[HPforGrownups] Re: Snape, Hagrid and Animals

[Sherry Gomes]

No: HPFGUIDX 143830

Leslie

But should my instincts fail me, and should Snape actually be "bad," 
the child reading the story would just think "Oh of course Snape is 
evil.  He's ugly and not very nice.  Harry was right about him all 
along."

The child would then feel vindicated in their assessment of Snape, 
which is an assessment that draws mostly on surface demeanor and 
appearance.  The "lesson" there that's reinforced is that people who 
aren't nice and aren't attractive don't usually turn out to be 
good.  




Sherry now:

As i've said several times before, this feeling that Snape being ultimately
bad sends a terrible lesson to kids, because it confirms a surface
impression that unattractive means bad, just does not hold up when you look
at the characters and their physical descriptions.  

Lupin is described as shabby and worn looking.  definitely not a handsome
hunk.  But except for a couple people who have a different take on him, he's
generally believed to be a good guy.

Hagrid is part giant, being described as looking too big to be allowed.  He
has a wild beard and hair I believe and he sure does act strangely.  And
he's a good guy.

molly is constantly described as being overweight, which gives Draco plenty
of fodder for insulting the Weasleys.

Arthur is balding.  Again not described as a distinguished looking older man
or anything.

Have you ever gotten the impression that Minerva is a stunning beauty?

Hermione, here one of the definite good guys, is certainly not pretty by
kids' standards, with bushy hair and big teeth and a bossy know-it-all
attitude.

Ron is gangly and awkward, growing boy and all that.

Sirius earns Harry's trust in the Shrieking Shack, even though he is gaunt
and wasted from his years in Azkaban, his hair matted and dirty.  And acting
very wildly.

But here's the clincher.  What about Harry?  Harry is a skinny kid, too
small for his age, with messy black hair and of all things, a scar right
smack on his forehead.  He even has knobby knees.  In short, he's not
attractive, not ugly but not a drop dead gorgeous hunk of a kid.  i have
surgical scars on my legs and i well remember how kids react to kids with
scars.  but of course, he's the famous Harry Potter.  But he's not a
handsome hero, just an average everyday kid kind of hero.

Now let's take the so-called bad guys.

The impression I get from reading the series is that the Malfoys are not
only rich and well-connected, but that they are all very attractive.
Perfect hair, well-groomed.  i've always had the sense that Narcissa is
beautiful, and Draco is probably a very handsome boy.  Lucius too.  And
Lucius is most definitely a death eater who purposely put that diary in
Ginny's books.  Not very nice.

Bella seems to be attractive too, though her attitude and demeanor seem to
put even her fellow death eaters off.

But let's move to the big bad guy,  good old Voldemort himself.  Tom Riddle
is described as very handsome, very charming.  He knew how to say and do the
right things to charm everyone around him.  everyone but Dumbledore fell
under his charm at school.  He was so well liked, that everyone but
Dumbledore accepted his words about Hagrid being the one who released the
monster that killed Myrtle.  Through the first war, he still had his Riddle
body and was most likely to draw people to him with his looks and his charm.
He's the evil in the series, and he's the most physically attractive
character in the bunch.  

In fact, except for fleur are there any really stunning good guys at all?

In conclusion, i just don't buy the idea that if Snape turns out to be evil
it confirms any nonsense about bad looks means bad character and pretty
looks means goodness.  In fact, I'd say it's almost close to being the
opposite.  the good guys are basic average sort of people, and the bad guys
seem to be the gorgeous ones.  Hmmm.  Interesting thought that.

Sherry