Of Sorting and Snape

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 175893

> Pippin:
> The funny thing is, when I read King's Cross I thought of a LeGuin 
character
> too, but it was the burned child Theru in Tehanu, "trying to 
breathe, 
> and trying again to breathe" (quoting from memory.) In that story 
there is
> no magic that can be used to heal her, and no witch or wizard will 
dare
> to try. They're pretty cold about saying so. They have no power to 
reverse 
> such evil and it seems that it would be a sort of arrogance, a 
misuse 
> of their powers, to make the attempt. 

lizzyben:

I haven't read that story, but it sounds like maybe that's what it 
was supposed to symbolize. But Theru is the protagonist of that 
story, right? The hero, the one readers are supposed to identify 
with. So, the characters may not empathize w/the hero, but that 
would make readers empathize even more w/the hero's suffering. 
(Again, correct me if that's wrong, haven't read that book.)

Pippin:
> The awful truth is that people do more harm than they can mend. I 
was in 
> tears with Kings Cross that mankind's power to injure is so great 
and our 
> power to heal so pitifully small.  That point would be lost if 
there had
> been something Dumbledore or Harry could do. If they wept it would 
be
> for their own helplessness, and what good would that do?

lizzyben:

IMO, it would do a lot of good. In "the ones who walk from omelas," 
the young people don't free the suffering baby, either. They can't 
mend the harm, can't ease it's pain, can't even offer a kind word. 
But they do weep for their own helplessness, & the story says that 
this gives them more compassion for the sufferings of others, & more 
appreciation for the beauty & love in their own lives. The 
compassion is helpless, but it isn't wasted. Compare that w/"King's 
Cross", where Harry actually feels *less* compassion & empathy over 
time, where he learns to tune out & ignore the other's pain... 
that's a weird message. 

Pippin:
> There was, maybe, a time when compassion could have helped Tom
> Riddle but it was when he was a real child; I am sure this reflects
>  JKR's own experiences. I have never talked to a teacher who 
didn't 
> bewail the fact that the system so often neglects children in need 
> until they are school age. Often enough they are irreversibly 
damaged
> before anyone finds out they need help.
> If we're meant to think of Snape in connection with the ruined 
child, I
> think it's only that it's what Snape and even Dumbledore might have
> become  if they had not been given second chances.  

lizzyben:

Yes, that is tragic. In many ways, I think Snape, Merope & Riddle 
are the real faces of abandoned or damaged children. Harry is the 
fantasy - someone who lives w/neglect for eleven years & comes out 
of the experience w/o any real problems. That's not very realistic, 
IMO. But this just makes the sorting system at Hogwarts even 
weirder - so the damaged children get sorted Slytherin & good 
riddance? At eleven years old, it's too late for any of them?

Pippin:
>  When Dumbledore says, "Sometimes I think we Sort too soon" I 
don't think 
> he's only talking about Snape growing to be someone who could have
> been  a Gryffindor. I think it's about Dumbledore wondering
> whether he himself hadn't grown closer to Salazar Slytherin's idea 
of a
> great wizard than Godric Gryffindor's. 

lizzyben:

Hmm... I don't see that degree of honesty or self-reflection in DD. 
IMO he honestly thinks he's paying Snape a compliment w/that line.

Pippin:
> I think many Snape fans (and I am definitely including me) invested
> so much in a Snape who wasn't about vengeance. But he is, he
> really is. "Vengeance is sweet" he breathes. Much as I would have
> hoped he was acting, he wasn't.  Snape wanted retaliation for each 
> and every injury, real or imagined. 

lizzyben:

But was he really more driven by revenge than everyone else? 
The "good guys" take revenge against their enemies *all the time*, 
and it's generally characterized as cool & funny when we do it - 
Marietta's scars, Dudley's tail, Ton-Tongue Toffee, ferret-bouncing, 
etc. The difference between revenge & karmic justice mostly depends 
on which side of the fence you stand. I think Snape thinks his 
actions are "karmic justice" too - Harry looks at his hidden 
memories, Snape will break a potion bottle. Harry steals his potion 
ingredients, Snape will read an embarrasing article out loud. Sirius 
sends Lily to her death, Snape will send Sirius to his death. See - 
it's justice! 

It's funny, cause "Revenge is sweet - and it works!" was one of my 
suggested themes for the series at large. Readers are totally 
encouraged to cheer & laugh when the "good guys" exact revenge on 
their enemies. We're supposed to get a sense of satisfaction when DD 
bullies the Dursleys, or Fred & George bully Montague. And we're 
also supposed to hate Snape because he's this AWFUL PERSON who's 
always trying to bully people & get revenge! In some ways, Snape 
becomes our scapegoat as well.

And I was surprised to find out that Snape didn't actually seem to 
be motivated by hatred in his effort to bring down LV; he was 
motivated by love. Protecting Lily, & then protecting Harry were his 
main missions - bringing down LV was an extension of this mission. 
But Snape truly didn't seem consumed by hatred or a need for 
vengence; making him perhaps less vengeful than many of the other 
characters. In the end, I think Snape mostly hated himself.

Pippin:
> Ironically, he got more revenge than he wanted. 
> 
>  Between relaying the prophecy and his interference in the 
Shrieking Shack 
> which led to Pettigrew's escape, those whom Snape hated ended up
> dead, just as Harry said: all the Marauders and Harry himself. 

lizzyben:

Well, is it fair to blame Snape for Pettigrew's escape? Harry first 
saved Pettigrew from being killed, then Pettigrew escaped when Lupin 
transformed. I don't think any of that was Snape's fault. It was 
Harry's act of mercy that ended up allowing Pettigrew to escape, 
which allowed LV to return. Frodo's act of mercy allowed them to get 
a guide, destroy the Ring & defeat evil. Harry's act of mercy 
allowed evil to return. Leading the reader to think that he probably 
shouldn't have bothered. It's just one of ways that traditional 
mythic themes get... I want to say twisted.

Pippin:
> But Snape was allowed to finish the task which Dumbledore set him, 
even if he
> did not live to see victory, so I would like to think he died 
redeemed.  

lizzyben:

Oh, me too!

Pippin:
After all Dumbledore made it to the next world, if in a more damaged 
state than Harry. 

lizzyben:

*Grumblings about the Elect here* LOL, I think my main problem 
w/King's Cross might be that DD showed up there, especially after we 
learned that he had actually been training Harry to be a child 
sacrifice. Wait, I have to read about HIM again? Oh, DD, just shut 
up already. (Not a DD fan).

> Pippin:
> How can there be a final resolution to the problem of evil? What 
kind of
> resolution is tricking the bad guy into using the wrong wand? 
Well, what
> kind is throwing  a magic ring into a volcano or killing a dragon 
or blowing 
> up a space station?  Ursula LeGuin said the  people who dislike 
the unreal 
> resolutions to evil in fantasy are the ones who think there is a 
solution to evil 
> in real life. :)

lizzyben:

I've been thinking about this, and it seems like the difference is 
in the way evil is characterized. In LOTR & other fantasy epics, 
evil is seen as some external force, some supernatural being. And 
there's no way to end that force. But in HP, evil is very human - LV 
isn't a demon, but a disturbed human being. And he's mostly just a 
symptom of a totally corrupt society. So, defeating LV doesn't solve 
anything at all, and doesn't address or resolve the real evils in 
that society. Which, you know, might be realistic. But do people 
really read fantasy to see realistic, unsatisfying resolutions to 
problems?

Pippin:
> We do see Snape and Fleur as healers, and on the rare occasions 
when we
> see Slytherins and water types without the Harry filter, they 
*are* gracious 
> and compassionate. <snip>

lizzyben: 

I agree w/you there, but it's more of a JKR filter. We really aren't 
given many positive Slyths traits, and have to sort of squint & tilt 
our heads to find some.

Pippin:
I am thinking of Snape welcoming Narcissa and Bella into his home, 
Draco sickened for Charity Burbage, the peacocks at Malfoy manor, 
Snape gripping his chair when he learns Ginny has been taken, 
Grimmauld Place cheerful and welcoming once it has been restored and 
above all to Draco saving Goyle. You could even argue that Pansy is 
thinking of saving her classmates when she fingers Harry. After all, 
Harry ends up doing exactly what she wanted him to do: give himself 
up. 
She'd have to be pretty dumb  to believe that Voldemort would 
keep his promises, but she'd hardly be the the only witch who ever 
trusted the wrong person. 


lizzyben:

And I just remembered that Harry almost killed Pansy's boyfriend! In 
HBP, she goes up to visit Draco after the Sectumsepra curse & tells 
the other Slyths what Harry did. I can see why Pansy might not be 
willing to risk her life for Harry Potter. But the thing is, as 
readers we can come up valid reasons why Pansy, or Marietta, or 
Montague did what they did, but I really don't think we're supposed 
to. We're totally encouraged to see Harry's POV, and only Harry's 
POV - so Marietta & Pansy are simply traitors, Montague deserved 
what he got, etc. In the same way, we as readers can try to come up 
w/independent ways in which Slytherin House might have positive or 
good traits, but I really don't think we're supposed to do that. 
Slytherins are the bad guys, & that's about it.

And I have to agree w/Magpie about the "cleaning" of the Black 
house. The imagery of that isn't so much in how great Slytherins 
are, but how nice their stuff is once the taint of the unclean 
people has been removed. Man, why didn't I see where this was headed 
in OOTP? The house "waging war" & fighting to maintain its own 
identity while the new, better group attempted to eradicate any sign 
of the former group... ugh. Yeah, bad image.


lizzyben