Snape - a werewolf bigot?? Was: Say it isn't so Lupin!!!/ some house elves

sistermagpie sistermagpie at earthlink.net
Mon Jun 11 19:17:32 UTC 2007


No: HPFGUIDX 170144

> Alla:
> 
> Well said indeed Dana IMO. I was about to say the same thing - 
that I 
> see Lupin's analogy with situation of HIV positive person as very 
> very close.
> 
> Not exact of course, since werewolves do not exist as we all know, 
> but I see plenty of similarities that you listed.
> 
> Now, I actually have more to say than just agreeing with you, 
heheeh.
> 
> I think JKR does it on purpose, often making fictional prejudice 
as 
> sort of harder to condone.

Magpie:
I think this is one where there are several ways where it's kind of 
like a real world thing, without being the thing. Werewolfism, 
without wolfsbane, leads to a condition where the person has a drive 
to infect (or kill) others. This is not true of HIV. This doesn't 
make the werewolf infected person any less than human, but there's 
going to be a compromise between their right to lead a life that's 
normal in other respects and other peoples' safety. Of course 
something like what happened in PoA would probably lead lots of 
parents to say okay, they just can't take that risk with their kids, 
having them *live* with a werewolf at school. It may be more of an 
issue of safety precautions than the person themselves, even if the 
parent considers himself liberal.

When Lupin was in school, for instance, there appeared to be a 
person in charge of the precautions--Pomfrey. Lupin wasn't just left 
up to his own devices to go to the Willow. As a professor he had no 
one really looking over his shoulder, however much Snape would have 
liked to. Perhaps parents would be okay if there were clear 
precautions taken *about the disease* (not the person with the 
disease) with which they were comfortable. Though the reality is 
there probably would be people who would never be comfortable 
because they just couldn't live with their child that close to the 
disease by living with someone who had it. The nature of the disease 
being slightly different than HIV in this case in the the people 
don't have to be irrationally afraid of things like sharing a water 
glass when that would not be contagious, but a situation somewhat 
like the one that happened in PoA.

It's ironic, after all, that for all the werewolf laws are 
completely unfair and prejudicial, we have an example of one 
werewolf who was given the opportunity and both times did the wrong 
thing. Lupin was being perfectly human when he did this--it wasn't 
because "werewolves can't be trusted" but more that a boy and a man 
in these situations might slip up--with infection or death always 
being a threat. That's what's a little neat, actually, because we 
can't just say that someone worried that having a werewolf at the 
school *could* expose their kids to a werewolf is being irrational, 
since both times Lupin was a regular at the school--yup, we did wind 
up with a werewolf running around the grounds. Maybe only the once 
as a teacher in special circumstances, and maybe with a few Animagi 
the first time, but still, the threat's real. Perhaps the answer 
would be more werewolves at the school who are openly cared for--the 
secrecy with Lupin was part of the danger, after all. That might 
lead to other problems, with the werewolves being ostracized, 
though. In an ideal world, though, Lupin would be able to teach, 
with proper precautions taken and not held against him, and everyone 
knowing that he was a werewolf and having compassion for him. He's 
never had this.

Alla:
> Does that make any difference that in both cases humans have 
> illnesses one real and deadly and another fictional and deadly?
> 
> Not to me, definitely not. The fact that werewolf has no control 
at 
> all over his illness without the potion does not change to me the 
> fact that this person did not ask to become ill.
> Do they have to be careful? Sure they have to, just as HIV 
positive 
> persons should be IMO.
> 
> Does it mean that not giving them jobs or jobs to HIV positive 
people 
> is justified? I can never see how.

Magpie:
Right--both people are people like anyone else, with a disease. I 
think JKR also likened it to mental illness too which might make a 
person unstable without medication. With werewolves there's a 
compromise between the safety of others and the humanity and lives 
of the werewolves. Making laws so that they can't participate in 
society as members like anyone else, which is exactly what they are 
most of the time, is inhumane. But it's not inhumane to treat the 
*illness* as something deadly to be avoided. People are going to 
worry about precautions. 

I actually tend to think that JKR starts with the myths, actually, 
and then lets them play out the way they seem to work in her world. 
So that the basis of everything is in the myths rather than in our 
real world issues. We can see plenty of echoes and parallels to 
things in our world, but I don't think there's really one way to 
look at it so that it's a direct analogy. Some people, for instance, 
feel like Lupin's presented as a homosexual, especially in the 
movie, which gets into the same problem--the idea that a homosexual 
is a deranged predator is an irrational fear, werewolves are 
deranged predators during the full moon without wolfsbane. Similarly 
the analogy of HIV+ would be offensive if it were supposed to be 
direct for the same reason.

Dana:
Let me ask you this if Snape was not a true bigot then why did he
never reveal that he was not a pure blood? Because as we see Bella
calls Harry a filty Half-Blood but she never mentions this to Snape
when she is in Spinner's End and I'm sure she would have if she had
known this.

Magpie:
Snape doesn't need to reveal he is or is not a Half-Blood. (He calls 
himself the Half-Blood Prince right out loud at the end of that 
book.) There's no indication to me that he's trying to pass as a 
Pureblood. The Purebloods are a small, interconnected group. They 
know who each other is. I think they all know Snape's not one of 
them. Bella could just have other things to say to Snape at this 
point. He's a fellow DE, however superior she might feel to his 
blood.  

Dana:
Serverus Snape was walking the same route as many of the other
Slytherin's meaning that half-bloods, half-breeds and all that were
not pure are worthless and why he kept his own bloodstatus hidden
from the rest of them coincidently so does LV.

Magpie:
Just trying to untangle the whole blood idea, but Half-breeds are 
different than Half-bloods. Half-bloods don't really seem to be that 
much of an issue. Purebloods are superior, of course, but Snape is a 
Half-blood who's an old friend of Lucius' and Draco's favorite 
teacher. They might consider their blood superior, but he's not 
a "Mudblood." A Half-breed is something that's partially non-human--
Hagrid, Lupin (though not via his parentage). Iirc, Sirius' mother 
yells about blood traitors and Half-breeds, not Half-bloods. It's 
not strictly logical, but this sort of thing doesn't have to be. 
Snape could still insult Lily by calling her a Mudblood when he 
himself was a Half-Blood.

-m





More information about the HPforGrownups archive