Why all the Snape love? Is it a female thing?, Sex symbol or greasy git? |
 Sep 30 2009, 02:03 AM
Post
#231
|
|
Stocking Snitches at Quality Quidditch Supplies  Posts: 682 Joined: 6:54pm August 3, 2008 Location: New York, NY   |
Hey, Severa Sphyrna, I'm sorry it took me like, a month to respond to your post. Muggle world, you know, and then I discovered WikiAnswers.com and became completely obsessed with it. Who knew answering other people's questions could be so addictive? Anyway, I hope you haven't completely forgotten (or stopped caring) what the conversation was.
Oh, and I apologize if any of my points have already been discussed. I haven't yet read the stuff that was posted while I was on my little Leaky Lounge vacation. QUOTE(SeveraSphyrna @ Sep 6 2009, 11:18 PM)  Sure, it's important that Snape picked Prince, but it's IMO it was more about Snape's need to feel privately superior as a half-blood in Slytherin than appreciation for his mother. "Half-Blood Prince" is simultaneously an alias and a pun. The alternative, "Half-Blood Snape" is missing the regal pun and would suck as an alias (even worse that Remus using Romulus, but not by much...tee-hee). I would imagine that Harry learned plenty from the Dursleys. We know he can walk, talk, count, recognize letters of the alphabet, cook, dress himself, use a phone, use The Tube, be polite, be not-so-polite, maintain some semblance of a hygienic existence, etc. Sure, they treated him like crap, but he did learn stuff while he was at 4PD, otherwise he wouldn't have been able to go to Muggle schools in the first place. My "so what" was that learning this stuff doesn't promote personal allegiance. In the case of Snape, his allegiance was to wizardry, and not necessarily to his mother outside of that. Lastly, when Snape tells Lily "But it won't be that long and I'll be gone," he doesn't add a "but" concerning leaving his mother behind. That, to me, would have been enough to suggest there was a stronger bond there. However, since there wasn't, it is not logical to assume there was a stronger bond. I have to go with what we've been presented and Snape wanted to leave home and home included his mother. Yes, I agree that the main reason for the "Half-Blood Prince" nickname was a need to feel superior. I just think he would've come up with a different nickname if he didn't have some semblance of a normal relationship with his mother. As I said before, I'm not claiming that Snape was a mama's boy or something, just that he loved his mother like most kids implicitly do. Harry may have learned stuff from the Dursleys, but only from watching them and observing them -- not from interacting with them. The Dursleys never took the time to sit down with Harry for hours on end, a few days a week, and tutor him, like Eileen Snape must have done with Severus. Then, there's the fact that Eileen was Severus' mother, his biological mother, so there was an innate, special bond between them to begin with. Anybody who has had any semblance of a normal relationship with their mother knows what I'm talking about. Who is the person 4 year-old Severus ran to when he fell and got hurt, or when he had nightmares? It had to be his mom. Little kids aren't independent like the older Severus was. They need mommy or daddy to cling to. So, if Tobias Snape was unwilling to care for him, then it had to be Eileen Snape whom Severus clung to. That in itself forms a very strong bond, or "promotes allegiance," as you say. Couple this bond with the hours and hours, day after day that Eileen spent with Severus, teaching him his multiplication tables, showing him how to read and write, and telling him stories about the wizarding world, and about Dark Magic... all of that adds up to a fairly normal, loving parent-child relationship. Incidentally, this is one of the problems I have with Harry's character. If the Dursleys never showed Harry any love, ever -- which seems to be J.K.'s contention -- then 4 year-old Harry had nobody to cling to when he had nightmares, or fell out of a tree. Nobody held him for hours and sang to him until he stopped crying and fell asleep. He had none of the parental support that small children so desperately need. It is absolutely impossible for a kid to grow up well-adjusted, without any significant psychological problems, the way Harry miraculously managed to do, without this love and support. In real life, Harry would have been a psychological trainwreck, and possibly even a sociopath. The fact that Snape didn't say to Lily, "It won't be long and then I'll be gone...but I'm really going to miss my mummy," is totally irrelevant. No boy on earth talks about how much he loves his mom in front of a girl he's trying to impress. Or any girl, for that matter. It would never happen. None of the men I know, including my brother, have ever talked to me about how much they love their mommies -- I guess none of them love their mothers either. Lily had a very hard time just getting him to say anything about his parents -- do you really think he would willingly volunteer more information, especially intimate details concerning the nature of his relationship with his mom? And, as I've said twice already, I couldn't wait to leave home because of my mom's emotional problems, but I still love my dad very much. Actually, I love both of them very much. I just don't want to live with them. No kid wants to live with their parents. All normal, reasonably well-adjusted kids can't wait to leave home, and it really does not mean they don't love their parents. QUOTE(Severa Sphyrna) We're not in disagreement here. This was also my contention several posts ago, concerning the unreality of the bad boy despite the fact that it is a pretty pervasive character. Case in point a classic bad boy would not be successful in the real world, but that's not where bad boys live. I don't dispute the existence of the reverse (seemingly good outside, but bad underneath, my prior example being Ted Bundy), which was another point I made. No woman wants that fantasy---several hundred pages of text or close to two hours of screen time affirming that Mr Sexy is a good guy, only to find out he's really been getting rid of his sexual conquests with a wood chipper. Sure, I happen to like movies and books that make you care for someone only to pull the rug out later (maybe not with the above plot though), but plenty don't. We want the fantasy, and the fantasy is that the bad boy, particularly if we've enjoyed hating him, has a heart. ... In varying degrees of badness or badassed-ness, as it were, and varying degrees of classic, meaning that some are good underneath the crap, and others we've tried to make look good despite all evidence to the contrary (e.g. Michael Corleone, a blight on my heritage if there ever was one, but parts 1 and 2 are still among my favorite movies). This is usually done with excuse-making (misunderstood, abusive childhood, you name it). Note that some are sexually attractive and some aren't but still have fangirls (don't even get me started on how revolting it is that various "Oz" inmates and T-Bag have fangirls...eeww...). Lastly, a couple are satires of the classic bad boy (e.g. Patrick Bateman), but it's pretty apparent based on the fan following that some of these people don't get satire. ...As I've mentioned previously, my contention about the bad boy syndrome is that is is one part of the reason more women than men like Snape. It is not the entire reason, so do take this list for what it's worth...examples about only part of what I think is at work here (and only for some women, at that). Okay, I've finally realized exactly what the root of my problem is with this theory. The thing is, it really isn't valid to say that Goodfellas is the only accurate depiction of how bad boy-types treat their friends and family, just because it is based on a true story. The fact that it's based on a true story does not make it akin to a psychiatric textbook, which can be used to assess and predict the behavior and character of others. And it certainly doesn't mean that any and all books or movies that portray bad boy-types more sympathetically are espousing inaccurate portrayals of the human condition. "Based on a true story" doesn't mean "a completely accurate account of what actually happened," not least because people cannot objectively relay what actually happened: no matter how truthful someone tries to be, their account will always be somewhat subjective. But it will especially be subjective when they relay their account to a screenwriter, who will editorialize it to make it a better story. Actually, "based on a true story" doesn't really mean anything; the fact is, most fiction is based on true stories. To say that Goodfellas is the only accurate portrayal of bad boys, because it's based on a true story, and even though lots of movies say they're based on true stories, this one really, truly is, and everybody who worked on it strived really, really hard to make it accurate to reality, etc., ...saying that is tantamount to saying, "It's true because I say so." If it were really a true story, then it would be a documentary, not a dramaticized narrative. And in fact, I did a little reading about the true story vs. the movie, and indeed, just as much creative license was taken with Goodfellas as with any other movie that claims to be "based on a true story." It's no more a true story than The Amityville Horror or Sid & Nancy or Gangs of New York is. I also have trouble with the idea that books and movies that portray bad boy-types in a more sympathetic light are only doing it because that's what people want out of their bad boy characters. To be a good writer, you must of course be aware of your audience. And of course, all writers -- and their publishers and producers -- want their work to sell. But only a bad writer -- or one with no integrity whatsoever -- placates and panders to his audience the way you are describing. Yes, Stephenie Meyer does it with her Edward character, but that's exactly my point: she's a hack. Her work is completely devoid of emotional depth. People sometimes don't want to know the cold, hard reality, but any writer worth his salt knows that ultimately, stories that are true to the human condition, however ugly, are far more enduring than artificially-sweetened shlock like the Twilight series. If that weren't true, novels like Naked Lunch would never have become classics. The idea that books and movies routinely portray morally ambiguous characters with a degree of sympathy, just so their female audience can have someone to crush on, is actually deeply offensive. It's a huge insult to writers everywhere. Regarding bad boys themselves: I think there is a big distinction between men who are really, truly bad to the bone, but act charming and pretend to be decent, and men who are capable of, and willing to do, really bad things, but who still have a heart and a sense of decency. It may seem like there's no good in someone, but nine times out of ten, there is. Just because a drug dealer or a gangster has committed murder, doesn't mean he is faking kindness around his wife. It doesn't mean he doesn't really, truly love her. It's not necessarily that the good side of his personality is an act, and the bad side is real -- it's that both are real. I mean, if there's someone at work you don't like, you're going to act very differently around them than you do with your friends and family. To the co-worker, you're a bitch, but to your friends, you're a sweet, wonderful person. It doesn't mean that either disposition is fake; it just means that your co-worker doesn't get to see the good in you. The same is true of mobsters and gangsters and the like. They have good in them, but you never get to see it because they won't show it to you. But they show it to their wife. Or, they may show it to nobody. Either way, when they do show the good inside them, it's behind closed doors, so you don't get to see it. You don't get to see the mobster who shot ten people crying like a baby when his mom dies, because he's only going to do that when he's alone. Furthermore, what you're claiming is statistically impossible. Someone who is completely bad, who has no heart at all, is a sociopath, and there just aren't that many sociopaths. It's a fairly rare condition. There are millions and millions of hardened criminals out there, and statistically all of them -- even most of them -- can't be sociopaths. They have hearts somewhere; they're just hidden very deep. I mean, look -- I once knew someone who was actually a murderer. He was a cocaine dealer and had shot four people to death. The guy was friends with my best friend's boyfriend, so we hung out a lot. I just knew him as this mellow, relaxed guy who never had a bad word to say about anybody. It wasn't an act; he wasn't charming. He was just quiet and unassuming, the kind of guy you automatically feel comfortable around. I just could not believe it when I found out what he'd done, because he didn't seem menacing at all, and even after I found out, I wasn't scared to be around him or even alone with him. Actually, my friend ended up having a brief affair with him, after she and her boyfriend broke up. He was a dangerous man, but he was only dangerous to his competitors in the drug trade. He was apparently able to emotionally compartmentalize his "business" self, and his personal life-self. However, the fact that someone has some good in him doesn't automatically make him a good person. Having some sense of decency doesn't make you decent. That is the part of your argument I agree with. The majority of mobsters and gangsters may have good in them, but the majority of them still make bad lovers and friends. People like them may treat their loved ones with kindness and respect, but they are brutal to people who they hate, or who don't matter to them, so their lovers and friends always have this constant sense of dread hanging over them: "What if I do something to really piss him off? What if he turns on me? What if his love turns to hate?" And since most love affairs eventually turn to hate, or at least to indifference, the risk is very real. And that's no way to live, always being in fear. But if all you're saying is that bad boy syndrome is only one reason some women like Snape, then I agree with that. QUOTE(Severa Sphyrna) Sorry, but I don't get the comparisons. First, I do not dispute the existence of wife-loving Nazis or Nazis with Jewish mistresses. I also don't dispute the fact that there were Nazis who claimed they were "just" doing their jobs when they were rounding up, torturing, or massacring Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, etc. However, Nazism wasn't just an ideology, it was an ideology that came with a paycheck, which for that reason and plenty of others, makes that a whole other ball of wax (assuming that you're alluding to comparisons of the DEs with Nazis…please note, I'm in no way excusing the behavior of Nazis with this statement). So what if S.S. officers got a paycheck? What difference does it make? It was still a job you volunteered for; S.S. officers weren't drafted. And you really had to jump through hoops, and go to great lengths, to prove that you were S.S. material. You really had to want the job, and be passionate and eager about it. They didn't just hire any old unemployed shlub. And incidentally, you were also all but required to be a good family man. The Nazi ideal of Kinder Kuche Kirche demanded that all top-level Nazis, like S.S. officers, be married with at least one child. There were exceptions of course, but that was the unwritten rule. The S.S. was Hitler's super-elite force, just like the DEs were Voldemort's super-elite force. Regular Nazis -- the low-level infantry -- are more analogous to people like Stan Shunpike and Fenrir Greyback, who worked for Voldemort, but had no power or status. And mafia men and DEs get paid, too. Mafia men don't get a paycheck, obviously, but they do get paid a certain percentage of the cash or goods they steal. They don't work for free. I mean, that's half the appeal of the gangster/mobster lifestyle: lots of cash, quickly made. The other half is the status and power they get, which is a different form of payment, but still payment. And besides status and power, I imagine that DEs got a certain amount of booty, just like mafia men. I'm sure they were permitted to loot the homes of the people they murdered, and some of these homes probably had their owner's entire life-savings hidden away inside, under a floorboard or a mattress, perhaps. Not everybody in the wizarding world has a Gringotts vault -- only very rich or very old pureblood families have them -- and the people the DEs were killing were mostly the kinds of people who didn't have them. So, I would think there'd be a certain extra incentive, in the form of cash and valuables, that the DEs got to take home with them. The idea that torture and murder is "a different ball of wax" when it comes in the form of a job with an official, paper paycheck is bull, plain and simple. How on earth does an official, paper paycheck make it any different? The idea that it's somehow different is essentially the Nuremberg defense, and as I'm sure you know, the Nuremberg defense was tossed out like the garbage it was. QUOTE(Severa Sphyrna) The books are primarily from Harry's POV, and based upon that, Snape does little to prove that he isn't a jerk the majority of his waking moments. By the way, "seeing the light" was in reference to DD's understanding that there was something good in Snape, not about Snape seeing the light. Even so, I'll respond to the last bit. "Inconsequential kid's stuff?" But he's not a kid, he's an adult bully. Is this behavior befitting a thirty-something year old man who should, by this point in his life, be able to control himself to some degree? You seem to be making excuses for his behavior. To me, this functionally qualifies Snape as a bad boy. I'm not making excuses; I am making a point. You said that since there is no explicit mention of regret or remorse on Snape's part, it is invalid to suggest that there was any. You also said that since it's not explicitly stated that Snape loves his mom, it's invalid to suggest that he loved her. That seems to be your main argument on both topics. But there is also nothing in canon -- not a single word -- about Snape committing torture and murder as a DE. So, by your own logic, Snape never tortured or murdered anyone. Therefore, all this talk about bad boys and violence is moot, because Snape never did anything violent besides slap Harry, push him, and give James a little cut on the cheek. I don't believe that Snape never tortured or murdered anyone as a DE, but you are obligated to believe it, since your contention is that something can't be true unless it is explicitly mentioned in canon. Otherwise, you are contradicting yourself and espousing double-standards. As for the cut, the slap, and the push: I don't have to excuse this behavior, because other fans have already done it for me. Snape isn't the only adult who has been violent with Harry -- Lupin shoved/pushed him across the room during a moment of extreme anger, almost exactly the same way Snape did. And nobody condemns Lupin for it. Nobody calls him a violent child-batterer. So to condemn Snape for the same action is a glaring double-standard. Both Snape and Lupin are "thirty-something year-old" men, so if Snape "should, by this point, be able to control himself to some degree," then Lupin should too. Lupin, along with Sirius, also tried to kill Pettigrew, and nobody ever seems to have a problem with that, either. But where is that forgiveness when Snape tries to get Sirius' soul sucked out? Nowhere to be found; for virtually the same crime, Snape is judged as a violent, merciless horror of a human being. Also, nobody condemns Harry for the Cruciatus curse he put on Mr. Carrow, or the beating he helped administer to Draco on the Quidditch field. People excuse Lupin and Harry's behavior by saying, "Oh, well, they were really, really angry, and nobody can keep their temper 100% of the time, so let's just give them a break..." Well, then Snape should be afforded the same leniency, because he was equally angry and upset when he slapped Harry, pushed him, and gave James that cut. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. There is undeniably a big difference between slapping someone, pushing someone, and giving someone a small cut on the cheek, and torture and murder. Even if one of those someones is a kid. This difference is recognized by our legal system: we charge people for different degrees of murder (Murder in the First Degree, Murder in the Second Degree, and in some places, Murder in the Third Degree), and for different levels of assault (Attempted Murder, Assault in the First Degree, Assault in the Second Degree, Assault in the Third Degree). So to say that violence is violence, and that all violent attacks are equally morally wrong, is just patently false. If all Snape ever did was push Harry, slap him, and cut James' cheek, then he cannot be called a violent person, any more than Lupin, Harry and Sirius can be called violent. And there is also a big difference between slapping and pushing a fifteen/sixteen year-old, and slapping and pushing a five year-old. People call what Snape did to Harry "child abuse," but the fact is, Harry was fifteen and sixteen years old when he did it. He was not a child; he was practically fully-grown. I'm not saying that makes it a fair fight, especially since Snape has such authority over Harry, but it's really histrionic to call it "child abuse," since Harry was long past being a child when it happened. And in the latter instance -- the slapping incident -- it is not irrelevant that Harry was trying very hard to curse Snape when it happened. But of course, nobody has a problem with what Harry was doing, because it was "righteous." Yes, the books are from Harry's POV. That's exactly my point. The books are from Harry's POV, and Snape absolutely hates Harry. So of course it seems like Snape behaves like a jerk to everybody, every waking moment of his life, because usually whenever we see Snape, he is in Harry's presence. But just because he acts like a jerk in Harry's presence, doesn't mean he really does behave like a jerk to everybody, 24/7. And in fact, there are numerous canon examples to show that he really doesn't act like a jerk to everybody, 24/7: the Spinner's End scene, all the scenes between him and DD, (almost) all the scenes between him and Lily, the scene with McGonagall at the end of OotP, the fact that he made the Wolfsbane potion for Lupin, his conversation with Quirrell at the start-of-term feast in PS/SS...there's a good dozen scenes in canon where Snape behaves kindly, or at least civilly. So I just really don't understand why you would claim that Snape is mean to everybody, all the time, when canon clearly and unequivocally shows that this is not the case. All I'm saying about Snape is just what I said about mobsters and gangsters and the like: just like them, Snape has some genuine good in him, but just like them, a little bit of good doesn't make up for a whole lotta bad. Snape has some redeeming qualities about him, and to some extent he does redeem himself, but he isn't fully redeemed. Which brings me to harrydavid's post. QUOTE(harrydavid @ Sep 7 2009, 11:04 AM) I am completely baffled by the "crushes" that some women have for Snape. It is apparent to me that if Snape was a real person and treated them like he treats everyone in the book, then they would want nothing to do with him. So, the question I asked was why all this attraction to a character in a book when they would not feel that way about a real live person who acted that way. Well, the thing is, he's not real, so the way he would have treated me is ultimately totally irrelevant. You're never going to be on the front lines with him, actually interacting with him, so you can just watch him from a distance and love the character for who he is. If you actually had to interact with him, then the way he treated you would be the important thing. Who cares how complicated and brilliant this guy is, if you never get to see that part of him, if you only get to see him as some jerk who hurts your feelings? But since he doesn't actually exist, since you never have to actually interact with him, then you can appreciate the total package. Reading the book, you get to see all of him, not just the bad parts. QUOTE QUOTE(Severa Sphyrna) Second (and ignoring the Sid Vicious example), you've alluded to the same yourself: rock stars are performers. Keeping with this, few male rock stars and rap artists, for that matter, avoid the bad boy role, in terms of attitude, appearance, etc. There's a persona that helps sell itunes and CDs and that persona is aimed at women, and it's a self-sustaining cycle (new artists take on the persona of whomever they idolized, etc., etc.---and they all do kind of act the same on stage, when you think about it). Straight men could really care less what a male singer looks like, but it's hard to say the same about straight women. If they pull on the attitude (whether real or not) then even the seriously unsightly rock stars have groupies and fan girls It may be a performance for rappers, and for rock stars like Alice Cooper and Marilyn Manson, but it wasn't a performance for punk rockers like the ones I named. Rap and rock & roll are two completely different cultures, so the fact that rappers put on personas and pretend to be gangsters has no relevance here. And punk rock is a very different culture than other types of rock & roll. I don't know what kind of music you like, but even if you're not into punk rock, or rock music in general, I'm sure you know that the whole point of punk rock was that it was completely unpretentious and real. Iggy Pop, Dee Dee Ramone, Richard Hell, Johnny Thunders, David Johansen, Stiv Bators...none of these guys were pretending. The way they were onstage was the way they were offstage, basically. All the stuff they sang about, they really lived it. There may have been a certain degree of posturing with guys like Johnny Rotten and Sid Vicious, but that was more to do with their age, than it was about creating a persona. They were only about 17, 18 years old when they became famous, so they were really pretty clueless about the world. So they postured a bit, but only because they had no life experience, not because they didn't really believe what they were singing about. I mean, Richard Hell used to walk the streets of New York City -- in the seventies, when New York really was pretty dangerous -- wearing a T-shirt with a big bulls-eye on it, and the words "Please Kill Me" emblazoned across it. Nobody is that committed to a persona. This post has been edited by rowena r: Oct 7 2009, 08:14 AM |
 |
  
 
|
|
Oct 4 2009, 05:58 PM
Post
#232
|
|
Flesh-Eating-Slug Catcher Posts: 198 Joined: 11:46pm June 12, 2009 |
QUOTE(Mrs_Linnea_Snape @ Sep 30 2009, 02:05 AM) It may be a performance for rappers, and for rock stars like Alice Cooper and Marilyn Manson, but it wasn't a performance for punk rockers like the ones I named. Rap and rock & roll are two completely different cultures, so the fact that rappers put on personas and pretend to be gangsters has no relevance here. And punk rock is a very different culture than other types of rock & roll. I don't know what kind of music you like, but even if you're not into punk rock, or rock music in general, I'm sure you know that the whole point of punk rock was that it was completely unpretentious and real. Iggy Pop, Dee Dee Ramone, Richard Hell, Johnny Thunders, David Johansen, Stiv Bators...none of these guys were pretending. The way they were onstage was the way they were offstage, basically. All the stuff they sang about, they really lived it. I'm not going to digress and discuss whether rappers are or are not representing. And I have quite a punk collection myself...though I would never claim that punk actually had a point. Rather, it was the anti-point, which, technically speaking, was a point nonetheless. Regardless of whatever they did or got themselves involve in, very little of it prevented them from getting laid. Whether it is real or manufactured, it still worked in that arena, which is the only reason I responded to what you originally wrote. QUOTE(Mrs_Linnea_Snape @ Sep 30 2009, 02:03 AM) Hey, Severa Sphyrna, I'm sorry it took me like, a month to respond to your post. Muggle world, you know, and then I discovered WikiAnswers.com and became completely obsessed with it. Who knew answering other people's questions could be so addictive? Anyway, I hope you haven't completely forgotten (or stopped caring) what the conversation was. Oh, and I apologize if any of my points have already been discussed. I haven't yet read the stuff that was posted while I was on my little Leaky Lounge vacation. No problem. QUOTE(Mrs_Linnea_Snape @ Sep 30 2009, 02:03 AM) Incidentally, this is one of the problems I have with Harry's character. If the Dursleys never showed Harry any love, ever -- which seems to be J.K.'s contention -- then 4 year-old Harry had nobody to cling to when he had nightmares, or fell out of a tree. Nobody held him for hours and sang to him until he stopped crying and fell asleep. He had none of the parental support that small children so desperately need. It is absolutely impossible for a kid to grow up well-adjusted, without any significant psychological problems, the way Harry miraculously managed to do, without this love and support. In real life, Harry would have been a psychological trainwreck, and possibly even a sociopath. Agreed...and not just Harry. Considering that chocolate is apparently the remedy for depression in the Potterverse, I could imagine there would be serious need for a counseling center at St. Mungo's. QUOTE(Mrs_Linnea_Snape @ Sep 30 2009, 02:03 AM) The fact that Snape didn't say to Lily, "It won't be long and then I'll be gone...but I'm really going to miss my mummy," is totally irrelevant. No boy on earth talks about how much he loves his mom in front of a girl he's trying to impress. Or any girl, for that matter. It would never happen. None of the men I know, including my brother, have ever talked to me about how much they love their mommies -- I guess none of them love their mothers either. Lily had a very hard time just getting him to say anything about his parents -- do you really think he would willingly volunteer more information, especially intimate details concerning the nature of his relationship with his mom? It wasn't irrelevant. I wasn't stating that because I thought that's the way it should be. I was reiterating the same point that I'd made previously: we're never told anything beyond that and so it makes no sense to assume that because he had a biological mother, Snape must have some great love for her. I don't recall ever claiming that Snape didn't love his mother. My statement was that he wanted to leave home and that included leaving his mother. Frankly, I don't care how he felt about either of his parents, and it's pretty apparent JKR didn't either, since this, the latter statement of his father not liking much of anything, and the pensieve memory of his parents fighting pretty much cover what she had to say about how Snape felt about his parents. I have nothing to say about what you said about GoodFellas besides this: I mentioned it as one of the only not the only. QUOTE(Mrs_Linnea_Snape @ Sep 30 2009, 02:03 AM) I also have trouble with the idea that books and movies that portray bad boy-types in a more sympathetic light are only doing it because that's what people want out of their bad boy characters. To be a good writer, you must of course be aware of your audience. And of course, all writers -- and their publishers and producers -- want their work to sell. But only a bad writer -- or one with no integrity whatsoever -- placates and panders to his audience the way you are describing. Yes, Stephenie Meyer does it with her Edward character, but that's exactly my point: she's a hack. Her work is completely devoid of emotional depth. and quality writing...and character development...and worthwhile representations of females, male-female relationships, the list goes on... QUOTE(Mrs_Linnea_Snape @ Sep 30 2009, 02:03 AM) People sometimes don't want to know the cold, hard reality, but any writer worth his salt knows that ultimately, stories that are true to the human condition, however ugly, are far more enduring than artificially-sweetened shlock like the Twilight series. If that weren't true, novels like Naked Lunch would never have become classics. The idea that books and movies routinely portray morally ambiguous characters with a degree of sympathy, just so their female audience can have someone to crush on, is actually deeply offensive. It's a huge insult to writers everywhere. Agreed, with one addition...if the readers know this is what they're getting, then it's not insulting. People who read romances want the interesting male lead and that male lead tends to be a bad boy (not always, but it's pretty typical). My problem with Twilight is not that it fits the mold of trashy romance, it's that most of the audience is comprised of girls who don't know that they're reading a trashy romance. But this, again, is for another forum. QUOTE(Mrs_Linnea_Snape @ Sep 30 2009, 02:03 AM) But if all you're saying is that bad boy syndrome is only one reason some women like Snape, then I agree with that. It was a three-pronged, then later four-pronged argument...Yes, this is just one part. QUOTE(Mrs_Linnea_Snape @ Sep 30 2009, 02:03 AM) I'm not making excuses; I am making a point. You said that since there is no explicit mention of regret or remorse on Snape's part, it is invalid to suggest that there was any. You also said that since it's not explicitly stated that Snape loves his mom, it's invalid to suggest that he loved her. That seems to be your main argument on both topics. But there is also nothing in canon -- not a single word -- about Snape committing torture and murder as a DE. So, by your own logic, Snape never tortured or murdered anyone. Therefore, all this talk about bad boys and violence is moot, because Snape never did anything violent besides slap Harry, push him, and give James a little cut on the cheek. I don't believe that Snape never tortured or murdered anyone as a DE, but you are obligated to believe it, since your contention is that something can't be true unless it is explicitly mentioned in canon. Otherwise, you are contradicting yourself and espousing double-standards. I never mentioned anything about Snape's regret or lack thereof. And I'm not sure where torture, etc. entered this discussion. I made no statement whatsoever about whether or not Snape killed or tortured people, so I really have nothing to say in response to the above. QUOTE(Mrs_Linnea_Snape @ Sep 30 2009, 02:03 AM) As for the cut, the slap, and the push: I don't have to excuse this behavior, because other fans have already done it for me. Snape isn't the only adult who has been violent with Harry -- Lupin shoved/pushed him across the room during a moment of extreme anger, almost exactly the same way Snape did. And nobody condemns Lupin for it. Nobody calls him a violent child-batterer. So to condemn Snape for the same action is a glaring double-standard. Both Snape and Lupin are "thirty-something year-old" men, so if Snape "should, by this point, be able to control himself to some degree," then Lupin should too. Lupin, along with Sirius, also tried to kill Pettigrew, and nobody ever seems to have a problem with that, either. But where is that forgiveness when Snape tries to get Sirius' soul sucked out? Nowhere to be found; for virtually the same crime, Snape is judged as a violent, merciless horror of a human being. Have I ever claimed that Remus wasn't as immature as Severus? All of the thirty-something men are immature in the Potterverse...which I don't think was an accident, but that's for another discussion. I also never claimed that Snape was unforgiveable or unredeemed. If you care to, please look up my posts in "Great Snape Debate." QUOTE(Mrs_Linnea_Snape @ Sep 30 2009, 02:03 AM) Also, nobody condemns Harry for the Cruciatus curse he put on Mr. Carrow, or the beating he helped administer to Draco on the Quidditch field. People excuse Lupin and Harry's behavior by saying, "Oh, well, they were really, really angry, and nobody can keep their temper 100% of the time, so let's just give them a break..." Well, then Snape should be afforded the same leniency, because he was equally angry and upset when he slapped Harry, pushed him, and gave James that cut. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. ... And there is also a big difference between slapping and pushing a fifteen/sixteen year-old, and slapping and pushing a five year-old. People call what Snape did to Harry "child abuse," but the fact is, Harry was fifteen and sixteen years old when he did it. He was not a child; he was practically fully-grown. I'm not saying that makes it a fair fight, especially since Snape has such authority over Harry, but it's really histrionic to call it "child abuse," since Harry was long past being a child when it happened. And in the latter instance -- the slapping incident -- it is not irrelevant that Harry was trying very hard to curse Snape when it happened. But of course, nobody has a problem with what Harry was doing, because it was "righteous." You're preaching to the choir here. The crutiatus scene isn't just annoying for the reason above, it's just plain stupid. We're supposed to believe that Harry couldn't use the curse against Bellatrix, who just killed Sirius, but he can when Amycus spits on McGonagall? Please.... Actually, Harry is neither a goose, nor a gander. He's a gosling and shouldn't have been manhandled by any of the ganders in his life, regardless of how old he was at the time. -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Oct 11 2009, 08:52 AM
Post
#233
|
|
Daily Prophet Photographer Posts: 888 Joined: 1:35am January 6, 2007 |
QUOTE Mrs_Linnea_Snape Also, nobody condemns Harry for the Cruciatus curse he put on Mr. Carrow, or the beating he helped administer to Draco on the Quidditch field. People excuse Lupin and Harry's behavior by saying, "Oh, well, they were really, really angry, and nobody can keep their temper 100% of the time, so let's just give them a break..." Well, then Snape should be afforded the same leniency, because he was equally angry and upset when he slapped Harry, pushed him, and gave James that cut. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, as they say. To me this is not really classic bad boy syndrome. I mean, usually it entails falling for guys who are rebellious, reckless, anti social and perhaps small time criminals. Occassionally it extends to full on criminals. But Snape - after moving to work for Dumbledore was not any of these things with the exception of being largely anti-social. However, his 'badness' is associated with bullying, humiliating and being otherwise cruel to children. I don't see what would be attractive about that in a bad boy. I think it is more the idea of a man who was a Death Eater changing sides due to obsession with a woman and continued to have emotions for her for some 20 years or so. I think that is just seen as romantic and utterly sympathetic to some people. I think it actually lessens his impact when his negative acts and behavior is considered, so all of that is minimized as much as possible: he didn't really do anything as a DE, he was misguided; he did target a baby for Death, but that also served as his turning point (which gets the focus); he was ready to leave Lily's family for dead, but he was trying to save Lily (that gets the focus). His later life, protecting Harry gets the focus - even though for 11 years he didn't do squat in that regard and his actual episodes of protection are few and far between - and everyone else was protecting Harry too. Still, the focus is on that word "protection". The fact that he mistreated Harry, ranging from verbal to physical mistreatment is rationalized by his background or being upset. His mistreatment of the other children is reduced to "strictness in teaching methodology". In that way, the original tale centered on his unrequited love can be highlighted and his negative aspects reduced almost to nothingness. The sins of others are discussed in order to minimize Snape's sins also - but not in a directly correlative manner. Usually it is the "good guys" who are compared rather than those who were actually behaving like Snape which are those among the DEs (like Bella's unrequited love which saw her also doing negative things on account of it) or people like Umbridge (also a bullying professor) and other DEs whose speech and behavior mimicked Snape's even though they were working for Voldemort. The reductionary techniques allow for the unrequited storyline (including positive things that drove him to do) to loom largely because that is never reduced, but instead highlighted. So that is what I think goes on rather than classic bad boy syndrome. It is like a thirst for a sympathetic love story that isn't really provided by the canon, but twisted out of it to quench that thirst. This post has been edited by wickedboy: Oct 11 2009, 08:55 AM -------------------- In Every Age, A Hero Rises...  |
|
|
|
|
Oct 15 2009, 03:21 PM
Post
#234
|
|
|
Getting Fitted for New Dress Robes Posts: 56 Joined: 12:54pm November 15, 2007 |
Of course it is a female thing and I don't like it one bit. Snape is by no means an evil person but he is no hero either.
-------------------- |
|
|
|
 Apr 2 2010, 03:45 PM
Post
#235
|
|
Cauldron Bottom Measurer Posts: 115 Joined: 12:13pm March 23, 2009 |
Hi I just found out about this discussion, so I am coming in a bit late, and am about on page one with my response because I have missed a lot here and have memory issues so I am re reading all the books. Right now I am on Order of the PHoenix, the chapter where Harry feels himself inside the snake. Not to digress then, I am a 66 year old sister, have been married came into the convent at 48, and I adore Snape. At first I thought maybe a was a bit crazy and didn't understand my feelings, but I got deeper and deeper into the character. Alan Rickman is such a good actor, he really makes Snape so real. I think he is very sexy. I being to identify with him in some of his pain and just found myself reaching out to him....I guess it is a female thing..
--------------------  |
|
|
|
|
Apr 4 2010, 02:51 PM
Post
#236
|
|
|
Just Through the Brick Wall Posts: 2 Joined: 10:41pm March 28, 2010 |
QUOTE [font="Bookman Old Style"]In regards to the attraction, Snape is a complex man. I think that some female attraction re Snape is typical "bad boy syndrome", hence why others absolutely love the Malfoy's! Women are traditionally the more nurturing of the two sexes, so i think its natural for some females to try to 'help him' and 'cure' his faults with undying affection. Not true at all. If you look at most romantic relationships, men are the ones who're generous enough to take care of the women, while women for the most part just sit back and accept the love without returning ALL of it, in most cases barely any of it. Most guys I know in relationships don't get any help or nurturing at all from their girlfriends, who're too busy asking them to buy stuff for them to stop and provide any kind of emotional support fot their problems (of which there are many). This post has been edited by SuperFob: Apr 4 2010, 02:52 PM |
|
|
|
|
Apr 4 2010, 03:48 PM
Post
#237
|
|
Being Eaten by the Pea Soup Posts: 36 Joined: 5:03pm April 2, 2010 |
I've never really understood the whole Snape love thing, lol. and I'm a girl.
I guess he would be considered a bad guy, and maybe that's the whole appeal to him. I know that I've been one to favor the bad boys in books and movies, though not him. But I could see why alot of girls fancy him. -------------------- Get me some Nasonex you swine
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 8 2010, 04:01 PM
Post
#238
|
|
|
Getting Fitted for New Dress Robes Posts: 45 Joined: 2:59pm June 26, 2006 |
I can easily see why people like him as a character, because he's facinating and fun. He definitely has good qualities as well as the bad. And I can kind of see why some women may be attracted to him, because I do think that women are attracted primarily to strength and to charisma (and to wit, which falls under charisma). Snape has these. However his behaviour towards Harry and others, and his coldness and general unpleasantness, for me, overshadows those on the attraction front. Other characters have flaws to be sure, but most of the time they do at least feel a bit guilty when they do something wrong, or their good points overshadow the bad. And while after DH you can understand how Snape became the kind of person who would do the reprehensible things that he does, that doesn't excuse or justify them. A person cannot be created by circumstance alone, because you can put two different people in the same circumstances and see them turn out differently. For example, you can compare Snape with Harry - both were bullied, but one reacted by becoming a bully himself and the other by standing up for victims of bullying. (And I don't think you can use being able to understand his motives as a reason to be attracted to him, not least because we only found out those motives in DH and women found him attractive long before that, and I doubt they would have ceased to had he not had that back story.)
I can however understand some people identifying with qualities of his and liking him for that, and people sympathising with him for being bullied etc. |
|
|
|
|
Apr 9 2010, 05:47 AM
Post
#239
|
|
|
Professional Diagon Alley Window Shopper Posts: 74 Joined: 4:13pm February 15, 2010 Location: Ireland!!!!! |
I think that more women than men defend Snape because women are more sympathetic and compassionate than men and actually think about his past and how that has affected him. Think! He turned spy for Dumbledore at great personal risk. I know people who don't like Snape might argue that he did this because he was selfish and all he wanted to keep Lily safe because he loved her and wouldn't bat an eyelid if Harry or James died but to love someone as deeply as he loved Lily was a great achievement for Snape as he never grew up in the presence of love. Harry made similarities to Snpe and himself. That neuther of them were loved and they found their home in Hogwarts, that they were both the Abandoned Boys. Well I still didn't like Snape that much before I read an essay on TLC and that made me understand him a bit more. Unlike Harry he never saw waht love was like, his parents had an abusive relationtiop-they didn't care for each other. But Harry knew what love was like because the Dursly's greatly loved and cared for one another. Snape's fatther was a muggle and he verbaly abused and possibley phisacly abused Snape's mother (and could of abused Snape as well) so this is probably what drove him to the Dark Side. He probably relished the idea to drive muggles into hiding as he thought of his fatehr as a representive of muggles in his mind and thought they were all like him. So please don't judge Snape too harshly. Please think about how you would have turned out if you had the same backaround as him.
|
|
|
|
|
Apr 9 2010, 08:33 AM
Post
#240
|
|
|
Quality Quidditch Supplies Broom Display Artist Posts: 2,367 Joined: 5:11pm May 4, 2007 Location: Texas |
QUOTE(chloe g @ Apr 9 2010, 05:47 AM) So please don't judge Snape too harshly. Please think about how you would have turned out if you had the same backaround as him.[/i][/b] I consider myself to be a very compassionate and caring person. Without going into my profession, I will say that I have devoted my life to helping the disenfranchised. But I don't make excuses for them. If their plight is because of their own choices, I challenge them to change.I have known a number of people who grew up in abusive households that didn't turn into bullying gits. So I don't accept your argument at all. It is our choices that determine what we are not what we are born into or experience. Most of us, at least for myself, fully appreciate the reasons why Severus is the way he is. That does not excuse the man he became. -------------------- "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."
-Albus Dumbledore |
|
|
|
