Snape, Hagrid and Animals

[va32h]

No: HPFGUIDX 143841

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" <leslie41 at y...> 
wrote:
>Well, that's a good point.  But remember Rowling's readership.  
> She's not really thinking mostly about the "lesson" adults will 
get, 
> and that's a very sophisitcated "adult" take on it I think.
 
va32h: But who is Rowling's readership, at least now? Hasn't she 
said she expects the readers to age with the characters? That would 
make her target audience 17-18; who ought to be capable of a few 
adult takes on subjects. 

I would be highly disappointed if JKR pandered to the youngest 
possible audience, and provided an outcome merely for the sake of 
the "good moral" involved. 

Leslie writes:
> 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.  

va32h: I disagree that this would be the lesson. We've seen several 
good characters who are not conventionally "attractive" (Luna, 
Neville, Moody, Arabella Figg, Molly and Arthur, Hagrid, Madam 
Maxime - none of them are going to win any Beauty contests, and some 
of them are downright scary looking).

Even the Trio are not described as being especially physically good 
looking. Harry is skinny with untidy hair. Hermione has bushy hair 
and is hidden behind piles of books. Ron is tall and gangly with 
freckles. 

Characters that are specifically described as beautiful have 
failings. Lockhart - need I say more? Fleur is rather snobby, and 
Cho - Harry was attracted to her looks and found her personality 
lacking. It's telling that although Pansy Parkinson tells us that 
Ginny is considered very attractive, Harry never does. What attracts 
Harry to Ginny is apparently NOT her looks, as clearly was the case 
with Cho.  

In fact, very few characters are described using the qualifers ugly 
OR beautiful. Most characters are simply - described. This height, 
that kind of nose, etc.  And it is left up to the reader to assess 
whether the description qualifies as attractive or not. 


Leslie writes: 
> The far more valuable lesson for a child would be to demonstrate 
> that often times "nice" has absolutely nothing to do with "good," 
> that the two are entirely separate things.  That "nice" people can 
> and do seemingly mean things all the time, and that when you 
>examine the actions of people who seem very cranky and mean at 
>first glance you find someone who has in truth done a lot of good.  

va32h:
I think that lesson is already in the books. The Trio do all kinds 
of "not nice" things! My daughter is 9 - she has commented to me 
that while she knows that Ron is supposed to be one of the heroes, 
she doesn't think he is a very nice person. She doesn't like the way 
he insults girls, and Hermione in particular. Speaking of Hermione, 
our heroine has kidnapped someone (Rita Skeeter) attacked a teacher 
(Snape) and attempted to kill a Ministry of Magic employee 
(Umbridge). 

Sirius Black is a "good guy" who was even once an attractive good 
guy too - but he has numerous flaws. Recklessness, a cruel streak, 
irrationality to name a few. 

Draco is not "nice". But we are shown he is not capable of evil - 
when push came to shove, he couldn't kill Dumbledore. Slughorn is a 
Slytherin - but he's no Death Eater, and is horribly ashamed at the 
part he played in Voldemort's success. Unfortunately, the 
perspective of the books does not allow us to see more of the "other 
side" 

Leslie writes:
> A child who is presented with an evil Snape at the end of Book VII 
> gets the message that it's okay to judge a book by its cover, and 
I 
> don't think that's the message Rowling wants to send.  

va32h: With characters like Lupin, Slughorn, Moody, and Umbridge, 
how can you possibly suggest that JKR hasn't already delivered the 
message "you can't judge a book by its cover"?

Snape is not the be-all and end-all of the books. Every lesson JKR 
wants to send doesn't have to be delivered via Snape. There is a 
world of other characters who already embody the lessons that 
Snape's redemption could teach. 

I don't particularly care one way or the other whether Snape is 
ultimately good or evil. It will serve the story well either way. 
But it isn't all about Snape. 

va32h, who has never really been that into Snape in the first place.