case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2017-03-19 03:29 pm

[ SECRET POST #3728 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3728 ⌋

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

















Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 47 secrets from Secret Submission Post #533.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-19 10:20 pm (UTC)(link)
My biggest problem with this is... I don't like Snape because he's an ass of a character, and my fandom experiences were with people more like OP who just wanted to defend everything he did. I mean, yeah, he did good as well and self-sacraficed himself, but... Eh, he was still an ass. Him doing good doesn't negate that. Those are my feelings about him.

But then people like the OP come around and say, "OMG you just can't appreciate the nuance of this complex anti-hero!"

Ugh. People are allowed to hate characters, regardless of whether they are anti-heroes, complex, written-well or not. There are plenty of reasons someone would like Snape, and plenty of reasons someone wouldn't.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-19 10:53 pm (UTC)(link)
Man, so many people confuse shitty writing for complexity. Rowling stumbled over the tonal shift of the books, that's all there is to it. Cartoonishly bullying his students fitted into a children's book, but not the later ones. It's not a fucking mystery or hard to get and certainly not a nuance.

My biggest problem was that the narrative praised Snape to an ungodly amount for what he did. The book itself said "Snape was a good guy" by having Harry name his child after him. Again, because the events of the first books were cartoonish and not to be taken serious. No wonder there's such a disjoint in perspectives.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-19 11:01 pm (UTC)(link)
nayrt but yeah. The earlier books especially had the appropriately quirky tone of children's fantasy, where you can get away with cartoonishly villainous professors. The story matures along with Harry, but it creates an awkward, disjointed mess between the earlier stuff and the later stuff. Rowling laying it on really thick at the end that Snape was actually a good person doesn't particularly impress me either.

But it is what it is, I think the tonal shift is kind of intriguing even if I'm not a fan of the later books. It's fine until people try to dissect it too much.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-19 11:09 pm (UTC)(link)
ayrt- I agree, I actually really loved growing along with the books. The only one I just couldn't be bothered with was the last one, but I can't put my finger on it now because I read it exactly once.

And I mean, if anyone needs proof of how different they were, they just have to read the epilogue, which Rowling claimed she wrote before/with(???) the first book. I got whiplash from the sudden "And then everyone got together with their school sweetheart and they named their kids after the cool people and they all got their dreamjobs!!!" switch since it was not at all what I had been reading the last three books.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-19 11:40 pm (UTC)(link)
The travel book is usually the least interesting book of any series. JKR decided to save it for the finale for some reason. I remember wishing that we were back at Hogwarts instead of following the Trio around on their camping trip.

(Anonymous) 2017-03-20 10:44 am (UTC)(link)
It's not bad writing. It works fine in the moment. It just doesn't stand up to the kind of sustained, intense inquiry that fandom traffics in.
alwaysbeenasmiler: (Youko☆When I come to terms--)

[personal profile] alwaysbeenasmiler 2017-03-19 11:36 pm (UTC)(link)
I don't think that Snape should be defended for the shitty things he did, but I also thing that the good that he actually did should not be overlooked so easily either.