[ SECRET POST #5464 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5464 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.
















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 19 secrets from Secret Submission Post #782.
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.

Comments

[meadowphoenix]

I think that almost all of characters in HP have the prevailing moral grounding that right with might makes right, so yeah, if that morality is not good with you, you're going to struggle with liking the HP protagonists.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT yeah that's my issue entirely. I'm not against characters doing shady things but I want them to be acknowledged as shady/messed up/morally wrong.

I mostly object because we're supposed to see them as good people. My fav characters are Sirius and Snape, who are both deeply flawed and, importantly, are constantly punished by the narrative. They might not be punished/charged for their specific crimes, but the narrative doesn't paint them as paragons of virtue either.

[meadowphoenix]

Yeah, I think the ethos of the whole thing can be really annoying to people because you think it's shady behavior but the book clearly thinks that as long as you have good intent, any behavior (though it seems to draw the line at active murder) is fine. That said, I think the book actually does see Hermione as deeply flawed.

Also I don't think you're supposed to see virtue in anyone. I think that HP very deliberately takes the stance that being good is not being virtuous. And I think both Snape and Sirius are supposed to be seen as ultimately good, with ultimate goodness being the relevant character judgment the book judges people on. I don't think either Snape or Sirius were actually ever narratively punished for more than arrogance, which is true of most characters.

[(Anonymous)]

it's been a while since I've read the book, but wasn't it explicitly stated by one of the characters that Kreacher betrayed Sirius, because of the cruel way Sirius treated him? And Snape calling Lilly a slur was the direct cause of the rift in their relationship, which ultimately led to her befriending and then marrying his worst enemy. Sure, both of them are supposed to be be seen as ultimately good characters in the end, but that doesn't mean their very obvious flaws are not acknowledged in the text or are somehow rewarded.

[(Anonymous)]

This

[meadowphoenix]

because of the cruel way Sirius treated him?
well, I think some characters say this, but I actually think the text doesn't support that. Kreacher's maliciousness reads as almost entirely guilt-related for not being able to fulfill Regulus's last wishes for the Horcrux, and his attitude changes in that fulfillment, and not a single moment before, no matter how well Harry, Ron, and Hermione treat him on the hunt. So I think you'd already have to be aligned with that POV, because the text says something different.

And Snape calling Lilly a slur was the direct cause of the rift in their relationship, which ultimately led to her befriending and then marrying his worst enemy
I don't think the rift is connected with her liking James in any way, and I think text implies that it was the time she had to spend with James when she was Head Girl changed her mind on him, which would have been the case Snape or no. But sure Snape's ideology was the end of his friendship with Lily. But that's true of the ethos of the books for all characters. Supremacist ideology is "bad" intent. It's just that that's not related to snape's character flaws as such, especially since him treating harry, and many other students, like trash is basically handwaved as a mild annoyance and not traumatizing, and frankly rewarded, a la Albus Severus.

that doesn't mean their very obvious flaws are not acknowledged in the text or are somehow rewarded
Harry naming his kid after his worst teacher is explicitly a reward imo. But anyway, I just don't think Hermione's flaws, according to the ethos, aren't acknowledged and I don't think they're rewarded, and I think you'd have a better case that her pompousness is punished. The problem is that the books do not think her ruthlessness is bad, and so it's not a question of rewarding or punishing a flaw.

[(Anonymous)]

Staying away from the rest of it, but I’d argue that both Umbridge and Lockhart were worse teachers than Snape.

[(Anonymous)]

They’re all pretty bad. But the students did learn more under Snape, so that’s something I guess?

[meadowphoenix]

I'll give you Umbridge, whew what an asshole, but Snape's teaching methods made it harder to learn anything and that impacted future prospects in a way Lockhart's utter laziness didn't. Lockhart's also a bad person all around tho so I'm sure that impacts people's view of him.

[(Anonymous)]

I’m pretty sure Harry naming his son after Snape had more to do with acknowledging Snape’s sacrifice, which came from all his good traits. Not as a reward for all his bad traits. Sure, he was Harry’s worst teacher, and his treatment of his students was awful and not treated as badly as it really was by the story(And I don’t really like him as a character because of it). But he was also framed as a hero for his sacrifice. So framing it as Harry naming his child after Snape being a reward for his bad actions, instead of an acknowledgement of his good ones, isn’t quite right.

[meadowphoenix]

Snape's sacrifice
Snape's narrative motivation to carry water for Dumbledore is his immense guilt for telling Voldemort the prophecy which killed someone he loved. he did a lot of useful key actions, dangerous actions, and he had to have a lot of conviction to do them, but framing this as a sacrifice (of what? his guilt is of his own design, even if his expiation is of Dumbledore's; it's a traumatic response which he coped with by turning against his former master in reprisal, and this is explicitly in text. I'm not saying it's selfish, but I am saying it's entirely self-serving, in that helping others is collateral at best) is in of itself narrative framing which minimizes his other bullshit. You can tell this is narratively framed to minimize, because it is the last information the reader gets about him, and it is all justification for prior actions.

Snape's negative character traits are also the source of the supposed heroic actions, which is why he tends to be a controversial character for readers to get a moral handle on. So yes, if the narrative places him as deserving of honor by the protags for his vengeance, then that is also honoring his worst behaviors.

[(Anonymous)]

By sacrifice, I meant the way he died defying Voldemort, and the revelation that he was still loyal to Dumbledore all along(even though he wasn’t always, but the narrative glosses over how he was genuinely at home with the Death Eaters as a student until Lily was killed). The story treats that as a heroic sacrifice. And it’s this act showing he wasn’t loyal to Voldemort, but to Dumbledore, as well as his intended to be sympathetic past and devotion to his feelings to Lily that earn Harry’s respect. That’s why he named his son after him, and it’s not a reward of his worst qualities, that’s just not true. It’s not good writing, and it does completely attempt to sweep his worst actions throughout the majority of the books under the rug. But it’s not a reward, and that’s part of the text and JKR’s intent behind his character and Harry’s gained respect for him.

The text does nothing to indicate Snape’s awful behavior as a teacher or a person in general throughout the books is where Harry started to respect him. He didn’t retroactively consider Snape a “tough but fair” teacher that he always respected, or think he actually always a good person. His bad actions aren’t being rewarded because they’re not being acknowledged after his final Lily flashback and then his death. Again, I’m not saying it’s not bad writing.

And I’ve already said I don’t like Snape at all either. His behavior as a teacher was unbearably awful, and his actions towards Lily and Harry in particular were abhorrent. And I honestly hate how his feelings for Lily have made him become a patron saint for “nice guys” who use him to try to “prove” the friend zone is real and unfair, and that he was more “deserving” than James to “have her” because he liked her first(completely disregarding her feelings in the matter, just like “nice guys” do to real women). Alan Rickman’s talent in the movies is the only thing that can make me tolerate the character.

But regardless of how I feel about him, I’m just going by the text and how it treats him. His good actions are entirely self-serving, his last actions being framed as a heroic sacrifice is lazy writing, and the narrative is definitely trying to minimize his actions. I don’t disagree with any of that. But his negative actions aren’t necessarily the source of his supposed heroic actions, because he does the actions framed as heroic in spite of his far more established negative traits. Those actions being self-centered and not good for the sake of being good doesn’t really negate that.

And I don’t agree at all that the narrative placing him as deserving of honor by the protags for his vengeance is also honoring his worst behaviors. Because the text is framing it as the protags thinking he wasn’t all bad, and respecting what was intended to be heroic actions. Again, it wasn’t them honoring, or even acknowledging how terrible he was to them in the past. They choose to remember him for his last moments that they believe to be worthy of respect, and that’s why Severus is part of Albus Severus Potter’s name.

If a character is unpleasant and cruel for most of the canon until one final moment of doing something worthwhile, and the text frames that a redemption of sorts with the heroes honoring that last moment, that’s not the heroes honoring the moments of unpleasantness and cruelty as well. It is bad writing, and it is minimizing the bad actions. But it’s not rewarding any actions but the final moment where the character did something that deviates from their previous bad actions. That’s why I don’t like the ‘Redemption Equals Death’ trope. Because it oversimplifies redemption, and shows a lack of understanding of what a real and good redemption entails. It treats doing one decent as being enough to make up for what was predominantly bad actions in the past, as long as the character dies after the character’s one decent action. It’s lazy. But saying the bad actions are being rewarded along with the decent one is not the case.

[meadowphoenix]

We'll have to disagree then. Because fundamentally minimization of bad actions to the point where the narrative holds the character in great honor is a narrative reward for them.

[(Anonymous)]

Sure. It’s not a reward just because it’s not a punishment.

[meadowphoenix]

It is when the reward is significantly outweighs the act to the audience.

[(Anonymous)]

Okay. •_•

[meadowphoenix]

( ͡❛ ͜ʖ ͡❛)✌

[(Anonymous)]

The biggest in-text issue that invalidates Snape’s “redemptive” death is the bit where he has Harry stare at him with his Lily eyes while he dies. Everything else aside, even his supposed heroism was defined by his feeling creepily entitled to Lily’s love. The last moments that Harry spent with the man involved him being the same kind of awful dying as he was living, with his major regret being that Harry didn’t die instead of Lily.

Harry naming his kid after Snape is absolutely rewarding the bad along with the good because even the good was so tied up with the bad that there’s no way to reasonably separate them.

[(Anonymous)]

I still think he should have named the kid after Dobby.

[(Anonymous)]

I definitely agree.