Re: Snape V. Marauders/ Re: Victory for TEWWW EWWW

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 173372


Hey. Responding to a few comments together here. Thanks for all the
responses.
~Adam Prep0strus

> Irene:
> Oh, and please don't say that James and Sirius are Ron. I really like 
> Ron after book 7, that's insulting to him. James and Sirius were
spoiled 
> rich kids, Ron is nothing like them.
> 
> Irene
>

Prep0strus:
But my point is that they are the same, in spirit.  I love Ron (though
I hate JKR's continued obsession with his jealousy and temperamental
loyalty).  He's funny, usually loyal, and brave.  One of my favorite
characters (along with Lupin and Lee Jordan, if anyone is
counting).But can't you see him 'hexing other students for fun' if he
could get away with it?  Draco, other Slytherins?  If he could get
away with it, he would.  No one showed Kreacher less respect other
than Sirius.  And Ron came into school with the same anti-Slytherin
tendencies.  Sure, Sirius and James were rich (though I maintain we
don't really know how rich the Potters were), but I don't think they
would be nasty to poor kids.  In fact, they took into their little
clique a werewolf and a much weaker wizard.  And maybe they
appreciated Peter's sycophantism, but they did wind up using him as
the secret keeper, showing trust.  And they surely respected Lupin. 
James married a muggleborn.  And Sirius, for all his faults, overcame
being born into a family like the Malfoys to become a character I
would compare very closely to Ron.  He may be a bit rasher, but I
attribute that to his greater talent and his years in prison.  Sirius
was fiercely loyal to his friends and dismissive of those he deemed
not worthy.  A flawed, but good person. Like most of our characters.
~Adam(Prep0strus)


Allthecoolnamesgone:
I have no doubt he was a
deeply damaged individual but dismissing him as a 'mean little man'
is hurtful to those of us who perhaps identify with him in some
aspects of our personalities. Have you never been mean and petty or
behaved like a child when you should have been an adult. All of us
are damaged goods in some ways unless you had a charmed childhood
with perfect parents and went to an exceptional school.

Allthecoolnamesgone


~Prep0strus:

I do apologize for the 'mean little man' comment - I forget how it may
be taken as insulting to other people.  But I want to assure you, it's
not that I don't identify with flaws - and I think every character
(except the almost saintly-portrayed Lily) has exhibited them.  Mean,
petty, behaving like a child - this is what the detractors of the
Marauders accuse them of.  Which they are, at times.  We have now seen
major flaws in Dumbledore, in Harry's father, his godfather, his
favorite teacher.  In Ron, Hermione, and Harry himself.  Hagrid.  None
of these characters are perfect - they are flawed, and not always in
'cute' ways like endangering the entire school with their pet giant
spider.  But Snape... Snape is almost all flaws.  He has redeeming
qualities, unlike Voldemorte, but I find it easier to identify with
Sirius, the loyal friend, erroneously accused, who can also be mean,
spiteful, and childish, rather than Snape.  And certainly James, who
grew out of much of his childhood bullying.  Or Lupin, overcoming fear
and prejudice to be a great teacher and fighter against evil.  Again,
we see his flaws in this book, but a flawed hero I find more admirable
than ... how do I reverse that for Snape.  He is an antihero, perhaps.
 A turned villain.
~Adam (Prep0strus)

Lenore:
I don't care about superficial things,
like personality pleasantness or unpleasantness, or external
forms of things, like dress, fashion sense, status, etc. You
are certainly right that Snape's personality doesn't do him
any favors! But what I am always looking for in people (which
currently includes JKR) comes down to what their deeper inner
values are. In the "olden days" it was called character, or honor,
or integrity, being true to oneself, which means being consistently
honest with oneself. What do they value and how much do they
value it?
Lenore

Prep0strus:

Here we disagree in a fairly major way, because I don't consider
'personality pleasantness', as you put it, a superficial thing.  I
agree about dress, fashion - I don't care about Snape's hair one whit.
 But kindness is something else.  First, I don't think you mean it
this way, but if you honor being true to oneself and how much they
value what they value... voldy is the most admirable in the story.  He
values one thing: him. He values it above all other things, and he
sticks through it through thick and thin.  No one is truer to himself.
 But I think I get your point.

But Snape... yes, when he became good, he did many brave things.  But
I don't find him admirable.  I think being a 'nice' person is almost
as important.  It's not everything - trying to come up with an example
- perhaps Umbridge or Lockhart could be considered nice... but I think
Slughorn is best.  He's usually 'nice'.  I was so hopeful for him,
finally, the Slytherin we could respect and admire.  But no, he wound
up being one of my least favorite, because while not evil, and not
even mean, he still was rather loathsome. But, remember, in the end,
he returned to the fight, showing bravery and fortitude, so maybe he
is redeemed.

But for Snape... bravery doesn't seem enough. He didn't even have
great choices.  Run away, and be slaughtered, like Karakoff.  Stay
with a maniacal leader, knowing voldy might kill him at any point,
finally seeing he meant nothing when his love was killed.  Or be a
double agent for the side of good.  There was no safe option for him.
Now, he did make the right choice. And I'm sure it was hard, and he
was brave.  But in society... I think being kind to one another is
more than personality pleasantness. Being cruel to children (and it's
a harsh word, but viewing how he treated Neville, I think warranted)
just doesn't work in the personality of a person who is admirable. 
He's complex, and interesting, but... I dunno.  I don't understand the
fire people have to defend him.  Yes, we didn't see as much of Sirius
and James, but from what we're told I don't see them as any less true
to themselves, or to their beliefs.  they were steadfast from the
beginning.
~Adam (Prep0strus)

well for me it's not about what James/Sirius did or did not do. A
character who
goes through a much more difficult moral journey and
end up on the good side is always much more admirable than a character
who start out "good/well adjust/happy" and has much less inner moral
struggle
and thus straightforwardly and easily end up good good good good...


Jo:
I just generally have more admiration for characters like Snape who
came from
much less/worst (i.e. under-previledge, damaged personality due to poor
upbringing, bad environement and people he unfortunately fell into
because of a
supposed "choice" that he chose when he's only 11 years old and did
not have
problem with "muggle-born" before going to Hogwarts), and then come
around and
end up fighting for the good side. Even if the initial motivation was
a selfish
though positive (pure love for someone), it doesn't matter. It just
takes a lot
more courage and struggle for him to choose redemption and do the
right thing.
And from then on he put his life in high risk while leading a lonely
and painful
life for the good side, with no regards for rewards/recognitions/love,
nothing...

so yeah Snape a far more admirable character, not to mention a much more
compelling characters that makes me care more.

Jo

Prep0strus:

Compelling character I will give you.  And the moral struggle of
redemption also - in fact, I wish we had somehow seen more of that
struggle, even in his memories.  He's a dark, interesting man.

But remember who came from as little as he did - Harry Potter, with a
horrid first 11 years, no Lily even to guide him.  And Sirius, who,
while privileged, was also indoctrinated, his whole family a bunch of
muggle-hating, dark arts loving, primed for evil rich jerks, like
Malfoy.  He was brave and good and flawed.  And didn't have to treat
children terribly to do so.  And Lupin, so easily contrastable, as
societal outcast who has to live on the fringes, and yet still treats
children well and fights for what is right.



I know Snape is a major character.  Perhaps he has the greatest
character arc in the books. Harry was always a hero, the flaws of
dumbledore are all shoved together at the end.  Lupin and Sirius don't
have quite as much page time.

But Severus was a cruel person, a nasty person who made the lives of
every child we cared about worse on a daily basis.  And while I
believe his 'soul' is redeemed.. I can't admire him. I would never
emulate him.  I appreciate the story of redemption.  But perhaps true
redemption would have allowed him to take not just the side of those
he formerly opposed, but their ideals.  To try to treat everyone
equally, and not favor Slytherins so heavily, even as they call
Hermione mudblood, even as he sees her talent and denigrates her for
it, and sees nevile's flaws and makes his life harder.

And people love identifying w/ the antihero, with evil, especially
when it's complex (and Snape is certainly more complex than voldy). 
But I don't understand why to do so means we take the much smaller
flaws of the marauders and blow them out of proportion as if they must
be inferior.  Because they never chose evil, they can't be morally
superior by recanting it?  Because were petty as children, that
overshadows Snape's adult pettiness?  Because their loyalty was never
in question, that makes them disposable?

Not to me. And though I know I'll never change minds about Snape... if
 we all had the chance to be in a DADA class taught by Lupin, or
taught by Snape... which would we choose?

~Adam (Prep0strus)

PS.  it's not really related, but on the Lupin/Tonks/Baby issue.. this
one is getting heated, but I don't like to look at it in a 'what if
book' scenario: 'if your husband were about to be eaten by a tiger,
and your baby by a crocodile, which would you choose?'.  Teddy was
temporarily safe.  her husband was in mortal danger.  Tonks was an
auror.  This was what she did - more than Lupin even.  I don't think
sitting home and waiting it all out is in her nature. Everyone with
children doesn't choose not to fight.  I think harry's tirade towards
Lupin was more about his reasoning than his conclusions - Lupin was
running away from his wife and child, afraid of himself and the
situation. At the end, he ran towards the defense of his friends, his
child, his world.  And I think Tonks did the same, and to his defense,
and did her job.  Ever since OoP, I had hoped to get to know Tonks a
little better, and I'm sad we didn't in this book.  but I don't think
leaving her child with her mother so she could help her husband and
friends makes her a bad mother. Wotcher.