sistermagpie | Deathly Hallows

Current Mood: calm
Current Music: Drowned Ammet

Entry tags:

Deathly Hallows

I feel weird writing this post, because I don't really feel like posting, yet it seems like I should, and then I think--what, do you imagine the public is waiting on pins and needles for your words? Get over yourself!:-D

Anyway, I didn't much like it. Perhaps my feelings will change, but stop here if you don’t want to read any negative stuff. I don't have any rants prepared or anything or want to harsh anybody's buzz. (But misery also loves company!) I was talking to someone who's asked me what I needed from the book, what I wanted to happen or what would have made me satisfied, and the truth is, I don't have an answer. I don't have a list of prescriptive criticism, or think things were done badly, or should have been done a different way.

Well, except one little thing, which couldn't be helped. When that white doe showed up I never doubted for a second it was Snape's Lily!Patronus (cause she's a lady!James!). We'd seen Arthur's and Kingsley's Patronuses talk, and oh, how I wanted that beautiful sparkly stag to come up to Harry and tell him to get this Quest going already in Snape's sarcastic voice.

I've never loved these books the way some do--which should not be taken as a criticism of people who do. I just mean that I know there are people who re-read the books over and over as comfort, and that's not something I ever did. I didn't ever want to re-read to spend time with these people or in this world. There are other books I do feel that way about, books that other people find meh. Basically, I felt like JKR was writing a story of good and evil, and life and death, that resonated with her and satisfied her, and felt like a triumph for her--just not me. So I was a bit left out of the story, objectively even seeing characters doing good, brave things, and just not sharing much in the emotions. More than once I felt like I was seeing more story outline/structure than story so that it seemed very contrived (a couple of times Harry himself seemed to admit it) and made it feel like nothing was building to anything.

What it mostly made me do is go over all the ways I was reading it wrong, making my issues more central than the author really considered them. I don't think I was ever so off as, say, a Harmonian banking on the Hippogriff o'love or anything like that, and some things that happened I did predict (Snape/Lily, obviously, and DDM!Snape). But in general I think I was reading Rowling a bit too much like a Tolkien fan, and maybe too much as a Jungian (not that I'm any expert on Jung, but I was reading from my own idea of his stuff). And I think when JKR said that she was Christian and if she talked about her faith we'd know the ending, I immediately began interrogating from the *wrong* Christian perspective and got that wrong too.

Contrary to what some may have thought at times-or not-I don't hate the good guys. Still don't hate them, just still would not want to spend time with them or re-read the books to spend time with them. The characters I liked the most I think less of now or am just kind of confused by, which is unfortunate. I find Harry affectionately naming his child Albus Severus downright creepy--but that wasn't the first time in the book where that kind of thing happened.

Not sure what I predict fanfic-wise. I wonder if people might not start writing some interesting stuff. I did at one point think how I wanted to take a favorite character and put him in a different story.

Oh, also I've been dreading the epilogue for years, because I've always hated epilogues. Even when I was too young to know the name for them I hated them. Some books I guess can make a case for them being appropriate. HP is really not one of them that I can see. There was no reason I could see for needing to see these people married with children. The one good thing I read about it was after it was leaked, before I read it, and I read a comment where someone said the epilogue read like any cliché H/G fic...or any cliché post-war H/D fic.;-)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

For me, it seemed like Snape's story was less about a person becoming good through the power of love and more about a person thwarting bad because of love.

This is such an interesting point.

Snape's love for Lily humanizes him, but I don't actually think it *ennobled* him; he's protecting Harry out of a sense of penance, not because he believes that it's the right thing to do, or that toppling Voldemort is a good end.

I agree that Snape's regret over Lily's death humanizes him. But I disagree that his actions were simply out of a sense of penance, I think his "humanization" taught him the difference between what is right and wrong. I think that Lily's death gave him a sense of empathy, and perhaps a better understanding of his actions and their consequences.

The Prince's tale is interesting (and frustrating) because it was just a handful of memories that Snape chose to give Harry as he died. Why those memories? What was Snape trying to convey, and what was the author trying to get across about the characters as well?

I think from the childhhood memories he gave up, Snape was trying to show that he now understood that he'd made the wrong choices. 1) He really wanted to be in Slytherin - Lily was sorted (before he was) into Griff - could he have chosen Griff at that point to remain together, did he actively choose Slytherin then? 2) They had been 'best friends' for years - but Lily was feeling alienated by his choice of friends and their 'evil' ways. He ignores her concerns - on a subsconcious level at least - he's choosing his new friends over her. 3) Perhaps, after the "mudblood" scene they could have made up if he truly got what her issues were. But instead he gives a silent acknowledgment that he wants to be a deatheater. He doesn't seem to get, or refuses to acknowledge that that might be the heart of the problem for her. I think that by giving Harry these memories (instead of a bunch of "Yay, we're best friends doing our homework together, what fun!!") show that he understood that he created his own misery. That's a big step for anybody, really.

At the same time I think the author shows that he went from being a boy that lacked empathy (he doesn't understand why Lily cares about Petunia, doesn't get that "mudblood" and what Avery and Mulciber get up to is bad, doesn't get that Lily might be upset if her son and husband are murdered) to somebody that can empathize (agreeing to help Draco for Narcissa, sending Ginny et al to the forest for punishment, agreeing to protect Hogwarts students in general, and his reply to Dumbledore that the only people he had watched die 'lately' were those he 'couldn't save').

So, I guess what I'm trying to say, is I think Snape being "humanized" was a way for Snape to be "saved". It's not enobling, but it does seem like significant development towards understanding and doing what's right and what's wrong. Sorry so long...
-Cindy

I think his "humanization" taught him the difference between what is right and wrong. I think that Lily's death gave him a sense of empathy, and perhaps a better understanding of his actions and their consequences.

See, I don't because there's the whole of Snape's treatment, not just of Harry, but of Hermione and some of the other students throughout the series. I'm a firm believer in the idea that how you treat people from *day to day* -- not just in emergency or crisis -- is a reflection of your character, both moral and ethical. Prior to DH, I might have bought that Snape's conduct was a function of his cover as ~~James Bond~~ a double-agent, but the memories in DH demonstrate that he really was an extremely unpleasant person. And even that could be okay -- you (general 'you') can have a cranky demeanor but still make truly decent, ethical choices. But with Snape, I keep going back to that conversation he has with Dumbledore in the memories about how he actually didn't care if James and Harry (an infant!) died as long as *Lily* didn't. It leaves me thinking that his love for Lily didn't really change him so much as made him susceptible to Dumbledore because of the way Snape thought he'd betrayed that love. Even later in the memories, when Dumbledore suggests that Snape has come to care for Harry qua Harry, Snape reacts indignantly to that, producing the doe Patronus to remind Dumbledore that it's still really All About Lily.

None of this is to say I think it's *bad* that Snape does all he does out of love for Lily/Lily's memory. It's just that I don't think it makes Snape *good* in the way I think a lot of people were hoping it would be revealed that he was good. This is why I used the Narcissa parallel: she thwarts Voldemort by lying to him that Harry's dead and she tells that lie out of love for her son, but I don't think anyone would seriously claim that it suddenly means Narcissa is good or noble or honorable; it just means she loves her child enough to risk Voldemort's wrath to keep him safe. Snape loved Lily enough that he's willing to risk detection to make up for the fact that he contributed in no small part to getting her killed.

I'm going to reply to both your posts - just to try and keep my response clearer (and shorter!):
It's just that I don't think it makes Snape *good* in the way I think a lot of people were hoping it would be revealed that he was good.
I think this might be at the heart of any disagreements we might have. I'm not saying at all that he was revealed to be good in a **heroic figure in a fantasy story** type of way. But I do think the author showed a progression of a character that could have been a real monster into one that was genuinely trying to be good. And the change is significant, is down to his regret over Lily's murder, and also maybe down to Dumbledore's guidance?

...the whole of Snape's treatment, not just of Harry, but of Hermione and some of the other students throughout the series. I'm a firm believer in the idea that how you treat people from *day to day* -- not just in emergency or crisis -- is a reflection of your character, both moral and ethical....(but)..I keep going back to that conversation he has with Dumbledore in the memories about how he actually didn't care if James and Harry (an infant!) died...

My point was that he still lacked empathy when he didn't get that the death of her husband and infant was a bad thing. At that point he still wasn't quite human, was still becoming something monstrous. This was before her murder, before his real remorse set in.

Years later after Lily's murder - he is sarcastic to the kids, yes, but he isn't aiding or abetting their being murdered or tortured. I think that is the type of person he could have become as a DE, but he changed. That is a huge change.

Years later after Lily's murder - he is sarcastic to the kids, yes, but he isn't aiding or abetting their being murdered or tortured. I think that is the type of person he could have become as a DE, but he changed. That is a huge change.

See, I don't give people a great deal of credit for not murdering or torturing others; I tend to think that any remotely decent person should abhor the idea of killing in cold blood or inflicting pain on others Just Because. So to me, Snape Turned Out Not To Be A Killer isn't worth admiration in the same way Snape Turned Out To Be A Hero is. So he's enough of a person to not inflict physical pain on children, but that doesn't make him special or noble or heroic. It just makes him ... decent.

And I still think his rationale for everything he does post-Lily's death is very limited and narrow. I don't think it has anything to do with him wanting to actively be a better person -- as Magpie notes elsewhere in this subthread, he clearly didn't do anything to try improving or even building signicant relationships with other members of the Order, he's frankly a jerk to his students even if he isn't trying to kill them, etc. -- and has everything to do with the fact that he feels remorse that this one specific person was hurt because of his conduct. If he never actually examines or addresses what was wrong with his conduct qua the conduct itself, then he hasn't truly been transformed in any way, regardless of his connection to and feeling about that one specific person.

There's nothing in Snape's memories to suggest to me that he actively regretted the path he was on while still a student at Hogwarts but-for how that path intersected with Lily's untimely death. If Snape's actions had gotten Alice Longbottom killed that night instead of Lily, I doubt he would have worked with Dumbledore to protect Neville, or to thwart Voldemort for Neville's sake. That's the issue I have with Snape in the book: he's not evincing regret for the truly problematic aspect of his conduct, but rather for the singular effect of that conduct in getting Lily, whom he's fixated on/in love with, killed. It doesn't expand beyond his connection to/feelings for Lily and, IMO, that means it's not a true transformation. It's still inward-looking. To be a change worthy of at least my admiration, Snape's regrets needed to be a lot more outward-looking; they needed to expand beyond the fact that he feels bad because he got the love of his life killed.

Even later in the memories, when Dumbledore suggests that Snape has come to care for Harry qua Harry, Snape reacts indignantly to that, producing the doe Patronus to remind Dumbledore that it's still really All About Lily.

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?

(Personally, I fanwank that he had come to care a little about Harry but was deep in denial, but that's because I used to find Snape interesting and would like to believe that he wasn't quite as one-dimensional as the scene suggests.)

-L

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.

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.

This is where I thought Snape's story was going: he had some revelation - and I did cry out in the long, dark night, Please, not Love of Lily! - some moral turn-around or realization, didn't want to kill infants, didn't want to see actual people rather than abstract people sorts of things being killed, began on a path of redemption because he saw that it was the morally right thing to do.

It could have gone there, even for Love of Lily. He could have tried to model himself on what she would have wanted to see, and grown to do right for right's sake. I had some hope at first that this was supposed to be the message, and maybe it was, of his telling Phineas Nigellus not to use the word "Mudblood", but now I'm just afraid that this was another thing that he'd done to Lily and was trying to make up for having done. It could have been a great story, it could have been uplifting in the sense of hope for the WW (and us).

*mourns*

But with Snape, I keep going back to that conversation he has with Dumbledore in the memories about how he actually didn't care if James and Harry (an infant!) died as long as *Lily* didn't.

It seemed like it was the same issue he had when he was arguing with Lily about using the term Mudblood. He didn't see why he couldn't think of Muggle-borns that way but just not call Lily that. The ethical choice-which was exactly what I thought Snape had made that made him stand out-turned out to really be beyond him. He just wanted to have it both ways and he couldn't. The first time this came up he chose the DEs over Lily.

Then it came up again when Lily was targeted, and this time, I think because it meant her actual death, he made the other choice and chose her over the Death Eaters. But still, imo, without all that much of a change. Dumbledore seemed to train him to at least be familiar with the way other people thought, and once he'd latched on to his love he was able to do what he had to do, but I don't think there was so much of a transformation. He seemed to continue to cling to his original stunted mindset for the most part.

It seemed like it was the same issue he had when he was arguing with Lily about using the term Mudblood. He didn't see why he couldn't think of Muggle-borns that way but just not call Lily that. The ethical choice-which was exactly what I thought Snape had made that made him stand out-turned out to really be beyond him.

This is a perfect encapsulation of what I've been trying to say in this thread. Snape doesn't make the ethical choice-- thwarting Voldemort because Voldemort and his philosophies are dangerous and wrong -- but rather the ... emotionally expedient choice: it will make him feel better about getting Lily killed if he helps topple the man who killed her. And the reason I'm being kind of intransigent in this discussion is because, like you, I don't think Snape ever actually progresses from the emotionally expedient end of the spectrum to the ethical one. The memories indicate that he produces the doe!Patronus during his conversation with Dumbledore during the events of HBP. So as recently as the six months or so prior to the start of DH, it's still just about Lily for Snape and the fact that he still feels terrible for having contributed to her death. The actual ethics of getting rid of Voldemort still don't seem to have occurred to him. And that's why I can't really see any transformation in him that makes me impressed with him or makes me think he really was a good guy after all.

At the same time I think the author shows that he went from being a boy that lacked empathy (he doesn't understand why Lily cares about Petunia

I don't think it's lack of empathy as much as Snape truly believes Petunia is beneath them because she isn't magical. I mean, he practically says as much. The fact that she's not magical trumps the fact that she's Lily's sister (and it's not like Snape's an orphan; he knows what family ties are).

doesn't get that "mudblood" and what Avery and Mulciber get up to is bad

I absolutely disagree that he doesn't get it that mudblood is bad; he knows it is, which is why he tries to convince Lily he didn't mean it. If he truly had no concept of its wrongness, he'd have no understanding of why she's upset that he called her one. And I think the sequencing of events there is critical, too. He and Lily had had their argument *before* she tried to stick up for him to James. He was angry with her already when she did that and he did what a lot of people do when they're really angry at someone they care about -- reached for the most hurtful thing he could think of to say to her. He feels bad about it after-the-fact, but that's not the same thing as him being unaware, in the moment, of what he was doing.

doesn't get that Lily might be upset if her son and husband are murdered

At that point in the story Snape was 21 (he went to Hogwarts for the first time the same year Lily did and Lily died at 21, so they were approximately the same age). I can give him the benefit of the doubt re: Petunia initially because he was all of, like, 7. But at 21, he's old enough to know that Lily would be upset about James and Harry being killed. He cares more that she's alive, though, than that she might be unhappy for a while.

Regarding the Mudblood issue also, I know many people consider Snape's "Don't say the word Mudblood here" line as proving that he'd really changed etc., but there too I thought he had personal reason to no longer like the world--it's the word that lost him Lily's friendship. It's not that I want to try to make it seem like Snape never did anything good, this is just how the character came across to me--as somebody who did really impressive things etc., but his transformation seemed very limited to me.

It's not that I want to try to make it seem like Snape never did anything good, this is just how the character came across to me--as somebody who did really impressive things etc., but his transformation seemed very limited to me.

ITA. That's why I keep going back to the Narcissa parallel: qualitatively, Narcissa and Snape are doing the same thing -- thwarting Voldemort because of a specific person they love -- even if Snape has *quantitatively* done more over the years. And love is a fine reason to be spurred to act; I certainly don't mean to suggest otherwise. But there's something ultimately ... selfish to me about not only Snape's love for Lily, but how he reacts in the wake of believing/learning he betrayed that love. I can't help feeling like he wouldn't have become Severus Snape, Double Agent, if Lily had survived Godric's Hollow somehow and that impression necessarily colors my view of just how heroic -- or not -- his conduct really is.

I don't think it's lack of empathy as much as Snape truly believes Petunia is beneath them because she isn't magical. I mean, he practically says as much. The fact that she's not magical trumps the fact that she's Lily's sister ...

Hmmm...I think I'm going to argue that it's the same thing. In order to dehumanize someone like that, whether it be on looks or magicalness or whatever, you have to cut off your ability to empathize with them. Or never have had that ability in the first place.

I absolutely disagree that he doesn't get it that mudblood is bad...
Yeah - I'm having trouble putting into words what I was thinking with this. I agree that he knew it was bad. But my thinking was that it was in the way an addict knows it's wrong when they steal their Grandma's pension for drug money. They know they're being bad - but it really takes recovery and soul searching to get how bad it is. Do you know what I mean?

At that point in the story Snape was 21 ... at 21, he's old enough to know that Lily would be upset about James and Harry being killed

And my point was not anything to do with age - but a real psychological disorder type of lack of empathy. The type that can turn a person into a killer. I think her murder, and his hand in it, was the shock that got him to really look at himself enough to gain some self realization about his role in it all, and with it, some empathy for others. Again, I think that's why he only gave Harry those memories where he (Snape) was acting badly - it was finally awareness that he was acting badly and setting bad things into motion.

Again - that's just what I think the author was going for. I do think it's redemption, but a real life kind, not so much a story kind.

-Cindy

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Deathly Hallows

no subject

part I

Re: part I

Re: part I

Re: part I

Re: part I

Re: part I

Re: part I

Re: part I

part II

Re: part II

Re: part II

Re: part II