fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #2791 ]

[ SECRET POST #2791 ]

⌈ Secret Post #2791 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03.

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

__________________________________________________

06.

__________________________________________________

07.

__________________________________________________

08.

__________________________________________________

09.

__________________________________________________

10.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 058 secrets from Secret Submission Post #399.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ], [ 1 - posted twice ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It doesn't directly contradict the text, no. But the Patronus scene strongly suggests that his motivation for protecting Harry, at least, was his feelings for Lily first and everything else second. Additionally, she's the very last thing he remembers in his life — and that with Harry right in front of him; because of Harry, too. It's actually pretty scary how he gives no fucks about Harry himself.

Taking this into account, I can't agree that the two interpretations are equally valid. One is supported by clear textual evidence, the other is just a way to try and make the existing text more coherent.

Besides, his lack of motivation is by no means the only problem. He freely indulges in bullying eleven-year-olds
; he tries to get an innocent man killed. IMO there's a point where a controversial character becomes simply unsalvageable, and, however much good deeds are piled up in the subsequent narrative, they make nothing better.

Now, if the idea were to make Snape an essentially bad person with something good in them, I'd declare his arc a success. As it is, the exact opposite is the case.

But I don't think that he necessarily gives no fucks about Harry himself just because his last thought was about Lily, or that just because Lily was his biggest motivation, that's his ONLY motivation. People are capable of entertaining more than one idea at a time, without them being the same priority. Sorry, but I really don't think your interpretation is any more supported by "clear textual evidence" any more than mine is.

But yeah, IA that he's more bad than good, re: your examples. I don't think it's so black-and-white though. Just because a guy is more bad than good doesn't devalue the good, it's not like it gets neatly separated into "bad" and "good" and gets plopped on a scale and balanced out or something.

I'm afraid don't quite understand what you mean when you say "unsalvageable" though. Unsalvageable as what? Do you mean "unsalvageable" as in incapable of perfectly redeeming himself as a total good guy? Becoming likable? I'd agree with that, but I don't understand what "unsalvageable as a character" means.

(btw, I don't think I've EVER been on this side of an argument about Snape before! I'm always the one pointing out to people how his dickery in the series doesn't have any good ulterior motives or justifications, it's just him being a dick. A first for me!)

But the problem IS that it's his primary motivation, not that he has no other motivations besides it. That was my view - I guess I miscommunicated it by saying that he "gives no fucks", while in fact I should've said something along the lines of "gives fewer fucks about Harry than he does about (dead) Lily".

I also have issues with the way Snape's obsession with Lily is almost written as a good thing. Considering the facts that the book is not narrated from an objective viewpoint and that one of the -morals- seems to be "yay everyone should marry their childhood sweetheart", I'm pretty uncomfortable with how no one notices that Snape's being skeevy in this regard. (barring Dumbledore, who, however, has no problems with Snape's obsession as such - it's only the fact that it's Snape's only motive for coming to him that disgusts Dumbledore.)

Yeah, I can agree with you about that -
> Just because a guy is more bad than good doesn't devalue the good, it's not like it gets neatly separated into "bad" and "good" and gets plopped on a scale and balanced out or something.

I guess I've always had difficulty seeing the good in bad characters. My standards for judging fictional characters are the same as for judging real people, and it's hard to be objective.

I've thought about this discussion and I think I can say that I no longer consider Snape's arc a spectacular failure on Rowling's part - most of the problems with his characterization are, as you said, due to the "gaps", i.e. omissions or lack of explanation - but I still believe the issues with his characterization are kinda obvious. They're not an insurmountable obstacle to someone who wants to read Snape the way Rowling (textually) seems to want him to be, but they definitely make it impossible for me to say that she's really very good at characterization. She's... all right? Like, I'm ready to agree I can't prove she's shitty.

(re:"unsalvageable", that's my ESLness showing. I meant "irredeemable". Irredeemable "controversial" characters happen to be a big pet peeve of mine, so I might've been biased in this regard, too).

I've never been on this side of the debate, either! I actually like Snape. He's one of my favourite characters and I love to friend-ship him with just about everyone *shrugs shoulders*

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

[ SECRET POST #2791 ]

Re: Fandom Confessions

Re: Fandom Confessions

Re: Fandom Confessions