The Snape debate

[annemehr]

--- In HPFGU-Catalogue at yahoogroups.com, "Jen Reese" <stevejjen at ...> wrote:
>
> > > CW:
> > > > 1.Severus Snape – general character studies
<snip>
> > > > 8. Snape as a literary construct/character
> > > 
> > > Jen: Could 1 & 8 go together? Maybe we could call number 
> 3 'Snape's 
> > > loyalty'?
> 
>  
> > Anne:
> > The two are actually quite different.<snip>
> 
> 
> Jen: I didn't include my explanation for putting both those two 
> together. First, I like reading about the character from both sides 
> of the story at once, just as I still like the idea of not 
> separating out the pro- and anti- posts (but accept being outvoted). 
> 
> I'm finding from doing Characterization that the character studies 
> for the most part are coded to the individual character names 
> instead of landing in the actual 'characterization' category. Some 
> of the analysis from outside the story has ended up in 'originality 
> and stereotypes' or other subs within the Characterization section, 
> but they are all still coded to the character name as well. So by 
> default the characters are being analyzed from both sides of the 
> story within each of the individual categories. I just don't see why 
> Snape should get his characterization sections separated if no one 
> else does, as "he is neither special, nor important" in my book. ;)
> 
> 
> Jen, FWIW
>

Anne again:
Ah, I see what you mean.  It's not unique to Snape, though -- Harry
and Voldemort have "literary construct" sections too.  It's because
their categories were so huge, and we had to divide them up somehow.

Anne