Snapedom

The January Challenge: Lily revisited

The World of Severus Snape

********************
Anonymous users, remember that you must sign all your comments with your name or nick! Comments left unsigned may be screened without notice.

********************

Welcome to Snapedom!
If you want to see snapedom entries on your LJ flist, add snapedom_syn feed. But please remember to come here to the post to comment.

This community is mostly unmoderated. Read the rules and more in "About Snapedom."

No fanfic or art posts, but you can promote your fanfic and fanart, or post recommendations, every Friday.

The January Challenge: Lily revisited

Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry
The Challenge for January 2011:

Lily revisited




Years ago (we've been around for a while, oh yes!)we had 'Severus and Lily' as a monthly challenge.

[info]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: Pearlette to Duj

    (Anonymous)
    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).

    Actually, the broken arm was from the Bludger hitting Harry's elbow. Harry managed to land safely -- despite having one broken arm and one hand holding the Snitch, and "trying not to pass out." I'm not sure how he managed to hold onto his broom!

    I'm not sure how that fits into the argument. There was still no magic causing or preventing the injury, but... (shrug)

    On the other hand, there's the Quidditch game in PoA interrupted by the Dementors, where the Dementors cause Harry to black out and fall off his broom:

    “Lucky the ground was so soft.”

    “I thought he was dead for sure.”

    [...]

    “Harry!” said Fred, who looked extremely white underneath, the mud. “How’re you feeling?” [...] “You fell off,” said Fred. “Must’ve been — what — fifty feet?”

    “We thought you’d died,” said Alicia, who was shaking.

    Hermione made a small, squeaky noise. Her eyes were extremely bloodshot. [...] “Dumbledore was really angry,” Hermione said in a quaking voice. “I’ve never seen him like that before. He ran onto the field as you fell, waved his wand, and you sort of slowed down before you hit the ground.


    Wizards may bounce under some circumstances, as Neville did, but clearly no one at that Quidditch game was counting on Harry doing so.

    The situation on the toy broom was different because the broom wasn't so dangerously high, but a one-year-old is so much more fragile... I think it's like 00sevvie said: "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."

    Another part of the problem is that while we take the cartoonish seriously when it comes to the Dursleys' behavior, when it comes to this case with Lily, not everyone does. I don't know if we *should* take this case with Lily seriously, but I'm not quite comfortable with being inconsistent on this point, either.

    Lynn
    • Re: Pearlette to Duj

      Yes, it's the problem of being inconsistent or not. If you aren't, you get some rather icky results in places where the text seems not to intend such a thing at all. But if you don't try to be consistent in reading things, there's no guide as to how to interpret any instance of anything pretty much, so putting together any coherent reading of the text starts to fall apart into "well, I WANT it to be that way for this bit, and it doesn't MATTER what the text says since it's inconsistent anyway!" Which sort of gets away from the point of trying to read according to the text!

      Which is not to say that that doesn't occasionally happen anyway; I think maybe we are all prone to it a little bit, given the messiness of the text. I have to watch myself there too. But one can at least try to be consistent...but then things start to look really icky sometimes. Arg.
    • Re: Pearlette to Duj

      Why am I reminded of the scene at St Mungo's where there is a long line of parents with their children who are suffering from spell damage and the nurse on duty is not turning a hair, it's all in a days work. I'm also reminded of the kids at the Quidditch World cup flying around on their toy brooms.
      When my niece was a baby we had a baby walker for her, she used to back up against a wall and then take off on a run across the room. She never hurt herself, she was watched at all times, and she used to miss the dog by inches. She was also walking by her first birthday. This is not the real world, it is a fantasy and the normal rules are suspended. If you are applying real life rules to this world, your are on a hiding to nothing
      • Re: Pearlette to Duj

        If the normal rules of judging characters' behavior are suspended because it's a fantasy world, how then can anyone criticize not only Lily and James, but Severus, Draco, or for that matter Voldemort? The fact that it is fiction, or set in a world with magic, doesn't mean moral judgments don't apply. If you one chooses to say it does for them, then no character can be judged by them on such grounds. Either one is reading the books with a sense that moral judgments can be made, or not. They don't apply only to certain characters and not others.

        And just because culturally it seems normal for parents in the WW to be more blase about their children's safety doesn't mean that nobody can find fault with that attitude. (Though again, I think here JKR's tone shifts cause problems for some readers.)
        • Re: Pearlette to Duj

          I'm not saying that we can't or shouldn't criticize, I'm just saying that we can't judge how safe flying toy brooms are because they don't exist outside the books. We criticize the characters, not the toys their children play with. The entire WW is blasé about injuries. They have magic, we don't. If a child falls off a step in this world we take them for an xray, the WW doesn't know what xrays are. Broken bones are fixed with a wave of the wand. Wish I had one sometimes.
          There is a tone shift in the books. In each book the tone gets darker as the protagonists grow up and the situation worsens. Harry's problems shift from winning a Quidditch match to sacrificing his life to save his world. I think we have to have the flexibility to shift with the books.
          • Re: Pearlette to Duj

            (Anonymous)
            "I'm just saying that we can't judge how safe flying toy brooms are because they don't exist outside the books."

            The internal evidence is that it wasn't safe. He broke a vase and "nearly killed the cat." *How* unsafe we can't judge, but hazards were not removed or shielded, and magic doesn't always protect from injury or fix it.

            duj
            • Re: Pearlette to Duj

              Children bump into tables and bookcases and chests all the time. Some times something gets knocked over and broken. That's the nature of childhood and no one would dream of shouting child abuse/neglect if a child while running through their home did something like that as a one off. As I said earlier my niece used to miss the dog by inches with her walker when she was under a year old. And yes I am using that as a comparable item to a toy flying broom. Do I think she would have killed the dog if she had bumped into it, of course not. She wouldn't even have hurt him. We actually see these brooms in action in the scene for GOF at the Quidditch World cup. The children on them have their feet just about an inch off the ground and the brooms are going real slow. It doesn't help your point to exaggerate the dangers to a magical child. As these toys would seem to be popular in the WW, I would put them in the same class as tricycles and such from our world. Children do get injured, that's a fact but to infer that Lily is neglectful for letting her magical son ride a toy is pushing your point into the outer edges of reason. We can critique the characters, their humanity and their interactions, but it is an exercise in futility to critique the reality of their world as it has been created. Some things we just have to take as their reality. Flying toy brooms is part of that reality just as waving a wand to fix a broken bone is.
      • Re: Pearlette to Duj

        (Anonymous)
        " the nurse on duty is not turning a hair, it's all in a days work"

        Like any nurse in any casualty centre. It *is* all in a day's work for them. But some of the patients die, and *that's* part of their day's work too.

        "the kids at the Quidditch World cup flying around on their toy brooms."

        They were a bit older, probably two or three. They're described as "barely older than" the "tiny boy no older than two" who'd pinched his dad's wand.

        "When my niece was a baby we had a baby walker for her, she used to back up against a wall and then take off on a run across the room. She never hurt herself, she was watched at all times, and she used to miss the dog by inches. She was also walking by her first birthday."

        You were lucky.

        Canada has banned baby-walkers and Australia is moving towards that. Their government advisory site (ACCC) states "Baby walkers can be dangerous as they allow infants
        to move more quickly around the house and grab things
        normally out of their reach. Their new mobility and added
        height can place your child in dangerous situations with
        access to bench tops and the potential to pull boiling
        kettles or irons down onto themselves, fall down stairs or
        reach open fi res or heaters. A baby in a walker can also tip
        over on uneven surfaces ... Child safety experts recommend a
        stationary play centre as a safer alternative."

        I've known plenty of babies that could walk by their first birthday. One of mine was walking at eight months. But a responsible parent removes hazards *before* a baby is tall/mobile enough to reach them. Clearly Lily did *not* do so.

        duj
        • Re: Pearlette to Duj

          Yes, I know baby walkers are no longer looked on as being good for a child, but back in the 70's they were perfectly legal and quite popular.

          We did not worry about stairs as the home was on one floor. It is wise to child proof a home but sometimes somethings get overlooked.
          As you say you have a child who was walking by the time he/she was 8 months old perhaps that child rode on a rocking horse or a tricycle. Young children do like riding toys. I am aware that children have accidents. We simply cannot childproof every single aspect of their young lives and wrap them up in cotton wool. For one thing such treatment is not good for the child. And of course sometimes tragedies happen. But not it seems to a lot of the WW's children. We do not hear of a single child dieing in a home accident. They seem to be very safe and this is probably due to the child being magical. with built in safety cushions. What I am trying to say is that judging this aspect of the books by our standards just doesn't work. We are not magical and neither are our children. We have to be constantly on the lookout against broken bones and bad cuts, it seems that magical parent have other worries. Such as spell damage.
          • Re: Pearlette to Duj

            We don't hear of children dying in accidents at home because it isn't necessary to the plot, and because nobody whose thoughts we are privy to (that is, Harry) investigates or knows of one (nor does he ever ask anybody). That doesn't mean it doesn't or can't happen. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

            It also says nothing whatsoever about why the level of such accidents (whatever it is) is what it is; saying it's got to be low because the kids are magical is pure speculation. We do know that children don't usually manifest magic during their first year, so at that point Lily and James did not actually know for certain that Harry *was* magical, so it's a moot point anyway.

            The point about safety cushions on brooms is an assumption. There is nothing denying it in the books (absence of evidence), but nothing supporting it either (no evidence either way). So you are defending a canon incident on the basis of an assumption that is allowed but not necessary and which not everyone feels comfortable making. Probably we're all going to have to agree to disagree, since we're arguing on the level of assumptions each is making instead only on textual evidence.
            • Re: Pearlette to Duj

              Then if the safety aspect of toy flying brooms cannot be established it'a a waste of time discussing it. I agree it cannot be decided one way or another, but it does have to be borne in mind that it is a different reality of environment from our work a day world. We don't know and it's is useless to condemn what we don't know about and can never know about. None of us possess a flying toy broom and none of us ever will.
Powered by InsaneJournal