Like you, I object to flat characterizations ("he's bad because he's bad, 'nuff said"). It's boring and two-dimensional.
But regardless of what JKR says about Snape, in canon, as written, he is not that simple, is he? I presume that she is playing a game with the readers at this point: whatever there is to Snape beyond "he's just horrible," she isn't going to spill any beans just yet.
He strikes me as one of those teachers who teaches not because he loves students but because he loves his subject. All those academics who really just want to do their own research but are forced to teach are little Snapelets. In Snape's case, I suspect that he is teaching because Hogwarts is the only safe place for him to be. He is one of several rather crummy teachers at the school whom Dumbledore has given asylum and a sinecure.
Usually characters who are just plain horrible, bad, with no shadows or gray areas, are either badly written or, well, Sauron. One does not expect Sauron to have shades of meaning. One would dislike Sauron with nuances.
The exception to every rule is in Shakespeare, as usual. What are we to make of Iago? He's a fully three-dimensional character, believable, full of depth and persuasively written, yet motivated by inexplicable ill will and vileness.
I can imagine the perplexed first viewers of Othello cornering Shakespeare in the pub afterward. And Shakespeare saying, with a shrug, "Hey, it's fun to write about Iago because he's a deeply horrible person."
And Ben Jonson and Marlowe and Webster all nodding and writing on their cuffs, "note to self: horrible...fun to write" and then going home and composing Volpone and The Jew of Malta and The Duchess of Malfi.
And Shakespeare saying, "Yeesh, guys, don't go overboard or anything."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-08-25 04:56 am (UTC)But regardless of what JKR says about Snape, in canon, as written, he is not that simple, is he? I presume that she is playing a game with the readers at this point: whatever there is to Snape beyond "he's just horrible," she isn't going to spill any beans just yet.
He strikes me as one of those teachers who teaches not because he loves students but because he loves his subject. All those academics who really just want to do their own research but are forced to teach are little Snapelets. In Snape's case, I suspect that he is teaching because Hogwarts is the only safe place for him to be. He is one of several rather crummy teachers at the school whom Dumbledore has given asylum and a sinecure.
Usually characters who are just plain horrible, bad, with no shadows or gray areas, are either badly written or, well, Sauron. One does not expect Sauron to have shades of meaning. One would dislike Sauron with nuances.
The exception to every rule is in Shakespeare, as usual. What are we to make of Iago? He's a fully three-dimensional character, believable, full of depth and persuasively written, yet motivated by inexplicable ill will and vileness.
I can imagine the perplexed first viewers of Othello cornering Shakespeare in the pub afterward. And Shakespeare saying, with a shrug, "Hey, it's fun to write about Iago because he's a deeply horrible person."
And Ben Jonson and Marlowe and Webster all nodding and writing on their cuffs, "note to self: horrible...fun to write" and then going home and composing Volpone and The Jew of Malta and The Duchess of Malfi.
And Shakespeare saying, "Yeesh, guys, don't go overboard or anything."
OK, am now rambling...