[HPforGrownups] Re: Snape's oily hair/ Phoenix symbolism (was: Voldemort as

[Edblanning at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 37184

Porphyria:
> 
> I'm always a little puzzled at the 'why is Snape's hair oily' question and 
> how people either worry about it *very* literally (and argue, indeed quite 
> reasonably, that some people just have oily hair) or they take it as a clue 
> to something we don't already know (a side-effect from an anti-vampire 
> 

Eloise:
Can I ask this question again? PLEASE will someone explain to me about 
Dementors and hydrophobia?

Porphyria:
   Maybe I'm being really boring here, but I've always felt that it lay 
squarely in the 
> realm of iconographic characterization and hence a) misdirection leading us 
> (and Harry) to see him as villainous (i.e. sleazy people have greasy hair); 
> and then b) exactly the way you'd depict someone who is, well I hate to say 
> it but, clinically depressed, or if that's too strong, beset with grief and 
> 

Eloise:
I completely agree with (a). It is in addition, I feel, an example of the 
very shorthand way JKR has of describing people. For each individual, there 
is a small vocabulary of descriptive phrases or adjectives which get trotted 
out, with minor variations, time and time again. I'm sure all of us, off the 
tops of our heads, could make quite a list of these. I started to write a 
post the last time this topic came up on the list saying more or less that 
and speculating that the repetition is therefore either highly significant, 
trying to tell us something, or conversely not important at all, as it is 
just a signal - mention greasy hair and the rest of the picture slots into 
place. I'm sorry, but JKR is not the world's greatest at description, no 
matter what her other strengths. This was particularly brought home to me the 
other day. We're now listening to Northern LIghts as our in-car book and at 
one point Philip Pullman describes a smile with incredible complexity, the 
sort of place where I'm sure JKR would have inserted something like, 'an odd, 
twisted smile' and left it at that.

As to (b), I have some reservations. I certainly don't think he's clinically 
depressed. As one who has had her depressive patches and, I think, once 
briefly stepped over the edge into clinical depression, I cannot identify 
with his being depressed. Sleeplessness obviously can be a symptom, but my 
experience is that depression is an enervating condition, whereas I always 
envision him as energetic, his movements brisk and decisive. Depression slows 
your mental faculties; I would never have had the wit or the energy to come 
up with his witty, snide remarks. Depression steals your ability to take 
pleasure from anything in life. I vividly remember driving along on a 
beautiful spring day such as this ( we're having the most beautiful, balmy 
weather), the sky blue, the first flush of intense green on the branches, 
trees covered in blossom, the sort of day which usually makes my heart leap 
and yet being conscious of feeling nothing, of being unable to summon the 
slightest joy. I don't think the man who waxes eloquent over his shimmering 
cauldron can be feeling like that.
I'd also make the point that he's *always* had greasy hair, ever since he was 
at school. Has he been depressed all his life, poor chap?
Having said that, I am quite happy for Snape to be beset by grief and self 
hatred. In fact, going back to my position that he doesn't actually *want* to 
be a good guy, he can be beset by a double whammy, hating both what he was 
and what he is!

Porphyria:
> 
> I think my question here is why do people wonder about his hair and no one 
> ever seems to wonder why he wears black all the time (something more 
> obviously his own personal choice). Snape strikes me as someone who is *in 
> mourning* and his irritability, bouts of rage and disdain for keeping a 
> 

Eloise:
Well, you see, I always think he wears black because he has a sense of gothic 
*style* don't y'know, which contrasts oddly with his greasy hair. I confess 
that now I'm terribly confused in my Snape image by his appearance in the 
You-Know-What, where he seemed to be very stylishly attired, but really,is 
there *any* evidence, other than his hair, that he has disdain for keeping a 
tidy appearance? His robes are never described as old, or frayed, or splashed 
(which must be a constant occupational hazard). And before someone brings up 
the teeth again, there is no evidence that JKR is not simply referring to 
their natural colour. Not all of us are lucky enough to have naturally 
brilliant white teeth. (I have the impression from previous discussions that 
the teeth thing is of more concern to Americans than Brits. One of our no 
doubt unjustified stereotypes of Americans is that they all have perfect, 
even, white teeth. Orthodontics and cosmetic dentistry are not quite so 
important over here.)

Porphyria:

I think that idea ties in perfectly well with what we know of the Potterverse 
wherein 
> nearly all of the adult characters are still traumatized in some way by the 
> past and Dumbledore is practically the only person who can say "Voldemort" 
> out loud. This is a society of people who have failed to recover. And Snape 
> has fairly personal reasons to be in mourning; regardless of whether he's 
> more grief-stricken at the loss of the Potters or his own fellow 
> housemates, his generation was decimated. Not to mention his depression and 
> self-hatred from whatever past actions he blames himself for. At least his 
> outwardly expressed acrimony (both in looks an!
> d behavior) is easier to sympathize with than the tendency towards 
> avoidance or under-rug sweeping in the manner of Crouch Sr., Fudge, 
> Karkaroff, the Dursleys or any of the other characters who utterly fail to 
> face up to the unpleasant realities in their lives.  
> 
Here! Here!

............................................
In a message dated 30/03/02 00:46:34 GMT Standard Time, 
mongobongo38 at yahoo.com writes:


> --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "coriolan_cmc2001" <coriolan at w...> wrote:
> > 
> > Symbols - as opposed to allegories - are (as Freud said) open to 
> > hyperinterpretation: that is, they can be (indeed, must be) 
> > interpreted on multiple levels to be fully understood. Interpreting 
> > JKR's Phoenix in an alchemical manner, or establishing a literary 
> > link to Nesbit does not invalidate the Christian interpretation. 
> 
> As, of course, a Christian interpretation does not invalidate an 
> alchemical one.  And of course, the first book was entitled Harry 
> Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, not Harry Potter and the Holy 
> Trinity.
> 
> 
Children, children! This isn't a competition!
I am reminded of the Philip Pullman's alethiometer (if that's how it's 
spelled). Every symbol on the dial has many levels of meaning. Given the 
culture in which JKR is writing, one might suggest that the prime symbolism, 
that which is going to be most easily understood, is Christian, on the other 
hand, as the phoenix in question is owned by an alchemist, then the prime 
meaning may be alchemical.The problem with this as a meaning for the symbol 
is that alchemy is even more obscure to most people these days than 
Christianity. I should imagine that JKR had both meanings in mind. 
Now shake hands, you two!

Eloise (who is mystied by the Porter/Gershwin reference attached to the 
last-quoted post)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]