or giving up. He gets angry, fights back, and lashes out. And that, in the eyes of many fans, makes him deserve the treatment he got from the Marauders and Lily.

Was it right for him to call Lily a mudblood? No. It also wasn't right for James and Sirius to assault him, and for Lily to walk away and leave a student to be physically hurt and humiliated instead of getting a teacher or doing something to stop the violence. No one was perfect or 100% innocent in that scene, but Snape gets the brunt of the condemnation for using a (fictional) bad word against his friend.

I also think a part of it was JKR trying to make Lily look like some sort of badass ~Girl Power~ chick by showing how awful all the boys were in comparison to her. The fandom treats Lily like she's a tough-as-nails feminist queen for being all sassy with James and dropping Snape.

I fail to see how there's anything "badass" about Lily in canon. She doesn't do anything other than dilly-dally when her friend is being bullied, and then she walks off when her feelings are hurt. She hooks up with a school bully and either doesn't know he continues hexing people behind her back or doesn't care. She cries, pleads, and acts like a damsel in distress when Voldemort breaks in, conveniently forgetting that she's a witch who could use her wand or Apparate. But hey, she tells off the greasy future Death Eater and gives birth to the future savior of the Wizarding world! Guess that's enough to be worshiped by the overall fandom despite not doing much else....

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

The second essay was interesting, but I have a few quibbles with it.

The essay says that Bellatrix is defined as Voldemort's "romantically chosen", but she's only claimed as such in the Play That Must Not Be Named. JKR takes great pains to portray Bellatrix's feelings as unrequited (making her seem misguided or pathetic) in the actual books. When Voldemort screams after Bellatrix is killed, JKR describes it as anger that he's lost "his best lieutenant."

The essay also claims that "Snape’s insistence that he is 'not a coward' is an attempt to claim masculine authority." But personally, I think it's just his society's obsession with courage as the best virtue, because it's the Gryffindor virtue and the narrative is biased towards Gryffindors. The Ravenclaws' key value is meant to be intelligence/wisdom/etc., which has also been thought of as a manly virtue, and yet intelligence is never trumpeted to the skies by everyone, hero and villain. Dumbledore's remark about how "we Sort too soon" is meant to indicate that Snape is an honorary Gryffindor.

It's the same reason why Voldemort has contempt for Peter (who isn't really given many stereotypically feminine qualities) for his cowardice. It doesn't matter that he and Snape hail from a House that doesn't have courage as one of its stated values. *Everyone* has to value courage most of all, even the villains. So, even though it doesn't really make sense for Snape to get so uptight about being called a coward, he does.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

The essay also claims that "Snape’s insistence that he is 'not a coward' is an attempt to claim masculine authority." But personally, I think it's just his society's obsession with courage as the best virtue, because it's the Gryffindor virtue and the narrative is biased towards Gryffindors.

I think it's a bit of both: the world JKR created values courage because of her bias towards Gryffindors, and the real world expects men to be masculine, which typically involves brashness, fearlessness, risk-taking, etc.

To hide in the shadows, lie and manipulate, and rely on one's wiles to get the job done are not virile or "macho" traits to have. At least, not in the traditional or stereotypical view of masculinity. Heroes are rarely enigmatic, crafty, or sneaky; they're typically righteous, bold, and brave in the face of physical danger. Masculine heroism is celebrated in real life, as well as in the books.

I think this is why JKR wrote Snape outraged at being called a coward: it was a "hint" that he's not completely a bad guy because he has one very Gryffindor-like/masculine characteristic, namely being brave.

Nonetheless, like you've said, everyone in the books, including the villains and morally ambiguous characters, look down on cowards with contempt. This is true to life where cowardly men are deemed too feminine, weak, unmanly, spineless, etc. I think JKR, whether subconsciously or consciously, applied this thinking to elevate the majority of Gryffindors for having the "right" traits associated with heroism and moral strength, and to disgrace the majority of Slytherins for having the "wrong" traits associated with villainy or moral weakness. Snape gets an honorary mention by Dumbledore because he's (kind of) the exception to the rule, just as Peter is an exception to his House.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

c) never actually taking Harry to a counsellor. Never teaching Harry to reflect on his actions, unite the houses, develop proper social skills, curb his recklessness or any other interpersonal or life skill ever. The closest he comes is all that “It is our choices that make us who we are” guff, and that is mixed in with a lot of absolute rubbish about the Harry’s super-speshul power of wuv. For a loving protag, Harry sure is an arsehole most of the time. Actually, the lessons about Tom are a decent exercise in empathy, but they’re also laced with “Tom was evil and irredeemable anyway, because he became LV”.

Dumbledore, if our choices make us who we are, why is Tom painted as a lost cause? There is no moral lesson in this (“So-and-so had XYZ faults just like you, but he reformed and you can too, if you put your mind to it.”) The point of the lessons is to make clear that Harry is Not Like The Dark Lord, Not At All, because of his mother’s undying love for him. Since Tom’s mother didn’t love him enough to sacrifice her life for him in pitched battle, he and Harry are of course chalk and cheese.

d) hiring teachers like Lockhart (incompetent) or Quirrell (possessed)

Harry capslocks spectacularly at Sirius in PoA, when he thinks Sirius is guilty, but after Sirius proclaims his innocence and is vetted by Dumbledore, Harry doesn’t even mention his kidnapping of Ron, who is Harry’s best friend of three years, as a reason to distrust Sirius. At the end of PoA Harry is ready to pack up and live with Sirius at a moment’s notice. Never mind that Sirius is probably lying. Never mind that he’s in no fit mental or physical condition to care for himself, let alone Harry, who also has some serious issues. Because Bumbledore has okayed Sirius, he’s suddenly alright in Harry’s book. The one thing Dd does “right” is not allowing Harry to live with Sirius at Grimmauld Place. And I suspect that is only so he can control Harry better.

Harry is quite justifiably upset at Pettigrew, but for all his righteous anger at his parents’ death, he never thinks to find out why the Potters couldn’t have been SKs themselves, or why they switched SKs in the first place (Sirius’ justification is, frankly, bullshit).

[aikaterini.livejournal.com]

/Actually, the lessons about Tom are a decent exercise in empathy, but they’re also laced with “Tom was evil and irredeemable anyway, because he became LV”/

The thing is that this also may be due to Genre Whiplash. For example, Sauron is the main villain of "Lord of the Rings." But Gollum and the Ring evoke more personal emotion with Frodo and Sam because they're right there with them and because Gollum is a reminder of what Frodo could be if he succumbs to the temptation of the Ring. There is no attempt to evoke any similarities between Sauron and Frodo. They aren't given similar backstories or personalities. They don't even get to really meet face to face or talk. In fact, the notable thing about the whole conflict between them is how different they are. Frodo's a small, humble hobbit from a quiet village who has no interest in ruling anything. The whole point about Frodo being the hero is that he's someone that Sauron underestimates because he's nothing like what Sauron would expect.

Voldemort is the main villain of HP and he's outfitted with a lot of common Dark Lord traits: has followers, dresses in black, wishes to conquer the wizarding world, etc. But then we meet him as a child and a teenager, and we see the similarities between him and Harry. But then, once we think that this is going somewhere, it doesn't. Voldemort is still the typical Dark Lord, none of what Harry sees makes any real difference except to offer clues about what he's up to (Horcruxes).

/Dumbledore, if our choices make us who we are, why is Tom painted as a lost cause?/

Because JKR wanted to make sure that the reader knew that Tom was a bad apple from the start. He was a 'funny baby', he killed animals, he had a hungry look on his face when Dumbledore tells him that he can do magic (not unlike the look of greed that Snape is described as having when he sees Lily and Petunia?), and he drove other children at the orphanage insane and stole their belongings. And that's all before he arrived at Hogwarts.

/The point of the lessons is to make clear that Harry is Not Like The Dark Lord/

It's basically like an argument that you'd find in fan forums. "So what if Tom grew up in an orphanage? Harry grew up with the Dursleys and you don't see him killing people." Even Harry's decision to say "Not Slytherin" when being Sorted is treated like this moral triumph in COS when, in reality, the only reason why he said no was because Hagrid told him that all bad wizards came from Slytherin (which was proven to be a lie). So, he made this grand moral decision based on a lie. And yet somehow that makes him morally superior to Tom, who presumably knew nothing about Slytherin House.

/because of his mother’s undying love for him. Since Tom’s mother didn’t love him enough to sacrifice her life for him in pitched battle/

The argument put forward by Harry seems to be that if Merope had worried more about keeping herself and her son alive than being upset that her husband left her, then she wouldn't have lost her magic. Or she should've tried harder to keep her magic instead of giving into her depression. Even though we've only seen two instances of this: Merope and Tonks. Neville never loses his magic whenever he's upset.

But, yes, Merope would've been able to use her magic and thus save herself if she'd been stronger. Meanwhile, magical prodigy Lily, who was fully healthy by the time that Voldemort came calling, was so much stronger and braver than Merope that she barricaded the door with boxes and when that didn't work, pleaded with Voldemort to spare Harry and then threw herself in front of him when that didn't work. Because this awesome mother somehow forgot that she was a witch and could do magic. Yep, Merope's weak for letting her magic drain out of her because she's sad, but Lily is amazing for forgetting that she has magic at all.

/Because Bumbledore has okayed Sirius, he’s suddenly alright in Harry’s book/

Actually, Harry was all set to move in with Sirius before that. He tells Sirius that he'd be willing to live with him while they're all walking Peter towards the castle, before Lupin transforms.