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

[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....

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

Nice catch on the contrast between her behaviour in front of LV and her behaviour with James et al.

Unfortunately, I think JKR’s idea of writing well-rounded female characters begins and ends with Hermione, and even she has very little softness or kindness about her (that we see in canon). She is one of the boys, and in fact, I think all of the Trio (actually, most of Rowling’s characters, to be fair) have “the emotional range of a teaspoon”. JKR simply doesn’t know how to write healthy friendships involving women. Hermione’s relationship with Ron is full of bickering; we don’t see enough of Lily’s friendship with Severus, and that which we do see isn’t convincing.

For PS she was intended to be the sacrificial lamb (Muggleborn), so the sacrifice had to be magic-less to highlight her double vulnerability (mother-with-child, and helpless Muggleborn). She was meant to be reminiscent of the Madonna figure to the baby Jesus: archetypal mother.

But in OotP she had to be ~strong and sassy~ to the popular, mean boys, which apparently, in JKR’s book, means unfeeling and insulting.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on how JKR struggles to write well-rounded female characters beyond Hermione. Hermione, Luna, and McGonagall were the only women who I liked from the books, and even they aren't anything extraordinary. And while the male characters have plenty of problems too, JKR puts some effort in giving them a modicum of depth. The men are also more important to the overall story.

It does seem like for some writers, portraying women as badass means making them either unfeeling or impetuous, with the only emotions indicating "strength" being anger or annoyance. But, only in a sassy, cutesy, or funny sort of way; real wrath and terrifying anger from women is too uncomfortable to show in a serious manner. Men's anger is often shown as something to be feared, while women's anger is some blend of cheeky or admirable for Girl Power's sake.

On that point, I still don't know what to make of the scene of Hermione siccing birds on Ron to hurt him in HBP. Whether JKR meant it to be humorous because Hermione lost her cool and Ron got his "comeuppance" or if it was meant to show how tough Hermione was... Either way, I hated that scene and how unnecessarily abusive it was.

And then there's the cattiness from Hermione and Ginny to Fleur. There's very little positive female friendships in the books. Hermione and Ginny aren't as close to one another as Ron and Harry are, and Hermione seems to look down on her female peers (Luna, Parvati, Lavender) quite frequently. For all the talk about how Hermione is a feminist character, it's a shame Hermione isn't shown connecting with other girls. But I understand it's Harry's story and we can't see everything that goes on behind the scenes.

Good point about Lily's initial role as a vulnerable victim/mother. Lily's transformation from passive victim in PS/SS to sassy popular chick in OOTP is reminiscent to Ginny's transformation. Ginny in COS was a bashful, quiet, and ordinary girl who needed to be rescued by her heroic crush. But in OOTP, all of a sudden, she's a spunky, feisty, and hot-tempered Quidditch player who gets a lot of male attention. She has a powerful and special bat-bogey hex, a sassy disposition, flaming red hair, and a flowery smell that drives Harry and his chest monster wild.

I definitely believe that JKR wanted Harry/Ginny to be the second coming of James/Lily, so Ginny had to get a personality change to not only be worthy of Harry, but to resemble vivacious and strong Lily. The physical resemblance is also kind of creepy.

But even tough chick Ginny, just like Lily, is regulated back to being a passive lady on the sidelines. Harry breaks up with her to protect her and then goes on a dangerous mission without her. Just like James was the one who ran out to face Voldemort before being killed. Lily went upstairs and just screamed helplessly. They're "tough" when telling off their school peers, but when facing a real threat? Not so much.

Edit: Although, to be fair to Ginny, she does face off against Death Eaters in OOTP and DH. Then again, the DEs aren't always portrayed as super formidable opponents besides Bellatrix. And even Bella is taken down by Molly Weasley of all people....

I sometimes feel guilty for disliking Ginny and Lily so much because as people, they're not bad or awful. But as fictional characters? I can't stand them and I think a lot of it has to do with how the author tries so hard to make them perfect and untouchable. Perfect characters don't interest me in the slightest and the more the author tries to shove down my throat how I must worship this particular character, the less I give a damn about them. Maybe it's childish or spiteful of me...but oh well.

Sorry for the long post, but it's very cathartic having this discussion. I don't encounter many HP fans who see eye-to-eye with me on these topics. XD

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

That’s a really good point, especially about the fear. It’s true in most pop culture. Men’s anger, sadness and suffering (in fiction!) can be imposing, intimidating and atmospheric in a way women’s is not necessarily allowed to be. This is why I love Alan Rickman’s Snape - he pulls off a dark, brooding, even melancholy sort of character that is very compelling. And... there is a romantic, gothic quality about these male characters that is consistently absent in female characters. I feel that particularly because of the female readership of some of these books, there is a strong desire to love, fix or comfort a man who acts in such a way; the character is admired, held up as an Iron Woobie or Broken Bird character. There may be an element of identification with the character in their loneliness/pain/misery.

I can think of several male characters the fandom perceives like this. There’s Snape, for one, and Lupin for another (from the first introduction, he’s quiet, soft-spoken, obviously poor, obviously suffering). Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock is another example, and John Watson from the same series is probably a third. Tobias from the Animorphs also qualifies (yes, let’s ignore the fact that he’s thirteen in the books: he still has Woobie elements for me, at least).

Male characters are allowed the space for vulnerability (anger counts). For me, at least, there is a sense that these male characters are justified in their suffering, that it ennobles them. In contrast, the female characters are rarely allowed to indulge emotions that tend towards the romantic-tragic/Keatsian. Lupin’s outward softness masks a horrific monster, and yet readers feel sympathy for him.
Snape is all crunchy shell and gooey interior (Aww, look, he and Lily really did love each other), as is Sirius. In PoA the latter is almost skeletal and more than a little mentally unstable; by OotP he is the lovable prankster and quasi-father figure whom Harry grieves so much. He’s not father of the year, but he’s at least functional. Both James and Neville develop offscreen (in James’ case, it isn’t known whether he matured at all - as Terri & others have pointed out, for all Lily knew, he could’ve been a complete pillock behind Lily’s back.

By contrast Millicent, Fleur, Luna and Pansy don’t undergo development, not even “pastede on yay” development.

Imagine if Fleur Delacour had broken down and become a recluse after Bill had been attacked at the end of HBP (or perhaps if Bill had died) — if she had harboured a quiet, simmering, brooding rage and sought revenge by retreating to France and planning for thirteen years. (Imagine, in other words, if she’d come over all Snape-ish.) I’m quite sure it would’ve been treated by other characters as irrational: either part of her innate Veela magic, or as a woman refusing to listen to reason. She wouldn’t have been a DE spy, she would’ve vanished from the story.

Instead JKR has her protest - to Molly! - that she doesn’t care about Bill’s disability and wants to stay with him. Which is a great testament to her loyalty considering how catty the Weasleys, Harry and Hermione have all been towards her. I actually like that JKR included this scene and it’s a fine example of how she really does love Bill, but she isn’t, as you say, allowed to show us any aspect of her emotions other than tears and loyalty/acceptance. Perhaps because of Harry’s POV, we don’t get a full sense of her grieving process. And we don’t see her and Bill again until Harry does.

We aren’t even told whether Lavender is alive or dead after being bitten. Yet Lupin is front & centre in PoA, and prominent in HBP and DH.

I’d argue there are no female friendships in the books at all, except for background ones like Lavender and Parvati.

As I think I mentioned before, I hated Luna. I hate her in most fanfics I’ve read, too, so maybe it’s just me. But she’s the Manic Pixie Girl par excellence & never seems to get past that stage. She contributes nothing to the plot, never develops and yet everyone adores her. The only thing I like about her is Evanna Lynch’s portrayal.

So we have Lily’s outburst, and then a similar one from Hermione. Both of their reactions to their supposed best friends and love interests are vastly out of proportion to the “crime”.

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

Male characters are allowed the space for vulnerability (anger counts). For me, at least, there is a sense that these male characters are justified in their suffering, that it ennobles them. In contrast, the female characters are rarely allowed to indulge emotions that tend towards the romantic-tragic/Keatsian.

Well said. I remember reading an article written by a woman where she spoke of how male characters are allowed to be complicated, messy, and greatly flawed without apology, while female characters are only allowed to be "Strong". Men are written like human beings, while women are written like they're meant to be role models. This inadvertently ends up making the male characters more compelling, interesting, and/or relatable because they're not always obligated to be Strong and Good all the time to be adequate role models for men and boys.

In HP, it's mainly the men who move the story forward and are given page time to express the profound emotions that motivate them in their lives - whether it's anger, melancholy, regret, guilt, hate, love, etc. Which brings me back to my Lily Problem; she's the only female member in the Marauders' Generation, and coincidentally, the only character portrayed as perfect as possible. James isn't always shown in a good light, and we all know the suffering Snape, Sirius, Remus, and Peter go through. But Lily is only allowed to be a Good Person, a Good Wife, and a Good Mother. She has no other purpose, and JKR never tarnishes Lily's pure reputation in the text in any way, unlike with the male characters that surround her who can be "impure" in their imperfections.

And that's an interesting point about Fleur and how she was written as another symbol of strength in relation to her injured husband. Her love for Bill is admirable and sweet, but it does seem like another example of a woman who has to be Good and Strong in the face of suffering, instead of showing any palpable and profound anguish.

As for female friendships, I know the fandom really likes Luna/Ginny. Ginny does give one of her children Luna's name (Lily Luna Potter) and I think protected Luna from being bullied once. But because it's Harry's story, we don't really get the chance to see any developing female friendships. They're in the background and sort of just there.

I like Luna and Evanna Lynch's portrayal of her, but you're right that she's a simple and straightforward character. She isn't a significant influence in the long-run and appears to inject some humor and quirkiness into certain moments. I like how Harry is calmer around her sometimes, but she could be taken out of the story, replaced with someone else, and not much would change.

So we have Lily’s outburst, and then a similar one from Hermione. Both of their reactions to their supposed best friends and love interests are vastly out of proportion to the “crime”.

I think, for me, the problem is less about their reactions being out of proportion, but more so how the author frames their reactions as being undeniably right. It was "right" for Hermione to attack Ron out of jealousy to show how he hurt her. It was "right" for Lily to leave behind her friend to be bullied and have his underpants stripped in front of a crowd because he said a bad word while being humiliated. Hermione isn't characterized as abusive and violent by JKR in the text for hurting Ron. Just as Lily is not painted in a bad light for being a major hypocrite who hooks up with her former best friend's bully after claiming they're both just as bad as each other. But James was a Gryffindor who didn't use Dark magic and he quickly changed through the power of Lily's Pure Loving Presence.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

Funnily enough, I don’t mind Ginny/ Luna. I think they set each other off nicely - Ginny is practical and Luna’s dreamy.

Ah, that makes sense. Yes, it’s the same issue I have with the Golden Trio: they do things because they are Inherently Good, and all the things they do are condoned by the author.

I wonder if Lily was well-liked among her classmates at Hogwarts?

It’s really a sign of poor writing, isn’t it, when you have two such different characters (Hermione and Lily) and yet they express their anger in exactly the same way?

[torchedsong.livejournal.com]

I don't mind Ginny/Luna either, but I think I like the idea of them more than what we've seen in canon. But, as always, since it's Harry's POV we're not going to see the intricacies of other friendships outside of the Golden Trio. Though I do think it sweet that Ginny gave her daughter Luna's name. I like it a tad more than James Sirius and Albus Severus. :p

I think Lily was well-liked among her peers. I'm too unmotivated to get the book to refer to it correctly, but doesn't Lily mention having friends separate from Snape when she says something along the lines of "my friends don't know why I keep hanging around you" to him? Plus, this is my own bias talking, but I get the sense that JKR wanted James/Lily to be a popular all-around beloved couple, so I don't doubt that Lily had an overall healthy social life at Hogwarts.

Speaking of the Lily and Hermione comparisons - this is purely hypothetical, but I wonder how Hermione would've reacted if Harry or Ron were bullied and called her a "mudblood" while she stood there bickering with their tormentor? I think Hermione would've been rightfully hurt, furious, and probably wouldn't have spoken to Harry or Ron for a while. But I can't imagine her leaving either of her friends behind like Lily did with Snape. I know this is pure fanon since we don't have a similar situation like this in canon, but it's an interesting scenario to think about.

[with-rainfall.livejournal.com]

I agree. I think Hermione would have come to her senses and tried to rescue Harry or Ron (or at least fetched a teacher, if she couldn’t get them down). I think she would have got quite upset, actually, and ahouted imprecations at their tormentors — and *then*, after the incident was over, she would have given Harry/Ron the cold shoulder.

Hermione is an interesting character. I get the feeling she was bullied, or at least friendless, in primary school, unlike Lily (witness her strong reaction to Ron’s teasing in PS). She has a strong sense of justice and a saviour complex when it comes to people (e.g. house elves) she perceives as downtrodden. And I believe Ron or Harry would fit the role of ‘downtrodden’ if they were being forced to strip by Crabbe and Goyle. Lily seems not to have experienced loneliness on the scale
that Hermione did in PS. She doesn’t share Hermione’s saviour complex, and therefore has little interest in maintaining a friendship with Severus during SWM. She’s more interested in sticking it to James (and impressing him, probably, with how “tough” she can be).

Having said that, the dynamic (per Jo’s logic) would be different in this instance because Crabbe and Goyle could hardly be expected to be anything other than brain-dead thugs. /s Any JKR character wouldn’t hesitate to hex them,because they’d “deserve it just for existing”.

If we substitute Cho for Lily, a couple of Claws/Puffs (perhaps Roger Davies or Zach Smith?) for the Marauders, and Harry for Snape, it might be a closer parallel. And I doubt Cho would stand there arguing with the bullies, either.

I also think the Trio’s dynamic is slightly different because we see them in five books. We don’t get as much of a sense of Snape and Lily’s friendship by SWM. I think we’re meant to read Lily’s refusal to forgive Snape as a combination of their friendship drifting apart, Snape’s DE sympathies and the influence of Lily’s friends. The Mudblood thing seems to be just an excuse.

At the same time, like Lily, Hermione is capable of the silent treatment with Harry and Ron, and swift relatiation when she becomes emotional (e.g. the birds).

Can’t remember where I read this, but someone wrote that Hermione‘s always right, except when she’s emotional, and then she’s always wrong.

Sorry for the edits midway through - my phone froze.

[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.