Black leather, black leather, smash smash smash

[sistermagpie]

I saw a really fun double feature with petitesoeur the other day. These are the Damned was an oddball British rock-n-roll movie featuring a very young Oliver Reed emoting all over the place as King, the leader of a gang of Weymouth Teddy Boys. He had a strange fixation on his sister and didn't want her kissing older American tourists. The Teddy Boys had their own theme song, btw, which I have been singing for days (points to subject line). The movie really picked up when the radioactive children showed up, but then what movie isn't immediately improved by a bunch of radioactive children? Anyway, it was really fun. And ultimately, it got to you. The end was effecting.

The other movie was one of my absolute favorites, The Innocents. It's a wonderful adaptation of Turn of the Screw by Truman Capote starring Deborah Kerr and Martin Stephens. Who's Martin Stephens you ask? Well, Martin Stephens was my first celebrity crush. At the time I was 7 and he was about 27. He was in Village of the Damned (the original, of course, not the lame remake) which I saw on TV. He is phenomonenal in The Innocents as Miles and Pamela Franklin is quite good as Flora too. The movie actually manages to preserve the book's ambiguity--is the possession real or not? What happened at Miles' school? Are the ghosts really there? Is Miss Giddens just so repressed she's insane? What happened between Miles, Flora, Quint and Miss Jessel? It's a movie that gets more horrible the more you think about it and you should think about it often! The final scenes between Miles and Miss Giddens is one of the most deliciously tense things ever!

I had always wondered what happened to Martin Stephens, btw. I finally discovered he grew up and became an architect. I was so happy to hear this I wrote him the only fan letter I've ever written. I figured it might amuse him to know some little girl discovered his work decades after he did it. He wrote me back, which led to my going on a meditation retreat where I wasn't allowed to speak for 10 days but that's another story. He loved filming The Innocents, btw, though he was too young to see it when it came out. He finally snuck into it when he was 15 or so and for the first time understood it: "Oh, it's about sex!"

This was the second time I'd seen it on the big screen. The first time was at the MOMA and I must say that their audience was better than the one at the Walter Reade. The MOMA crowd was mostly older people and they really jumped the first time the ghosts of Miss Jessel and Quint appeared. But nothing compares to the collective gasp they gave when Miles gave Miss Giddens that kiss goodnight. It felt like the air was all sucked out of the room. Also, I love the theme song--more than the jazzy "Black Leather" number from TATD. (We lay my love and I, beneath a weeping a willow...)

On a totally unrelated note, I was reading this thread on Snape characterization in fanfic and it made me think about author's authority over their own characters and stories a little bit. Also I thought about how I love Snape.

blackfall feels Snape's main motivation is that Snape is a bastard and JKR says so. Her exact words are "It's fun to write about Snape because he's a deeply horrible person," "Who on earth would want Snape in love with them? That's a very horrible idea," and "Snape is a very sadistic teacher, loosely based on a teacher I myself had, I have to say. I think children are very aware and we are kidding ourselves if we don't think there are, that teachers do sometimes abuse their power and this particular teacher does abuse is power." JKR, of course, also explains that Draco and Pansy are awful people based on people she's met throughout her life who do not go away. It's suggested on the thread that it is wrong to look for explanations for bad behavior because you lose sight of how bad it is.

On the question of looking for explanation, I think anybody who knows me by now knows where I stand on that: looking for explanation in no way means you are losing sight of how awful the behavior is. In fact, I think it's completely ridiculous to just identify the behavior as bad and refuse to go further. At least if you understand the why you can judge or reject the person honestly. Because otherwise you could use anything as a reason not to get to know the person better. There are plenty of religious people, for instance, who would say once you know somebody isn't a Christian you know all you need to know. Or once you know they're Jewish. Or once you know they're gay. Yes we all know the difference is that Snape is being judged for things he's done rather than what he is but people who hate these other groups would say the same thing, wouldn't they? They've rejected Christ. They do all the nasty things gay people do. In general it just always takes me a while to feel comfortable giving an opinion on a person. I might say the person annoyed me upon meeting them, but I won't say they're nice or awful until I feel like I understand them more.

But back to the author's authority here. It really surprised me at first to read an author talk about characters this way--not just her characters, but characters in general. I guess I assume people who write fiction are naturally interested in people and what makes them tick so are less likely to think anyone's motivation is that they are "a bastard" (which is no motivation at all). But I suppose not all authors are drawn to the same areas. Neither Tolkien nor JRR are known for their characterization, despite creating memorable characters. So okay, she thinks some people are horrible and this makes them fundamentally different from non-horrible people.

But does that mean we all have to see the characters that way? Because I can't. I had awful teachers in school too but if I were to base a character on them--a character that was going to be a player in 7 books---you can be sure they would no longer just be "a deeply horrible person." In fact they were all different from each other. Except for Mrs. Ruhl (HATE HER!) who I was probably just too young to understand I usually ended up thinking I saw some of their motivation while I was in the class. Snape's motivation isn't that he is a bastard. He is a bastard because of whatever his motivation is. Whoever this teacher of JKR's was, whoever these awful people she's met who remind her of Draco and Pansy, I seriously doubt she knows them well enough to be the last word on their personality.

But if JKR says he's horrible, does that mean I'm wrong when he doesn't strike me that way? In canon Snape strikes me as someone with a lot of faults--he's childishly malicious, abuses his power in class, is cruel to Neville, made a seriously inappropriate remark to Hermione in GoF, and is bitter and vengeful. He's also capable, refreshingly unsentimental, smart, courageous and very interesting. Presumably he does not wash his hair often and has oily skin. Most of the good characters in canon seem to owe him a hell of a lot and frankly, I can see often see why he can't stand them. He should not be teaching children. He might be an effective teacher in post-graduate studies, but should not be dealing with a random class of adolescents. He also doesn't seem to want to be a teacher and he takes this out on his students. However, I can easily see him having a friend. I can understand why Hermione irritates the hell out of him without approving of him insulting a 14-year-old girl's looks. Snape, to me, is not deeply horrible he is simply not nice. Nice, to quote Red Riding Hood via Stephen Sondheim, is different than good. At this point he seems to be the most valuable member of the Order. There's more to life than nice.

Comments

[yourpoison.livejournal.com]

wah. hehehe i feel like saying, "well, i feel like i know you enough to tell that you are a splendid person". *laughs*
simply because this lack of knee-jerk judgement is such a needed trait in this world, and so few people cultivate it. i don't know if i'm great at never judging, but i feel i don't -believe- myself so -thoroughly- as all that. i -want- to know what makes people -tick-, as you say. at least i can say that! that i -want to know-!! my -god-! (*cue righteous anger*, heheh)

I guess I assume people who write fiction are naturally interested in people and what makes them tick so are less likely to think anyone's motivation is that they are "a bastard"

tell me about it..!..!!
oh god, the amount of times people said this at the draco panel, and in draco discussions in lj and elsewhere, is enough to make me want to BITE THINGS.
what the hell is up with that? (okay, i know what, but it still enraaaaages me, heheh). this whole labeling thing sucks ass.

He's also capable, refreshingly unsentimental, smart, courageous and very interesting.
awwwwww. heee. yeah. word. *coughs*
are we ever going to actually -disagree-? *laughs*

to quote Red Riding Hood via Stephen Sondheim, is different than good.
hee. wah.
i think this is partly why i don't take it as much of a compliment when people call me nice >:D<
not that i want to be good, either.
it's enough to just be human >:D

[anamirza.livejournal.com]

I wonder how honest JKR is with her anti-Snape and anti-Draco comments. I mean, maybe she is honest in that she feels the question being asked is, "Are they good people?", to which her answer is, "No. Don't they seem awful to you?" But she could easily have made them unequivocably awful - Sauron, say, is pretty unredeemable in the LotR (let us ignore the Silmarillion) - but she didn't. Draco garners sympathy because we see the conditioning he's been subjected to - his father on his case because he was beat in the school exams by a Mudblood - and we see, from the very beginning, depth to Snape that we see in almost no other character: he hates Harry, but he saves him; Dumbledore trusts him absolutely. This is even before Book 5 and the Pensieve. If she sees him as simply bad, why all this addition? If not on an analytical level then at least on an intuitional one she must see that this makes him more "realistic".

He might be an effective teacher in post-graduate studies
No, I've had this teacher in post-graduate studies and he's pretty hopeless there, too. Give him a lab and just enough funding and don't let him partake in the learning process: he won't do it any good. But as you say,
There's more to life than nice. The awful teacher was still a decent scientist - just an awful teacher, and not very nice overall. It doesn't prevent one from being able to integrate complicated functions, apparently.

[malsperanza.livejournal.com]

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."

OK, am now rambling...