The Challenge for January 2011:
Lily revisited
Lily revisited
Years ago (we've been around for a while, oh yes!)we had 'Severus and Lily' as a monthly challenge.
![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
alicekinsno1 suggested to take a closer look at Lily's character:Maybe something that discusses the character of Lily more deeply? I'd love to see what some of your ideas are for just how Lily went from treating Snape so harshly and talking back to James, to being the stereotypical "saintly mother" at the end of her life. There's something about her personality that doesn't add up.
That is to say, how her apparently selfless decision to die for her baby makes sense in light of the way she treated Severus or even James. With possibly a side comment about how despite being so powerful and gifted she didn't really show any of that by dying pleading for her baby's life without even trying to take on Voldemort.
Please post your entries here or in a separate post. I'm looking forward to your entries.
If you have ideas for new challenges, please post them here. (This is a new list, your earlier suggestions are still in the old post).
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily
Being dishonest with her 'friend'. She didn't really consider him her friend at the time of the werewolf incident, she lied when she said they were 'best friends'. She didn't care that he nearly died, she didn't want to hear his version. She took the rumors that originated with the Marauders as truth that didn't need examination. That is not the behavior of a friend, let alone a 'best' one.
And then during SWM all the attention she gave James while ignoring her supposed friend and not helping him at all because James was much more interesting.
I agree that her lack of social decency has nothing to do with her behavior during the moments before her death, though I have no idea whether her behavior was courageous, panicky or what.
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily
It wasn't a lie, IMO. Maybe she still wanted to believe it, because she cared about him. And I think he still cared about her -- but he simply wasn't listening to her concerns about Mulciber and Avery (which he laughed off).
She didn't care that he nearly died, she didn't want to hear his version. She took the rumors that originated with the Marauders as truth that didn't need examination. That is not the behavior of a friend, let alone a 'best' one.
I just don't think that whole thing is ... written very well, on reflection. I can see what JKR was trying to do, but it sort of fails in the execution. To be fair to Lily, Severus WAS standing in front of her plainly in one piece.
But I don't think Lily was a bitch.
And I surely cannot be the only Snape fan out there who doesn't regard Lily as a bitch.
I agree that her lack of social decency has nothing to do with her behavior during the moments before her death, though I have no idea whether her behavior was courageous, panicky or what.
Or perhaps it was a mixture of BOTH, seeing as how Lily is no saint. ;)
I know how I'd react if a psychopathic murderer threatened me and the life of my baby: I'd be a gibbering wreck. But maybe I would have enough presence of mind to try to bargain for my child's life, as well.
-- Pearlette
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily
No, you are not. I don't see her as a bitch; I see her as an ordinary girl. Nevertheless I interpret her behaviour much like Oryx does and it disappoints me, personally. I am aware that most of this disappointment stems from the high expectations by sources other than book canon, but that's the way it is. I don't like her, personal opinion, not objective judgement on her moral character. I can see her as a generally nice, even good person and still don't like her or want her as a friend. Some of the things she says to Severus are pushing every single button on my standards of friendship and that is not misogynic, because I hold boys/men to the same standards.
Agreed, but canon is what is printed and IMHO we cannot a fictional by the way her author wanted her to write, if she had been able to.
indifferenty
"It wasn't a lie."
She was definitely dishonest. Whether her description was "a lie" is a bit more debatable as it's not clear that she realised she was dishonest.
"Maybe she still wanted to believe it, because she cared about him."
Clearly she *didn't* care about him. It's explicit canon that she knows he nearly died and her "I heard what happened the other night" indicates that the incident was at least two nights ago and she hasn't discussed it with him. If she cared about him, she'd have wanted to know how he was after his near-death experience, and she'd have wanted to hear *his* side of the story rather than trusting an account that emanated from someone/s who routinely harassed and bullied him (and others).
"I just don't think that whole thing is ... written very well, on reflection."
Sorry, but that defense doesn't hold. There's a lot of HP that isn't written very well, but the story and its interpretation stands or falls on what's written, not what we'd like to see written.
"To be fair to Lily, Severus WAS standing in front of her plainly in one piece."
Alive, yes, and bearing no *visible* scars. That doesn't mean unharmed.
"I surely cannot be the only Snape fan out there who doesn't regard Lily as a bitch."
Of course you're not, but what do you imagine that proves? Each reader interprets the text in relation to their own experience of life, and naturally that leads to many differing explanations. But although Lily's vivacious, pretty and charming, there's very little evidence in the books for her ever being nice, caring or compassionate, and what's there is somewhat disputable, such as Hagrid's statement that "nicer people (than the Potters) yeh couldn't find.." James is an arrogant bully in the text, and if Hagrid's wrong about James can we trust him about Lily?
Petunia remembers Lily as a spoiled pampered princess who played nasty tricks like turning a teacup into a rat. Snape's memories show Lily as strident, judgmental, unforgiving, easily offended, and much given to name-calling, scapegoating and blame-shifting. She can be quite cold to him - look at him with "deep dislike" - even when they *are* best friends. Later, while still nominally friends, she flirts with James while Snape chokes and seems to find his sexual assault amusing. I find in her letter that she was a silly and negligent parent, and when her shade appears in the forest, *encouraging* Harry to go die, she seems even more unsavoury.
To me she seems like a prettier, perkier, more talented Petunia.
<
"It wasn't a lie."
She was definitely dishonest. Whether her description was "a lie" is a bit more debatable as it's not clear that she realised she was dishonest.
"Maybe she still wanted to believe it, because she cared about him."
Clearly she *didn't* care about him. It's explicit canon that she knows he nearly died and her "I heard what happened the other night" indicates that the incident was at least two nights ago and she hasn't discussed it with him. If she cared about him, she'd have wanted to know how he was after his near-death experience, and she'd have wanted to hear *his* side of the story rather than trusting an account that emanated from someone/s who routinely harassed and bullied him (and others).
"I just don't think that whole thing is ... written very well, on reflection."
Sorry, but that defense doesn't hold. There's a lot of HP that isn't written very well, but the story and its interpretation stands or falls on what's written, not what we'd like to see written.
"To be fair to Lily, Severus WAS standing in front of her plainly in one piece."
Alive, yes, and bearing no *visible* scars. That doesn't mean unharmed.
"I surely cannot be the only Snape fan out there who doesn't regard Lily as a bitch."
Of course you're not, but what do you imagine that proves? Each reader interprets the text in relation to their own experience of life, and naturally that leads to many differing explanations. But although Lily's vivacious, pretty and charming, there's very little evidence in the books for her ever being nice, caring or compassionate, and what's there is somewhat disputable, such as Hagrid's statement that "nicer people (than the Potters) yeh couldn't find.." James is an arrogant bully in the text, and if Hagrid's wrong about James can we trust him about Lily?
Petunia remembers Lily as a spoiled pampered princess who played nasty tricks like turning a teacup into a rat. Snape's memories show Lily as strident, judgmental, unforgiving, easily offended, and much given to name-calling, scapegoating and blame-shifting. She can be quite cold to him - look at him with "deep dislike" - even when they *are* best friends. Later, while still nominally friends, she flirts with James while Snape chokes and seems to find his sexual assault amusing. I find in her letter that she was a silly and negligent parent, and when her shade appears in the forest, *encouraging* Harry to go die, she seems even more unsavoury.
To me she seems like a prettier, perkier, more talented Petunia.
<<I know how I'd react if a psychopathic murderer threatened me and the life of my baby: I'd be a gibbering wreck.>>
I think that would be a perfectly natural and excusable reaction.
duj
Pearlette to Duj
Don't patronise me, please. 'That defence doesn't hold' my foot. All interpretation of canon is subjective. And saying that a passage could have been written better doesn't cancel out author intent. I tend towards the Doyalist view when it comes to literary analysis, i.e. the bigger picture, the out-of-universe perspective. That is just naturally the way I read a book. ANY book.
Each reader interprets the text in relation to their own experience of life, and naturally that leads to many differing explanations.
Of course it does. Which makes your interpretation of the text just as subjective as mine.
James is an arrogant bully in the text, and if Hagrid's wrong about James can we trust him about Lily?
Are no shades of shades of grey? If Severus could change from being a paid-up DE to a reformed man, then why is a different standard held for an admittedly more minor character – James? James was certainly guilty of bullying Severus during their school years and then became a dedicated Order fighter and family man. If that's difficult to believe, then the reformed Severus in his misguided youth was a member of a genocidal cult and an accessory to murder (the Potters) – OK, he’s not as culpable as Peter and Voldy but if Severus had never gone running to Voldemort with the Prophecy in the first place, the Potters wouldn’t have been targeted. If that was payback for James, it was terrible indeed. Since Severus never shows any remorse in canon for James’s death (only Lily’s), I can only assume something that the author NEVER shows me in the text. What were you saying about what we’d like to see written? Well, I’d have liked Rowling to write Severus showing some remorse about James and not just Lily (I don’t require that Severus LIKE James) just as I would have liked her to write a reconciliation scene between Severus and Harry.
Petunia remembers Lily as a spoiled pampered princess who played nasty tricks like turning a teacup into a rat.
And you don’t think Petunia’s POV on Lily is somewhat … jaundiced?
Later, while still nominally friends, she flirts with James while Snape chokes and seems to find his sexual assault amusing.
The real threat of sexual assault happens after Lily walks away, when James threatens to take off Sev’s underpants. She’s not there for the worst part of Sev’s ordeal (assuming James went ahead with it) and the reason she isn’t is that Severus called her a racial insult, which is no small potatoes.
I find in her letter that she was a silly and negligent parent
Negligent? How? You mean because she was letting a one year old Harry zoom about on a broomstick and she made a humorous remark about him nearly killing the cat?
You might find Rowling’s humour lame but that’s what it is: HUMOUR. Lighten up!
and when her shade appears in the forest, *encouraging* Harry to go die, she seems even more unsavoury.
Severus also went along with the plan for Harry to die. Against his initial protestations, sure (and I was as appalled at Dumbledore as he was!) but he went along with it.
See, I really don’t want to argue like this about Severus, because I think he rocks. But if you drag Lily down to this level, then Severus comes too. Because he knew Harry had to die. For a whole YEAR. No, he didn’t like it, but he went along with it. So that makes him better than Lily’s shade … how, exactly? And Harry accepts it and doesn’t get angry at any of them, only has doubts about Dumbledore (which he then resolves). That’s why he welcomes his family of shades in the Forest and why he honours Severus at the end of the book.
To me she seems like a prettier, perkier, more talented Petunia.
Fine. I see her differently.
-- Pearlette
Re: Pearlette to Duj
The difference between Severus and Lily is that Severus protested Albus' plan for Harry while Lily only cheered Harry on. Had I been in Harry's place I would have wanted to see my mother protesting and raging against my soon-coming death, however ineffective such protest can be wrt the events.
The whole walk through the forest didn't work for me at all - though when I read it the first time it was because by that point I was too sick of Harry and just wanted him to die already.
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Snape on the other hand is very real and alive during the last year and believes for certain that Harry will die.
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Who knows, maybe he was researching the Harrycrux problem in his spare time and didn't kidnap the trio from the Forest of Dean because he was not making progress, so the least he could do was not hamper whatever progress Harry may have been making in whatever mysterious assignment Albus left to him.
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Author intent is what text allows, suggest and indicates. Authorial comment is irrelevant to the reader's textual experience. Authors own their intellectual property; they don't own the reader's interpretation.
"Which makes your interpretation of the text just as subjective as mine."
Mine is based on the text. You have just stated that yours isn't always.
"Are no shades of shades of grey?"
Not in HP-world, no. JK isn't much of a one for shades of grey or subtleties.
" If Severus could change from being a paid-up DE to a reformed man, then why is a different standard held for an admittedly more minor character – James?"
There is no different standard. There is merely presence or absence of textual evidence. There is plenty for Snape having reformed, and none for James; the little we have shows him unchanged. He's still hexing Snape in year 7, though he's Head Boy and clearly has other ways to control Snape's behaviour. By "returning" hexes (if we can trust his friends about it only being returning and not starting), he is abusing his authority. As an Order member, he and his friends withhold important information (Animagi status) from their leader and act as loose canons. As a parent, he lets a one-year-old ride a broomstick without removing hazards or the pet, and he sulks over his inability to sneak out from hiding.
"became a dedicated Order fighter and family man"
See above.
"If that was payback for James"
It wasn't payback It's quite explicit in canon that Snape had no idea the Potters were affected.
"Since Severus never shows any remorse in canon for James’s death"
"And you don’t think Petunia’s POV on Lily is somewhat … jaundiced?"
No more than Lupin's and Sirius's and Dumbledore's and Hagrid's, and for that matter Snape's. But the point is that we have no counterpoint to it. We are never shown any action of James's that is praiseworthy, unless you count the supposed rescue. I don't however, because when Lupin's account is weighed against Snape's, I find the latter fits the circumstances better. I can't understand how James could trust his family's safety to someone who had wilfully betrayed Lupin's to an enemy, nor how Lupin can be so blase about it as to call Snape's reaction "a schoolboy grudge". But if the whole thing was a group set-up to remove the only person likely to catch them in criminal behaviour it all makes sense.
"The real threat of sexual assault happens after Lily walks away"
Any forcible disrobing of another is a sexual assault, and doing it in public increases the severity of the offence.
"the reason she isn’t is that Severus called her a racial insult, which is no small potatoes."
That would be sufficient reason for her to leave. OTOH, her actions previous to this insult show that she had already stopped being his friend, she just hadn't admitted it, and therefore the insult functioned as an excuse for her to take action she intended anyway.
"Negligent? How? You mean because she was letting a one year old Harry zoom about on a broomstick and she made a humorous remark about him nearly killing the cat?"
Yes. Exactly that. I have almost as many kids as the Weasleys and my ethnic community tends to even larger families, so believe me when I tell you that even the most agile one-year-old shouldn't be rinding a broom. I don't find child negligence funny, and I'm sorry that you apparently do.
"Severus also went along with the plan for Harry to die."
Unwillingly, and because he had no better options. He certainly didn't *encourage* as shade-Lily did. What else could he realistically have done? *Tell* Harry - Harry would still follow Dumbledore. (he'd been "groomed" to do so.) Kidnap Harry? Obliviate him?
"only has doubts about Dumbledore (which he then resolves)"
Of course he resolves them. Dumbledore has groomed him just as pedophiles do their victims.
duj
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Of course they don't, and you don't own my interpretation either.
Mine is based on the text. You have just stated that yours isn't always.
I said no such thing. I said I interpreted the text using a Doyalist perspective.
Not in HP-world, no. JK isn't much of a one for shades of grey or subtleties.
And yet she created Severus Snape! Who is the ultimate in shades of grey, which is one of the reasons I love him. So the woman clearly has SOME writing ability. *snort*
There is no different standard. There is merely presence or absence of textual evidence. There is plenty for Snape having reformed, and none for James; the little we have shows him unchanged.
I'm not buying that. Last we see of James, he is an ardent young father desperately trying to save his wife and son. He is no longer Head Boy at Hogwarts but you seem determined to see him frozen forever in time as a schoolboy. This is NOT what the text shows you.
As an Order member, he and his friends withhold important information (Animagi status) from their leader and act as loose canons.
That I own. James is reckless. Heck, I don't even like James much. It is very ironic, therefore, that your extreme dislike of this character puts me in a position where I end up DEFENDING him. The irony is delicious. (As a Snape fan, I'm all about the irony!)
As a parent, he lets a one-year-old ride a broomstick without removing hazards or the pet,
I can't believe you're serious about this. Harry is a magical child with magical abilities ... comparing this to a RL situation is, I'm sorry, hilarious. You might as well complain that CS Lewis was irresponsible for allowing his pre-pubescent schoolchildren to fight real battles in Narnia!
and he sulks over his inability to sneak out from hiding.
The guy is in hiding because the world's number one psychopath just put out a death warrant on him and his family. I know I would suffer from cabin fever in the same situation.
Yes. Exactly that. I have almost as many kids as the Weasleys and my ethnic community tends to even larger families, so believe me when I tell you that even the most agile one-year-old shouldn't be rinding a broom.
It's FICTION. Rowling is a mother too. Next thing you'll be telling me is that she isn't fit to look after children!
I don't find child negligence funny, and I'm sorry that you apparently do.
Cheap, silly shot. Don't be so ridiculous, and don't put words in my mouth.
Of course he resolves them. Dumbledore has groomed him just as pedophiles do their victims.
Ugh. Thanks for that ugly mental image. You know, I don't like Dumbledore much either, but that's a really offensive analogy. You falsely accused me of not caring about child negligence. I'm calling YOU out on using a highly inappropriate analogy and therefore trivialising and cheapening the horrible issue of child sex abuse.
It really is a waste of time here trying to discuss Lily's character in a more positive light, isn't it? Dissenting opinions are not allowed.
-- Pearlette
Re: Pearlette to Duj
RE Lily: I think part of the difficulty that can crop up here sometimes (RE Lily and also many other things) is that in the books JKR veers back and forth between a cartoonish tone (especially in the early books, but also a bit in the later ones) and a gritty 'realist' tone. So what works within a certain tone becomes jarring within the context of the work as a whole to some readers. The letter might be one of these instances. Also, I could sort of see it being one of those things that you laugh a little about after the fact, but during the fact is certainly worrisome. I don't think it was the *best* parenting attitude, but it's not exactly Dursley-level negligence either. It's the attitude of young inexperienced parents who are sincere in their love but who IMHO still haven't got the responsibility aspect down perfectly.
Re: Pearlette to Duj
RE James: yes, he seems to have been a devoted father and husband from what little we see. That however has nothing to do with whether he reformed regarding the questionable behavior we do see from him, which is oriented mainly towards other characters, not those in his family. A person can be a wonderful loving family man and a sadistic camp guard (for example, not saying James is that) at the same time: they are different contexts, with different people, and the person's behavior in one situation does not relate in a redemptive/nonredemptive way or predict hir behavior in the other. The family love can be quite genuine when the sadism towards the prisoners is also real, and the one does not excuse or cancel out the other. Take Lucius for instance. Although he definitely has questionable attitudes and does bad things, he seems to clearly love Draco and want the best for him. Teaching him those questionable attitudes, from our perspective, may look like bad parenting, but from his understanding of the world he's trying to help Draco be successful. He's wrong in his attitude, not uncaring as a parent. But his love for Draco has no relation to whether or not he is redeemed regarding the question of having joined Voldie.
James is not mainly talked about as 'reformed' or not regarding moving from being a bad parent to a good one; the question of whether he's reformed has to do with how he treats specific people he does not like and certain problematic attitudes that he has. Snape is the central example here, and we never see anything to indicate that his behavior or attitude towards Snape changed. His regard for Lily and Harry has nothing to do with it. So yes, he's decent *within that situation,* I agree. But that does not weigh as evidence that he changed at all regarding the flaws we see him display with Snape.
Regarding his 'cabin fever:' yes, it's natural to feel that way. But what differentiates the mature from the immature is the attitude one takes towards it and how one handles the situation. A mature person, understanding the risk, would say to themselves 'This is really getting to me, but given the consequences I had better just deal with it the best I can, it won't last forever. My wife and son are in danger, not just me; I can't do anything that might jeopardize them even if I hate it here.' And would just deal with it. Not complain about it and sulk, not keep saying they wish they could sneak out and be reckless again. If they discussed how they felt with their family, it would be more along the lines of 'you know, I really hate being cooped up like this, but I understand why we've got to do it. It won't be forever. I'll do the best I can to handle it.' Given that we never see such an attitude expressed by James regarding everything else, there's not much evidence that he felt that way about hiding, and Lily's letter certainly would still fit with a reading of James as having a rather immature attitude about it all.
And yes, he's young. I know. It's understandable, but that doesn't mean he's free from criticism over it, especially since he felt old and mature enough to be able to sign up for a life-and-death struggle in which he is not the only one at risk. Taking on that sort of role brings with it expectations and responsibilities, a need to grow up because your life isn't the only one potentially on the line. If he's going to play soldier, it's only fair to expect him to make an effort to fulfill the part responsibly, which includes learning to give up immature attitudes. And IMO I don't think we ever see that from him, understandable though his situation might be. I don't think there's evidence that that notion even ever really *registered* with him. One can speculate that it did, but that is not present in the text.
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Pearlette- I can't believe you're serious about this. Harry is a magical child with magical abilities ... comparing this to a RL situation is, I'm sorry, hilarious. You might as well complain that CS Lewis was irresponsible for allowing his pre-pubescent schoolchildren to fight real battles in Narnia!
I think Duj's concern here is that even though magical children are shown to be more resilient than muggle children, there is no evidence whatsoever that they are invincible. In fact, there's a great deal of evidence to the contrary, given that Harry at 12 was able to break his arm from a simple fall (from a great height, yes, but there was no magic inflicting the actual injury and his own magic did not prevent it). Falling in general is treated is a major concern when it comes to brooms, and is why Hogwarts students (who are at least 11) are only supposed to do it while supervised. Given these facts, allowing a one year old to careen around the house uncontrollably does seem grossly negligent.
The only possible countervailing evidence might be Neville's bouncing after being dropped out a window. However, this doesn't actually hold up under scrutiny. Neville's uncle was trying to *scare* the magic out of him, and only let go on accident. It was the *emotional response* that mattered in triggering a child's magic, not the actual danger.
So, if we apply that to little Harry having a great time riding his little broom, accidentally hitting a stand hard enough to tip over a heavy vase directly onto his head, without him ever noticing the vase was there... can we really be sure his magic would have saved him?
As regards your C.S. Lewis reference, the situations were entirely different. The Pevensies were only in Narnia because of a prophecy, and no one *forced* them to fight - they chose to do so because it was the right thing to do. There were no such circumstances here- the prophecy regarding Voldemort and 'the chosen one' hadn't been set in motion, and would never have been set in motion if Voldie hadn't attacked Harry in the first place. Further, Harry was in no way capable to make decisions about what was safe and what wasn't - that's a parent's responsibility, and one that James apparently did not work diligently to fulfill.
annoni-no
*raises hand* I mean, do not like Lily personally, in the sense that she does not seem like the kind of person I would want to befriend and hang out with. "Cheeky", "vivacious" etc whatever kind of gets on my nerves - she is not in the nerd crowd, and that's surely where I was and am. But she seems like a rather normal teenage girl to me, with the personal insensitivities, convinced of being right and invulnerable, and dose of self-centeredness that normally go along with that.
Re: Pearlette to Duj
Nor am I trying to.
"I said no such thing. I said I interpreted the text using a Doyalist perspective."
1) Doylist is fine for literary analysis in general, but it fails at character analysis because it destroys the coherence of character information.
2) JK's authorial fiat is not part of the text. Text is a discrete product. Authors are, to some extent, merely observers of what their subconscious produces: slightly more privileged than the rest of us, because they observed the process, but for that very reason less likely to engage fully with the end product. Their memory of what they *wanted* to put in obscures their vision of what they did put in.
"And yet she created Severus Snape!"
Whose subtleties *we* attributed to him. *Her* Snape is very black and white, just like her world. He loved Lily. He hated James. He loathed Harry for James' sake and saved him for Lily's, and never grew past that. He was in her words "deeply horrible".
"So the woman clearly has SOME writing ability."
Writing ability and shades of grey are not synonymous.
"desperately trying to save his wife and son"
Well, at least he shouts a warning. He doesn't do anything else to the purpose because he doesn't even have the sense to carry a wand at all times.
And how does this show growth on his part? Do you think he *wouldn't* have tried to save family as a schoolboy? His loyalty and bravery are the *only* ethical strengths we know of him, and they coexisted with his bullying.
"Harry is a magical child with magical abilities"
How irresponsible of his parents to suppose they can rely on that. Magical children can get injured too, and we see in canon that magic isn't able to heal *everything*. Has Harry's magic even begun to kick in at one year? (Neville's didn't until he was eight, and before it did he "nearly drowned" once.) Accidental magic rarely saves Harry in canon from being beaten up by Dudley's gang.
I can only presume you have no conception of how seriously and how quickly babies can injure themselves. (And I notice that the cat's danger is less than nothing to you.) Babies have no sense of what's dangerous. They lunge suddenly. They topple. They smash glass and play with it. They try to play with the bright pretty fire. If baby-Harry had broken his neck, could they have brought him back to life? If he'd crashed through glass and scarred his eyes, could they have restored his sight?
"Rowling is a mother too. Next thing you'll be telling me is that she isn't fit to look after children!"
Now *who* is putting words into the other person's mouth? I don't use books as a prism through which to look at the author. I engage only with the text.
"don't put words in my mouth."
You're the one who says "It's HUMOUR. Lighten up." Some things aren't funny. A lot of what the text presents as funny *really* isn't.
"I don't like Dumbledore much either, but that's a really offensive analogy."
Dumbledore is a really offensive character. Maybe you aren't offended by the spectacle of him grooming Harry to become a child soldier and willing sacrifice, with lines like "Death is the next great adventure," and points rewards for being stupidly reckless. I think it's horrific, and although there is no sexual element in Dumbledore's relationship with Harry it's just as much a predatory one as any pedophile's.
"trivialising and cheapening"
Child soldiers is just as much a horrible form of child abuse as pedophilia, and one which is just as much of a real world problem. Maybe you didn't notice because the victims of child soldiery are "third-worlders", and we safe comfortable westerners don't usually get confronted with the issue close up.
"It really is a waste of time here trying to discuss Lily's character in a more positive light, isn't it? Dissenting opinions are not allowed."
*You* certainly don't allow them. If I disagree you get abusive, and now you're saying that anyone who disagrees with you is trying to stifle debate.
duj
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily
duj brought up most of what there is to address Lily's faults (as well as why 'badly executed' doesn't wash - now that I know how things turned out, 90% of HP is 'badly executed' - things I thought were meaningful didn't have what I saw in them) no need for me to repeat her.
I'll add that when she speaks of making excuses for him, she speaks of making excuses to her friends, not her other friends. She gives herself away there - she didn't really think of him as a friend.
What Severus laughed off was Lily's accusation that his friends were doing Dark Magic and he found it funny. Since we don't have a canon definition of Dark Arts I can't judge who is right in that exchange. (We do have canon evidence that outside the Gryffindor common room people have more nuanced views of 'Dark Arts'.) It does seem that Lily has fallen into the fallacy common among Gryffindors that merely labeling magic as Dark makes it the worst thing possible, and any magic, however harmful, that isn't labeled Dark is better.
But maybe I would have enough presence of mind to try to bargain for my child's life, as well.
Maybe in a magical universe this makes sense - one of you might accidentally say something with binding power. In the universe I inhabit bargaining with a murderer by offering the life of the only aware witness is pointless - who would hold the murderer to hir word?
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily
It is obvious that I WASN'T attributing it to you.
duj brought up most of what there is to address Lily's faults (as well as why 'badly executed' doesn't wash -
Oh, yes, it DOES wash. And you know it. You don't have a monopoly on robust critique of Rowling's writing.
The thing is, I'm open to fresh takes on Rowling's characters, warts and all, including Lily. Are you?
-- Pearlette
Pearlette and duj
Re: Pearlette and duj
It is difficult not to respond sharply when one feels one is being patronised. However, I hope I am responding sharply to the ARGUMENT rather than the PERSON. And asking a fellow poster if they are open to alternative POVs is, IMO, a reasonable stance to take.
The OP interested me, hence my participation in this discussion. :)
-- Pearlette
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily
I'm an old woman, and see young Snape (at the time of the Werewolf Incident) as a deeply hurt and angry child, but I don't expect a young girl as Lily to understand that, or to help him, where the adults around him has failed. But they had supposedly been close friends for several years, thoug they might have drifted apart - so why isn't she more interested in his version of the story? You write "I can se, what JKR was trying to do..." Would you mind expanding this? What do you think, JKR was trying to show us, considering Lily (and Snape, of course).
Anna M
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily
I think that JKR was trying to show that Lily's concerns about the direction Sev's life was going in had led to strains on their friendship. We see this in the text when she challenges him (nicely) on his hanging out with Mulciber and Avery because she is concerned about the malicious pranking they are into, i.e. the 'evil' thing they do to Mary Macdonald (which is never spelled out, of course). I don't have a problem with that because I don't like being spoonfed by an author. We can surmise that it was Dark Magic or something very vindictive. Whatever it was, Lily is upset about it and upset that Sev hangs out with people who do stuff like this.
Rather than take on board what Lily is saying, Sev at once deflects the conversation to the Marauders and how awful THEY are. I'm not a Marauders fan and you will never hear me justify their behaviour to him (SWM appalls me). And I do see why readers find Lily cold in her reaction to Sev re: the Werewolf incident.
All I'm saying is, Sev had a case to answer for to Lily as well ... in that HE was hanging around with people who had no problem in insulting and persecuting people of Lily's blood heritage.
Now you can say that was because of peer pressure. I personally find that plausible speculation, especially when the likes of Lucius Malfoy welcome 11 year old Sev to the Slytherin table after his Sorting. But it IS speculation only, because there's no direct evidence for that in canon.
-- Pearlette
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily
RE what Mulciber did: from Lily's comment we cannot surmise that it was in fact supposed to be dark magic, evil, vindictive, or anything else. Just as from Severus' comment we cannot surmise that it was not any of those things. (And note Mulciber did not in fact do anything, he merely tried to do something - making it even more speculative as to what went down.)
All those comments tell us are what Severus and Lily each personally BELIEVE it to have been. It is all hearsay. And neither of them was present when it happened, so it is all belief, nothing grounded in direct witnessing. Since we do not see the incident itself or have a report of it from someone we have evidence to believe is telling only the facts, with no personal interest in the matter, we have no way of judging whether Severus or Lily is correct or not about it. We know absolutely nothing about what happened, except that Mulciber TRIED to do SOMETHING to Mary the other day and Mary did not find it nice.
This isn't about the relative morality of whatever Mulciber tried to do, I mean, it's about the fact that we can't make assumptions about what happened and treat them as fact based only on the testimony of characters not present at the time and who have clear emotional stakes in seeing it read one way or another. Lily thinks it was evil dark magic (and seems to think all dark magic is evil; whether all dark magic actually is evil is never directly answered in the text). Severus thinks it wasn't evil, whatever kind of magic it was (and doesn't seem to think all dark magic is evil), and wants to know why Lily finds it worse than what her own housemates do. Yes, he deflects, but so does Lily; they both have emotional stakes in this. Is Severus right? Is Lily? Are both? Is neither right? The text doesn't say, so it's all speculation and interpretation.
Lily, Sev, Mary, dark magic
Presumably, since Mary is also in Gryffindor, Lily saw the direct after-effects of whatever was done to Mary. Maybe Mary went into the Gryffindor Common Room crying her eyes out and sought solace from her fellow girlfriends there, like Lily. Seeing a distressed Mary and comforting her would obviously colour Lily's take on things.
Lily thinks it was evil dark magic (and seems to think all dark magic is evil; whether all dark magic actually is evil is never directly answered in the text).
I disagree, I think it is answered in the text. The Unforgivables are obviously Dark Magic, so is 'Sectumsempra' (because its effects are so ghastly, it literally cuts people up). Of course none of that excuses Gryffindors behaving like pillocks to anyone else, or using 'ordinary' magic to be a pain in the butt.
But I believe the reason why JKR paints Dark Magic as evil in the series is this: she doesn't want her fictional witchcraft being perceived as evil. So she contrasts Dark Magic, i.e. magic that hurts people, with the 'ordinary' but powerful magic that her wizards use because that's what and who they are: they are magical people who can do magic! And there's nothing evil about magic in this universe, except when it's used to hurt people and when it is used deliberately in the service of evil, e.g. Dark Magic. As a practising Christian, I found this point quite an important one from the author.
The text doesn't say, so it's all speculation and interpretation.
Well, fine. I have no problem with that. Except I suppose that we have to come down on one side or the other, LOL. Either the reader gives Lily the benefit of the doubt, i.e. that her concerns about Mulciber and Avery had substance, or not.
-- Pearlette
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily
Re: If Severus is nuanced, so is Lily