[ 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

[(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.