Why Snape doesn't have to be human

[desastreuse]

No: HPFGUIDX 107611

Melpomene writes:

> Why the hell can't Severus Snape just be a flawed 
> character--a delightfully nasty flawed character--and get on with 
> it? JKRowling seems to have no problem with that approach so far.



I couldn't agree more.  Your pragmatic analysis of a particularly 
prickly character is commendable.  There's a desire among readers--
indeed, in people--to dissect and recast characters (and others) so 
that they conform to our own worldview.  There's something in us that 
doesn't want Snape to be who he appears to be even though most would 
agree there is room for him to simply be a problematic character.  
And because Snape is complex and challenging, Rowling should 
be allowed the space to write him that way without apology.  Some 
readers on other forums seem unwilling to let her do that.  Candidly, 
I, too, find myself indulging in a little wishful Snapian 
rehabilitation from time to time (Rickman factor, I believe) because 
it's human nature to want people we like to have something in their 
lives that makes them joyful.  

As an aside, though, as a genre point, her treatment of Snape is 
instructive for youth who tend--as many adults do--to demand 
that "good guys" conform to certain standards of demeanor and 
behavior while "bad guys" conform to another.  Consequently, if JKR 
leaves Snape's considerable shortcomings unresolved to a lesser or 
greater degree, I, for one, will be impressed with her courage.  The 
demand for justification of Snape's behavior among her readership is 
extraordinary.  


Cynthia