Judgments about Snape-lovers

[Matt]

No: HPFGUIDX 114911


"djrfdh" wrote:
>>> if you're a Snape-lover, that says alot about you!

Alla replied: 
>> Snape is  a VERY interesting and well developed character. 
>> I can and will go ballistic at him  because of his abuse 
>> of Harry and Neville, but I am also quite fond of him in 
>> many ways. :o)
>> 
>> So, do tell what does it say about me, please?

Carol pitched in:
> As you undoubtedly know, I love Snape's mystery and 
> complexity and I don't think he's nearly as evil as some
> people have painted him as being. And of course I don't 
> approve of genuinely abusive teachers in RL. Nor do I 
> appreciate the implication that I'm evil or my judgment 
> is defective because Snape is my favorite character....
>
> I've noticed a tendency lately for certain posters to 
> state their opinions as if they were the absolute truth 
> and to dismiss others' views as wrong or absurd.... 
> Sweeping generalizations and, above all, insinuations 
> about other posters or the absurdity of their views just
> will not do. 

Well, that's the thing about insinuations: the matter being insinuated
is left up to the imagination of the listener, so people tend to hear
"implications" that may never have been there in the first place.  

Of course being a "Snape-lover" says a lot about a person.  While not
an essential definition of a person's character, loving Snape suggests
(although it does not require) any of the following:

* the Snape-lover is able to look past some degree of cruel behavior
to understand a person's true motives
* the Snape-lover is willing to accept the judgment of a trusted
person (DD) even when it conflicts with his/her own experience
* the Snape-lover stands up for those who are on his/her team 
* the Snape-lover understands what it is like to be bullied and teased
(and how that cycle can perpetuate itself)
* the Snape-lover roots for the underdog (even though Snape himself
sometimes does not, viz. Neville)
* the Snape-lover respects a person who conquers temptation, and who
chooses the right path over the easy one
* the Snape-lover loves unconditionally.  

Wait, is the Snape-lover starting to sound too much like Harry?

Consider also, then:
* the Snape-lover is able to look past surface appearances
* the Snape-lover has respect for authority, independent of the person
exercising it
* the Snape-lover appreciates precision and attention to detail
(outside the area of personal grooming, of course :))
* the Snape-lover appreciates subtlety of character and of reasoning
* the Snape-lover just plain likes smart folks.

So the Snape-lover has a good dose of Hermione, too.

There are some views expressed on this list that are simply absurd
(sorry, Carol).  But the possibility that the Trio might someday
reconcile themselves with Snape seems less and less so.

-- Matt


A postscript, to address Carol's complaint about manners in a less
flippant way:

It's quite noble to say we should all respect every opinion that is
expressed on the list.  It is also quite unrealistic.  Part of what
people clearly enjoy about this list is the ability to toss around
theories that, not infrequently, border on the absurd.  It is
wonderful that the list draws in people with widely divergent opinions
and theories about the books -- some strongly-held and some more in
the nature of playful diversions.  It is inevitable that some of these
people will disagree, and on occasion may disagree strongly.  

We cannot fairly expect people to respect opinions and theories that
they view as absurd.  What we can fairly require is that people will
treat the human beings who offer those opinions and theories with
respect.  We can also fairly expect that a person who chooses to post
a theory for discussion in a public forum will be willing to accept
criticism of that theory for what it is: criticism of the theory, not
criticism of the proponent.  Too frequently, those two are confused
(by critics, by those reading the criticism, or by both).

I don't know what the intention was behind the sentence quoted at the
top of this message.  I am prepared to assume it was not intended as a
personal attack on anyone, since it was posted in reply to a message
from about four years ago (or maybe Yahoo! has that wrong).  But, as
always, I think it is more productive to address what the poster said,
than to assume I know what s/he meant.

--M