Why Snape appeals (mainly) to women

[ats_fhc3 <the.gremlin@verizon.net>]

No: HPFGUIDX 47971

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Porphyria Ashenden 
<porphyria at m...>" <porphyria at m...> wrote:
> I wrote:
> 
> > ...infatuation with literary characters has *nothing to 
> > do* with sexual attraction in its simplest sense. These 
characters 
> > have no physical presence...They are only as attractive as we 
> > imagine them. Our impression of them is rooted purely in 
language, 
> > which means it is symbolic and analyzable.
> 
> Acire responded:
> 
> > I disagree with this, because we can be affected by the way a 
> > certain character is described. Snape's voice is often described 
> > as "silky", he is always wearing black, sweeping in and out of 
> > rooms, talking in a "soft, dangerous" voice, and looking through 
> his 
> > curtain of black, and sometimes greasy, hair. All these 
> > characteristics have a mysterious tone about them. While he 
isn't 
> > physically attractive, his mannerisms are somewhat seductive in 
> that 
> > tall dark stranger sort of way.
> 
> Of course you're right; I agree that the physical description of a 
> character affects how we feel about them. I would just add that we 
> can, in turn, consider why certain physical aspects appeal to some 
of 
> us and not other. For instance you (and me) find silky, soft, 
> dangerous voices and flowing black robes appealing. Other readers 
> couldn't care less. So the "mysterious" aspect might or might not 
be 
> considered "seductive," depending on what a person finds 
seductive. 
> I'm only trying to make the point that we, as readers, glom onto 
> certain aspects of these characters because they are meaningful to 
> us, and yes this does include physical descriptions as well as the 
> other stuff I pointed out. But I wouldn't say it was "sexual 
> attraction in its simplest sense," because it requires a lot of 
> imagination to pull off; it's not just an instinct.
> 
> Actually, my premise is wrong, since human sexual attraction is 
> *never* simple. :-) But I just get annoyed sometimes at the 
> accusation that Snape's fans only defend him because they have a 
> crush on him, as if a crush were somehow not connected to the 
> complicated depiction of a character and our imaginative and 
symbolic 
> relationship with it, our own value system, etc. (Note: GulPlum 
> didn't say this; I'm thinking of others who shall remain nameless.)
> 
> I also agree with Acire's other points about the appeal of Snape's 
> dangerous past (kept in check since he recanted) , his bravery, 
and 
> most of all the fact that we, as readers, can fill in a lot of 
blanks 
> about his past as we see fit. :-) That point can't be stressed 
> enough, since it drives so much mental effort in interpretation. I 
> think I'd just add that the appeal of his semi-dangerousness is 
one 
> of those things that has to be explained since not all women go 
for 
> that. And again, I'd say it's because we fans identify with it a 
> little; we can vicariously have fun with it without necessarily 
being 
> dangerous ourselves or associating with people who are. 
> 
> Acire again:
> > The one thing that just bothers me about your theory is that it 
> > makes Snape sound a little feminine...well, indirectly feminine. 
> But 
> > I really do like your theory.
> 
> Interestingly, the reason I came up with this theory is that I was 
> pondering the fact that 1) Snape is the product of a female author 
> and 2) Snape's fans are overwhelmingly female. So I wondered if 
JKR 
> put some of her dark side into Snape and how this was registering 
> with female readers.
> 
> Of course what I tried to stress in saying that Snape is a cast-
off 
> animus (for you Jungians out there) is that he's exactly what 
women 
> don't get to be. Snape isn't effeminate at all; he's tough, 
> aggressive, competitive, hardnosed, unforgiving, exacting, etc. 
> 
> But on the other hand, there are some feminine (or yin) aspects to 
> Snape's depiction, aren't there? For one thing, I find it 
intriguing 
> that his craft is the one most often associated with (female) 
> witches; brewing in a cauldron, as opposed to the traditional 
> depiction of wizards with their really big staffs. In fact, he 
> disdains 'silly wand waving' (because of its overly phallic 
> obviousness?), instead praising the 'subtle' art of potions with 
> their more sneaky, devious ways (and feminine symbolism). Here I'm 
> sort of smooshing together western "feminine" with "yin" which is 
> also dark, negative, the color black, the night, etc. Still, I'm 
> reminded of a remark of sydpad's from post #43029 where we were 
also 
> discussing Snape and wands vs. cauldrons:
> 
> > If I was keen on feminist readings, I'd probably say something 
> > about the positive associations of nice 'forthright' . "male" 
wand 
> > magic, vs. sneaky, creepy, mysterious "female" *cauldron* 
> > magic...
> 
> I think sydpad was onto something and that's the kind of point I'm 
> trying to make. I think Snape has a few covert feminine attributes 
> along with his obvious male ones. In fact, I'd be tempted to add a 
> 'soft, silky' voice, skinniness, long hair and flowing robes to 
the 
> list of feminine attributes, but I realize those might not strike 
> every person or culture as feminine (to my mind they do). Of 
course 
> nothing is entirely yin or yang... 
> 
> > -Acire, who finds Sherlock Holmes (a mysogonist, for anyone who 
> > doesn't know) appealing in the same way she finds Snape 
appealing.
> 
> Me too. ;-)
> ~Porphyria