IDK what the readers are meant to make of that. Like you, I read it as a disturbing sign that Snape is so emotionally stunted, he still can't feel anything for any human being except this one woman who's been dead for sixteen years. But Dumbledore (the old crocodile) tears up like it's the most moving, romantic thing since Casablanca. Are we supposed to take our cue from him? Yay the redemptive power of a lifelong obsession love?
Well, I think we're supposed to be moved by the fact that after all this time, Snape still loves Lily. Beyond that, I'm not sure what to make of it. On one hand, I don't have a problem with people carrying lifelong torches. OTOH, I think it's problematic as evidence that Snape in some way changed, or that the fact of the love for Lily ennobles him somehow. That Snape can feel love for at least one other person makes him akin to, like, 97% of the human population; it doesn't make him special. Yet I think Rowling wants me to have a take-away that's more than, "Snape's not a complete sociopath, yay!" And that's where what she's shown us falls down when it comes to what some are arguing she's trying to tell us. In other words, if I'm supposed to regard Snape as noble or heroic or genuinely good (in the 'morally unassailable and upright' sense of "good"), then I needed more than he feels regret that his questionable choices got this one particular person killed; he needs to feel regret about -- and try to right -- the choices themselves.
I'm sure it may seem to some reading this that I'm splitting hairs. But I think there's an important distinction to be made, in terms of questions of moral/ethical fortitude, between someone who's doing something because they're trying to atone for a single bad choice vs. someone who's doing something because it's the right thing to do in general. The effects of those two contexts might be the same, but the latter context is ... closer to being morally 'pure' (for lack of a better word); it's closer to being true Good. And I just don't think Snape was doing the latter; I think he was very much doing the former.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: part I
Date: 2007-07-27 04:46 pm (UTC)obsessionlove?Well, I think we're supposed to be moved by the fact that after all this time, Snape still loves Lily. Beyond that, I'm not sure what to make of it. On one hand, I don't have a problem with people carrying lifelong torches. OTOH, I think it's problematic as evidence that Snape in some way changed, or that the fact of the love for Lily ennobles him somehow. That Snape can feel love for at least one other person makes him akin to, like, 97% of the human population; it doesn't make him special. Yet I think Rowling wants me to have a take-away that's more than, "Snape's not a complete sociopath, yay!" And that's where what she's shown us falls down when it comes to what some are arguing she's trying to tell us. In other words, if I'm supposed to regard Snape as noble or heroic or genuinely good (in the 'morally unassailable and upright' sense of "good"), then I needed more than he feels regret that his questionable choices got this one particular person killed; he needs to feel regret about -- and try to right -- the choices themselves.
I'm sure it may seem to some reading this that I'm splitting hairs. But I think there's an important distinction to be made, in terms of questions of moral/ethical fortitude, between someone who's doing something because they're trying to atone for a single bad choice vs. someone who's doing something because it's the right thing to do in general. The effects of those two contexts might be the same, but the latter context is ... closer to being morally 'pure' (for lack of a better word); it's closer to being true Good. And I just don't think Snape was doing the latter; I think he was very much doing the former.