Come on folks (response to several criticisms)

[Sydney]

No: HPFGUIDX 173526

Nita:
> 
> About authors not understanding their characters... Characters are
> usually based on writers' observations and understanding of people,
> right? And we can only directly observe the appearance and behaviour
> of others, not their psychology or motivations. So, just like you can
> draw a convincing portrait without understanding facial anatomy, it's
> possible to write a character that behaves realistically without
> realizing the necessary motives for such behaviour.
><snip> So,
> imagine you've been drawing a character's profile in various settings,
> with great results. People admire your talent and fall in love with
> the character. Then you draw a portrait from a different angle, and
> some of your fans feel disappointed. The illusion doesn't work for
> them any more.
> 
> After DH, Snape's character doesn't really work for me either. 

Sydney:

Every kind of ME TOO to this post!  She turned the angle and suddenly
he looked wonky.  I simply can't make sense of this guy who on the one
hand seems to be a complete moral vacuum, and on the other hand he can
sustain this hopless Love for decades that's so pure it produces a
Patronus of Dazzling Goodness.  I wasn't quite sure how it was going
to work before DH came out, but I was pretty sure it could;  but it
can't work like this.  It's not accidental that Snape in DH suddenly
seemed considerably slower on the uptake than in any previous book, or
that his voice was so silenced.  It wasn't even anything that Snape
actually DID that broke the character;  it was the author's need to
'explain' him. 

What's so frustrating is that it wasn't necessary-- it feels like
Rowling deliberately took the character and crammed him back into a
box after he had grown out of it.  You'd have to cut very few lines
out of DH and we'd all be back here happily arguing away about
something that was still kind of ambiguous and fun.  But she had kept
hammering home this idea that no, everything good in Snape came from
Lily and only Lily;  and he did nothing on his own initiative but only
directed by Dumbledore, who controlled him using this weird idee fixe,
like a reverse Manchurian Candidate.  I suppose this was originally
due to some kind of symbolism thing with the Gryffindor/purity
whatever connects with the corrupted Slytherin thingie, but with real
people it just doesn't work.  Of course the character was so vivid
that people will continue to work around this, but I can't ignore the
fact that Rowling sawed back all his green shoots and painted them
over with herbicide.  Or almost all.. he will keep sprouting out!

Oh the other hand.. I'm going to do this a lot with this book because
although I feel she gutted a lot of what had been my favorite stuff,
her genius will shine through!  We got some nice extra touches on
Snape, like his inner Emo!kid, and his fascinatingly sick relationship
with Dumbleodore (I think Snape latched onto a new father figure after
dear old Da and Voldemort, when Dumbledore said, "You disgust me." Oh
Snape, you poor messed up puppy).  And even without ever meeting
Eileen and Tobias, once you meet 'desperate for approval' Snape you
can write a one-act play about them:

EILEEN: I wouldn't have even married a worthless muggle like you if
you hadn't knocked me up with that brat!
TOBIAS: He's going to be a freak like you, and not a real man, isn't
he? I'm sick of both of you. I'm off to the pub. (cuffs Eileen)(kicks
little Snape)(SLAM!)
EILEEN: (bursts into hysterical tears) Oh Sevvie.. promise me you'll
grow up to great Slytherin wizard, then maybe my family will forgive
me for having you.

Argh.  ARGH!  It was so close... so close.

It's funny because another one of my favorite fictional characters is
rather Snape-like and was famously loathed by his author:  Sherlock
Holmes.  At least Conan Doyle just killed Holmes body, not his soul!

-- Sydney