![[info]](https://www.insanejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
This really isn't a formal essay. It will be short, perhaps 500 words, and g-rated as always. Although others have written more eloquently and at greater length on this subject, it still bothers me. So here goes:
One of the things I can't help noticing about the Harry Potter books is that, very often, Rowling's surface message is at odds with what a reader might see beneath the surface. Thus, racism is the greatest evil - but the whole wizarding world is thoroughly racist if you really look at it. What's worse, Muggles really are inferior to Wizards, and Elves really are happy to be enslaved. Dumbledore's sexuality is a plea for tolerance of gays - but his love for Grindelwald led him into evil, and in any case, Dumbledore himself is far from a good person, even apart from his infatuation with another young man. It's wrong to bully - but Harry's bullying, like the twins', gets a free pass. It's wrong for Malfoy to look down on the Weasleys because of their poverty; it's wrong for the Dursleys to value standing and wealth and appearance above all else - but two, at least, of the "heroes of their generation" are wealthy purebloods (and the Weasleys are a very old pureblood family). And on it goes. The books are extremely dissonant, and this frustrates me! But I think an actually dangerous dissonance is the contrast between what Rowling says about "bad boy syndrome" and what she actually shows us.
Severus Snape, she insists, is a bad boy. Those of us who love the character see him as (1) sexy and (2) as a "diamond in the rough" who can be transformed by the love of a good woman. But girls should not fall for bad boys like Snape and Draco (says Rowling in her interviews), because they cannot be changed by the women who love them. Certainly, it is dangerous to fall for bad boys, and women should not expect that they can redeem their boyfriends/husbands or change them for the better. All the same, I have three very big problems with what Rowling says.
First, as Sigune so eloquently and accurately said, many of us who love Snape do so because we identify with him. We don't necessarily find him sexy. Not at all! Second - and this is an even bigger problem - if Rowling means to show that girls cannot transform the "bad boys" they love, she fails quite dramatically. Once again, her words contradict her story. For the whole point of Snape's story is that he *is* transformed because he loves a good woman! Granted, it is his love, his sacrifice, his effort that transform him. Lily does not actually do anything or sacrifice anything at all - at least, not for Severus. And that is psychologically accurate, in that the person who has gone wrong has to correct his/her own behaviour. But, for a youngster who is just reading on the surface, it could certainly look as if Lily saves Severus by her love for him. And if it works for Lily and Severus, then why not for their own relationships? You see my problem here?
But my third problem with this mixed message of Rowling's is by far the biggest - and, I think, the most dangerous. The teenage Severus Snape is needy and poorly socialized. He would certainly be a difficult friend, but is he a "bad boy"? I think not. For one thing, other than one very nasty word, we never see him threaten or abuse Lily in any way. And, realizing that he has hurt her, he apologizes. Now, I'm aware that violent abusers often apologize for their behaviour; they alternate between treating their wives or girlfriends (or boyfriends) very badly and very well. But this simply isn't a pattern we see in Severus. He is never violent towards anyone except in retaliation. He is not an aggressor. And he is, as far as I can remember,the only person in all seven books who ever truly apologizes for anything he has done. He's certainly the only person who actually changes course and takes steps to correct his mistakes. "Bad boys" do not do this, IMHO. Because of this inner direction (HE comes to Dumbledore voluntarily, not the other way around) and because of the deep innate gentleness shown in his patronus, I cannot see Severus Snape as a bad boy at all. That doesn't make him sexy, or ideal for a relationship. Severus Snape has lots of problems. But being a "bad boy" simply isn't one of them.
But there are some classic "bad boys" in these books. Dudley and Draco are certainly possibilities for that role, though, in DH, both of them seem at least partially redeemed. (And again, Dudley, like Severus Snape, tries to change his behavior and shows gratitude - a very considerable virtue. Yet Dudley, unlike Severus, really is shown as a habitual bully - another mixed message.) But there are two other absolutely classic "bad boys" and they are James and Sirius, the "heroes of their generation".
In interviews, Rowling is still calling Sirius "dead sexy". As a schoolboy, he is attractive to the girls in his class (whom he ignores) both because he is handsome and because of his rebellious attitude. He drives a motorcycle and has girly pictures on his walls. Those two things could be innocent youthful rebellion, but there are other aspects to his character which are more troubling. For one thing, he bullies for fun, without provocation, merely because he is bored. I do not remember him ever apologizing for anything, nor showing the slightest sympathy or understanding for anyone different from himself. In particular, I find his attitude to his younger brother and to Kreacher quite repellent. Sirius warns Harry in GOF that a man's character can best be seen in how he treats his inferiors. In OOTP, we see how Sirius himself treats his inferiors - and the picture I, at least, get is very troubling. I've gone into greater detail about Sirius's character elsewhere; he has many good points, and many similarities to Severus Snape (both good and bad). But he definitely comes closer to the classic bad boy than Severus does.
Then there is James. We see, in DH, that James instigates the bullying of Severus which apparently goes on relentlessly for seven years. We see he feels entitled to special treatment, just like Draco. We see, in DH, that even Severus's near-death doesn't cause him to think and modify his behaviour; he is still hexing Severus for fun, "because he exists", even after having supposedly saved his life. He is still talking openly about Lupin's lycanthropy after the prank, as well. He comes across as arrogant, cruel, entitled and selfish. And there's more.
Severus does try, once, to control Lily, but he backs off quickly when she draws a line. In the pensieve scene, James also tries to control her, and we're led to believe he never backs off, and has some success. He (1) threatens her directly with violence ("Ah, Evans, don't make me hex you") and (2) threatens her friend, and then says he will let him alone if Lily will do what he - James - wants. Both of these behaviours are classically abusive, and, as Cardigrl has pointed out, the second is perhaps worse and more troubling than the first. Yet Lily does not seem in the least troubled. Reader, she marries him! She marries a bully and lawbreaker who has abused her best friend, attempted to control her by using her relationship with that friend, and threatened her with violence. What sort of message about "bad boys" does this send?
So, in conclusion, I'm enormously frustrated by Rowling's hypocrisy about "bad boy syndrome". That syndrome exists, and it's truly dangerous. I believe Rowling wants to send positive messages in her books. I think she is sincere in wanting her young readers to avoid bad boys and poisonous relationships. She fails, however, because she doesn't seem to see that Sirius, and, still more, James, come much closer to being bad boys than Severus, or even Draco and Dudley. I don't understand why she doesn't see this, or why she calls James one of the heroes of his generation while denying Severus that accolade. As Nagini so eloquently says in her song, "James isn't cool."
One of the things I can't help noticing about the Harry Potter books is that, very often, Rowling's surface message is at odds with what a reader might see beneath the surface. Thus, racism is the greatest evil - but the whole wizarding world is thoroughly racist if you really look at it. What's worse, Muggles really are inferior to Wizards, and Elves really are happy to be enslaved. Dumbledore's sexuality is a plea for tolerance of gays - but his love for Grindelwald led him into evil, and in any case, Dumbledore himself is far from a good person, even apart from his infatuation with another young man. It's wrong to bully - but Harry's bullying, like the twins', gets a free pass. It's wrong for Malfoy to look down on the Weasleys because of their poverty; it's wrong for the Dursleys to value standing and wealth and appearance above all else - but two, at least, of the "heroes of their generation" are wealthy purebloods (and the Weasleys are a very old pureblood family). And on it goes. The books are extremely dissonant, and this frustrates me! But I think an actually dangerous dissonance is the contrast between what Rowling says about "bad boy syndrome" and what she actually shows us.
Severus Snape, she insists, is a bad boy. Those of us who love the character see him as (1) sexy and (2) as a "diamond in the rough" who can be transformed by the love of a good woman. But girls should not fall for bad boys like Snape and Draco (says Rowling in her interviews), because they cannot be changed by the women who love them. Certainly, it is dangerous to fall for bad boys, and women should not expect that they can redeem their boyfriends/husbands or change them for the better. All the same, I have three very big problems with what Rowling says.
First, as Sigune so eloquently and accurately said, many of us who love Snape do so because we identify with him. We don't necessarily find him sexy. Not at all! Second - and this is an even bigger problem - if Rowling means to show that girls cannot transform the "bad boys" they love, she fails quite dramatically. Once again, her words contradict her story. For the whole point of Snape's story is that he *is* transformed because he loves a good woman! Granted, it is his love, his sacrifice, his effort that transform him. Lily does not actually do anything or sacrifice anything at all - at least, not for Severus. And that is psychologically accurate, in that the person who has gone wrong has to correct his/her own behaviour. But, for a youngster who is just reading on the surface, it could certainly look as if Lily saves Severus by her love for him. And if it works for Lily and Severus, then why not for their own relationships? You see my problem here?
But my third problem with this mixed message of Rowling's is by far the biggest - and, I think, the most dangerous. The teenage Severus Snape is needy and poorly socialized. He would certainly be a difficult friend, but is he a "bad boy"? I think not. For one thing, other than one very nasty word, we never see him threaten or abuse Lily in any way. And, realizing that he has hurt her, he apologizes. Now, I'm aware that violent abusers often apologize for their behaviour; they alternate between treating their wives or girlfriends (or boyfriends) very badly and very well. But this simply isn't a pattern we see in Severus. He is never violent towards anyone except in retaliation. He is not an aggressor. And he is, as far as I can remember,the only person in all seven books who ever truly apologizes for anything he has done. He's certainly the only person who actually changes course and takes steps to correct his mistakes. "Bad boys" do not do this, IMHO. Because of this inner direction (HE comes to Dumbledore voluntarily, not the other way around) and because of the deep innate gentleness shown in his patronus, I cannot see Severus Snape as a bad boy at all. That doesn't make him sexy, or ideal for a relationship. Severus Snape has lots of problems. But being a "bad boy" simply isn't one of them.
But there are some classic "bad boys" in these books. Dudley and Draco are certainly possibilities for that role, though, in DH, both of them seem at least partially redeemed. (And again, Dudley, like Severus Snape, tries to change his behavior and shows gratitude - a very considerable virtue. Yet Dudley, unlike Severus, really is shown as a habitual bully - another mixed message.) But there are two other absolutely classic "bad boys" and they are James and Sirius, the "heroes of their generation".
In interviews, Rowling is still calling Sirius "dead sexy". As a schoolboy, he is attractive to the girls in his class (whom he ignores) both because he is handsome and because of his rebellious attitude. He drives a motorcycle and has girly pictures on his walls. Those two things could be innocent youthful rebellion, but there are other aspects to his character which are more troubling. For one thing, he bullies for fun, without provocation, merely because he is bored. I do not remember him ever apologizing for anything, nor showing the slightest sympathy or understanding for anyone different from himself. In particular, I find his attitude to his younger brother and to Kreacher quite repellent. Sirius warns Harry in GOF that a man's character can best be seen in how he treats his inferiors. In OOTP, we see how Sirius himself treats his inferiors - and the picture I, at least, get is very troubling. I've gone into greater detail about Sirius's character elsewhere; he has many good points, and many similarities to Severus Snape (both good and bad). But he definitely comes closer to the classic bad boy than Severus does.
Then there is James. We see, in DH, that James instigates the bullying of Severus which apparently goes on relentlessly for seven years. We see he feels entitled to special treatment, just like Draco. We see, in DH, that even Severus's near-death doesn't cause him to think and modify his behaviour; he is still hexing Severus for fun, "because he exists", even after having supposedly saved his life. He is still talking openly about Lupin's lycanthropy after the prank, as well. He comes across as arrogant, cruel, entitled and selfish. And there's more.
Severus does try, once, to control Lily, but he backs off quickly when she draws a line. In the pensieve scene, James also tries to control her, and we're led to believe he never backs off, and has some success. He (1) threatens her directly with violence ("Ah, Evans, don't make me hex you") and (2) threatens her friend, and then says he will let him alone if Lily will do what he - James - wants. Both of these behaviours are classically abusive, and, as Cardigrl has pointed out, the second is perhaps worse and more troubling than the first. Yet Lily does not seem in the least troubled. Reader, she marries him! She marries a bully and lawbreaker who has abused her best friend, attempted to control her by using her relationship with that friend, and threatened her with violence. What sort of message about "bad boys" does this send?
So, in conclusion, I'm enormously frustrated by Rowling's hypocrisy about "bad boy syndrome". That syndrome exists, and it's truly dangerous. I believe Rowling wants to send positive messages in her books. I think she is sincere in wanting her young readers to avoid bad boys and poisonous relationships. She fails, however, because she doesn't seem to see that Sirius, and, still more, James, come much closer to being bad boys than Severus, or even Draco and Dudley. I don't understand why she doesn't see this, or why she calls James one of the heroes of his generation while denying Severus that accolade. As Nagini so eloquently says in her song, "James isn't cool."
Not so bad boy
to become invisible. Invisibilty became an advantage, until is became an illness.
Early in my fandom experience I thought I identified with Harry. Turns out that is the effect of the Harry-filter provided with canon. A year in fandom has given me such a wider view of the entire world from other POVs.
As I go deeper into my relationship with Snape (I wont call it obsession any more, it's not a disorder, but a blessing!) I feel I am working through another powerful layer of self acceptance, forgiveness and even self appreciation. I have been strong and true. I have made regretable mistakes. I have had to bear unbearable grief. I have behaved badly with people I love. and rather than continue to self flagellate (not as fun as it might sound, :p) I am finding compassion for myself, and then with greater ease, others.
What Jo thinks of Snape and James and Sirius is revealing of her psychology. We are left with the wonderful mystery of how someone can create a character so vibrant that he lives, for us, a life beyond what she imagined for him, even in the pages of canon.
Re: Not so bad boy
A bad boy isn't just a criminal... he's a proud criminal. A thief who steals to support his family (noble criminal), or a serial killer who's torn by internal demons and lashes out against the "mother" in his mind (psycho criminal), aren't "bad boys." Bad boy is an antihero... Han Solo, Rebel Without a Cause, Captain Jack Sparrow. Someone interesting and likeable in spite of his crimes, not someone universally despised.
Snape doesn't fit the profile. He's not liked enough to be a "bad boy."
And yes, he typically is "cool" and has tons of charm. And you're right about that - this doesn't fit Severus at all. It doesn't really fit Draco, either, though 16-year-old Dudley, among his friends, might come close.
It should be obvious, especially since her "target" audience is adolescents, though of course we all were adolescents once. Severus is the quintessential misfit; it's easy to empathize, once you get past the surface--and introverted "misfit" types are very good at doing that! I always think of the scene at the end of the movie Revenge of the Nerds, in which one of the nerd characters takes the microphone at the football game and tells everyone who has ever felt like a nerd to stand up: Every single person, except maybe for a couple of the jocks, stands up, one by one.
James isn't cool.
Heh. You might be amused, or shocked, to learn that one person who commented on my recent essay about Severus (the copy I posted to my LJ) said that the whole essay was "ruined" for her by my remark that I could easily see James committing rape. I mean, jeez. It was just an off-the-cuff observation, and I didn't mean for it to be an assertion on the level of canon, just a speculative possibility to throw out there, but I guess it shows how much some people still like and idealize James and see him as a Really Good Guy. Myself, I agree with you and Cardigrl, and whoever else has said it, that James showed signs of being an abusive personality, in a very creepy-charming way.
Then she goes and gives House Slytherin the same bloody 'characteristics' that the nazi regime gave The Eternal Jew: they are cunning, they are rich and buy influence in government. In fact, they secretly run government with their money! And they are greasyhaired and hooknosed and They Lust After Our Paleskinned Women! Which is why he had to suffer and die - he had committed the ultimate crime in daring to love Lily Evans.
But you can't call a stereotype-abusing racist, oh no, because, she said so herself, her books are Beacons For Tolerance, and besides, her stigmatized, minority baddies really ARE bad, so there.
Eeeek!
You are *so* right about James being the typical abusing bad boyfriend. It does nothing for Lily either. JKR tells us that she is so feisty and rigteous and perky and cheeky, but all we see is a nagging middle-class bitchy girl, to full of her own importance, who is very neatly falling for the antics of a classic abuser, who then marries him straight out of school gets her with child, seperates her of her friends and family (they go 'into hiding' but apparantly James and Sirius 'go on missions' whilst she stays home with the kid) and who displays a startling naivity about the world in her letter to Sirius.
Can we say 'classic abuvis boyfriend victim' here? Sure we can.
But we all have to love Lily and want to emulate her. Sure.
It looks like Severus entered that Tunnel (already guessing that Lupin was a werewolf) so that he could prove *to Lily* that the Marauders were up to no good, but she simply refused to hear anything negative about them. No doubt she thought it 'romantic' that James stunted around to get her attention. Stupid girl.
Talking about double standards and secret messages; has anyone else but me noticed how deeply and scarily anti-intellectual this series is? I mean, strip away the magic wands and the broomsticks and what do you have? You've got a story about a troubled, self-important boy with a messiah complex who thinks himself above learning anything because he knows all he needs to know from birth, whose only friends are a rather stupid sidekick (one who very loudly proclaims that School And Learning Is Stoopid) and a control-freak unsocial girl who nobody likes (and with good reason; Hermione Granger is one *scary* girl!) Now, the girl *does* make homework and reads books, but this is more because she is a neurotic teacher-pleaser and, as I said, a control-freak (her biggest fear is getting less than perfect scores on her schoolrapport; how freaking neurotic is *that*?)
Even at the end of the first book, Hermione tells Harry that she 'only has books and cleverness and Harry is the Real Hero for doing what he does without booklearning'.
Anyway, our Wizarding Equivalents of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold then join an anti-government Secret Society and train other children to fight against the government, they drop out of school, roam around the countryside and when they return to school a lot of people die because Our Hero simply *can't be arsed to learn an effing thing*!!
And this is a *good* thing, boys and girls. So you know it now, be like Harry, don't listen to teachers (they 'only have it in for you and are Mean and Nasty when they want you to stop arsing around and pay attention in class), never crack open a book, never let plain facts change your prejudices about people you don't like (because they are Nasty and Greasy and Look Different From You), drop out of school and hey presto! You'll be a hero and will have a succesful career.... in Law Inforcement! (translation: flipping burgers in McDonalds!!!)
Argh!!
http://www.thehpn.com/index.php?opt
http://www.thehpn.com/index.php?opt
It also rather surprises (and annoys) me that so many of her female characters go for 'alpha male' types, and that she seems to find it natural that getting onto the Quidditch team, for example, will automatically turn a boy into a babe-magnet. I can't really think of many examples of this from among my own friends and acquaintances, even at school - even then, we would have thought it very shallow.
And great point--bad boy Snape was changed by love of a woman, contradicting JKR's caution to the fans! So obvious in hindsight, but a point I've managed to overlook until now.
I can't speak for the author, but I would guess that she probably only intended the surface messages , and wasn't aware that the underlying text might be contradicting those messages.
Friendship = lack of hostility = bad boys. (And here I thought bad boys are the ones hostile!) 1/2
As you say, the outward message sent by the narrative (and JKR too I suppose -- I didn't know about that quote) seems to be, of course, that girls should go with the good nice boys and not the baddies. And at least any healthy adult would, I think, assume when confronted with that doctrine that "baddies" must mean men with bad tendencies: typically such attributes as violence, abusive selfishness, manipulative streaks, and so on. But in the HP world? Not so. Not so at all. Because yes, we are being clearly shown that James and Severus, the tale's most prominent pair of romantic winner vs. loser (James even bears the name "supplanter," as pointed out by totalreadr (http://totalreadr.livejournal.com/4237.html)), are characterized precisely by how much of a mean, selfish, abusively manipulative bully James is in his general behavior and especially his romantic quests, and how badly Severus *failed* to be that way. His crime? To not have been as selfishly aggressive as James in his romantic pursuit of Lily. The catalyst for his ultimate romantic failure? The fact that he failed to understand how playing fair is a bad idea, how not striking unless struck first is also a bad idea, when he has a girl to catch and rival boys to stamp on in order to get to her. Integrity and basic human decency got Severus into that situation where two boys beat him up and he had to suffer the humiliation of being rescued by a girl. And we're explicitly *told* that those qualities were what got him his failure -- when Snape tells Harry that James never attacked Severus unless he had number on his side.
You know, that bit especially bothers me deeply, because after reading that line in HBP, I awaited DH fully expecting to get a resolution to that particular story-arc. I mean, Snape has just accused James, our quintessential Gryffindor, of being a *coward* -- of course this arc was going to be resolved, right? Rather spectacularly, yes? Either we were going to find out that Snape had been lying in that particular statement, or, wonder of wonders, we were about to find out that that had *not* been a lie, and that James had been a sham of a Gryffindor not truly worthy of the heroic title we had been given to assume of him. Both options seemed possible; I couldn't wait to find out which it was going to be. And... I was absolutely stunned at what we got in DH. Because what did we get? A complete lack of denial as to the truthfulness of Snape's accusation (if anything, we got a confirmation scene in the first encounter on the train -- wherein we see James, again, lashing out at Snape completely unprovoked *and* with the comfortable knowledge that there were no one there but him, his friend Sirius and Snape) *and* a continued glorification of James as if his hero status, for some reason, now shines even all the brighter without so much as a smidge of taint. Wha-? Why? How?
That James-Severus dynamic, which seems like a total contradiction to most of us sane adult readers, is not at all a contradiction in the eyes of the HP universe (and, I suppose one must say, of JKR) because what it says about "baddies" is actually as much of a pseudo-truth as fake Moody saying he hates escaped Death Eaters. It is true, but it's true in a way you wouldn't dream of: to wit, when HP says "baddies" it means "men who belong in the 'bad' category," not "men who act badly" in any sense of the word "bad." Which, well, that much we have all caught onto by now, right? Griffindor good, Slytherin bad, yeah we've got that far and agree on how much that sucks. But my next question is, what then defines badness? Is it just an arbitrary line dreamed up by the masturbatory magician creating the fairytale verse, making it a dreamland where you can tell the bad ones from good by (oh how we all wish we could) simply looking at the men's tie colors?
Friendship = lack of hostility = bad boys. (And here I thought bad boys are the ones hostile!) 2/2
So, what is good and what is bad? Astonishingly, when we look at the consistency of the pattern, it's just what we see standing out that *defines* what makes you good or bad: James being a total jackass to all his male contemporaries (even his supposed *friends*, such as Remus whose safety he selfishly risks as surely as he does Severus' reputation, as you point out) *is* the paragon of goodness. That's the quality that most significantly defines the Gryffindor House. This quality is even supported in the black-and-white textual descriptor, even though the text calls it "courage" instead of calling it as it is: male-targeted assholery. What then, on the other hand, is the most notable characteristics of Slytherins? Well, again surprisingly, it's actually the part of Snape's characteristic nature that has remained constant before and after his turncoat transformation. I.e., his *lack* of unprovoked aggression toward other males for "simply being there," his unwillingness to attack weaker boys simply because they're weaker and he can. As witnessed in HBP when he lashes out at the air above Harry in a moment of extreme psychological pain, where he seems just incapable of attacking male characters that are clearly inferior to him in power. He can't seem to Crucio Harry simply because he has the power to do so, even if the brat is tormenting him with the clueless jab, "then kill me like you killed Dumbledore." He can't because he doesn't *want* to. *That* is actually the *Slytherin* part of Snape that we are being given a Technicolor picture of, no matter what the narrative may pretend to say about Slytherins and Gryffindors. When we read in PS/SS that the Slytherin's emblem included "friendship," we just assumed that friendship for Slytherins must mean cunningly calculating your gains in befriending any other person. Because we just couldn't see how actual, real feeling of friendship can mesh with cunningly evil bastards. Well, it can if the honorable code of conduct is "be physically aggressive towards all other boys." Failing to do so -- failing to *want* to do so -- equals friendship, the wrong type of friendship (cf. http://community.livejournal.com/hp_essa
Or so I get the impression, although I'm not sure I remember all the Draco canon clearly... Sorry if I'm generalizing too much from Severus! I'm just going to rely on others to substantiate or disqualify my claim by reminding us of canon facts.
But yeah, that's my take on the Goodness of Gryffindor: Attack other men for simply existing. Again, I don't think JKR is conscious of this message she's sending, but subliminal or not, the doctrine is clearly there. I just can't help but shudder -- as I shudder each time I see a young reader of HP saying "I love Dumbledore and wish he were my own grandfather" after they have read DH -- in thinking of all the millions of readers that are going to grow up reading this tale while being told its moral compass is a psychologically sound one.
Sorry--rant warning
I think she is sincere in wanting her young readers to avoid bad boys and poisonous relationships.
I must confess that my respect for Rowling decreases steadily and have no belief in any sincerity on her part whatsoever. Before the last book, I put down the cognitive dissonance I was picking up (especially on Snape) as perhaps: she was intentionally trying to keep people guessing until the end of the series; she just could not pack in all the backstory that would be relevant; or there was going to be much more. So, for example, she said Snape was one of her favorite characters but she would not want to meet him a dark alley somewhere. And that made sense to me. After all, we can talk all we want about his good points, but the man was a Death Eater !! Terrorists are not nice people, and they are not just misunderstood anti-heroes. And, to be fair, most of what she was saying about the bad boy syndrome was in the context of fangirling about the Malfoys. (And Rickman, but I don't think she was ever seriously trying to tell people Rickman is evil. --s--)
But then, the last book came out. And she could have said things like: isn't it terrible how many lives can be lost and yet things do not seem to change for the better? But no, instead she claims things like war criminal Harry Potter and Albus Dumbledore are goodness incarnate, Sirius is dead sexy, torture is not a big deal because Harry has a bit of a temper, it's ok to torment children who look different or who are poor, etc., or words to that effect. And she doesn't just say those things in the book, but in real life to impressionable children.
She solicits good press about doing things like sponsoring an awareness short on domestic violence (which, presumably, is tax deductible) and spouts lots of buzzwords about social justice. Yet she wrote a series of books with morally reprehensible messages, which she ratifies with her statements. And while it appears that most of the snapedom membership are women, consider this: Rowling has said she wrote the series because she did not think there were good books for young boys and that it was a shame that the kid lit field was so dominated by "girls' books". And she's out there telling boys this is how they are supposed to act, and that they will treat their girlfriends this way if they want people to think they're sexy.
And then she has the hubris to spout this crap at Harvard's commencement:
If you choose to use your status and influence to raise your voice on behalf of those who have no voice; if you choose to identify not only with the powerful, but with the powerless; if you retain the ability to imagine yourself into the lives of those who do not have your advantages, then it will not only be your proud families who celebrate your existence, but thousands and millions of people whose reality you have helped transform for the better. We do not need magic to change the world, we carry all the power we need inside ourselves already: we have the power to imagine better...
Fine words. Just too bad she does not walk the walk. But it appears she is so blinded by her arrogance, smug intellectual laziness (after all, she brags about not bothering to double check her own writing), and comfortable background that she does not have a clue what her books actually portray and she is endorsing.
Bad Boys
Lots of great comments here. Only a few things to add: Married Lily does seem to have been cut off from her own friends--she's the disappeared woman, really. How much of that was due to the threat of Voldemort, and how much due to James? I mean, HIS friends were free to visit... unfortunately. And how much say, or even knowledge of, did she have in the decision to use Peter as the Secret-Keeper? The best you can say about James's decision there is that he chose to put making a unilateral gesture of trust in his school friends (knowing one or more of them is probably a traitor to the Order) ahead of his wife and child's safety.
I would add that there's another canon character who seems susceptible to "bad boy syndrome": Dumbledore. He seems to be consistently attracted to charming, handsome, talented bullies. He gets involved with one as a teenager; he shelters and protects them when he is a teacher and headmaster. Rereading the HBP scene of Dumbledore telling Riddle he's a wizard is really troubling. Dumbledore knows that Riddle has been consciously experimenting with his magic, that he uses it to control others and to cause pain, that he has killed at least one animal and tortured two children, probably to insanity (Amy and Dennis are spoken of in the past tense by the matron--they're no longer at the orphange). He's gotten away with all this because his fellows understand his malice but can't understand how he could perform the action. Dumbledore's response? He explains to the boy that he needs to change strategies because at Hogwarts they will understand how he performs his actions, warns him specifically against only one crime: thieving! (trophy-taking), and HIDES ALL INFORMATION ON TOM'S TRUE NATURE from the other professors and headmaster, on the grounds that the boy might come to feel remorse and want to reform, although (as D. admits to Harry) Tom at that time DIDN'T feel remorse. Tom follows Dumble's advice and hides his malice rather than his magic at Hogwarts, and builds himself a stunning career.
For that matter, Dumbles seems adept at turning people into Bad Boys: think how he consistently rewards Harry for rule-breaking and insolence. Harry, Hermione, and Severus all enter Hogwarts as victims who don't consciously aggress against their tormentors: all 3 learn to hex first under Dumble's gentle tuition.
I've been wondering if we could blame the Deathstick. I should imagine it to have properties a bit similar on a small scale to Sauron's ring--I mean, any magical artifact that chooses murder as its primary means of changing allegiance? But Gellert seems to establish that Dumble's tastes were established young.
It's funny, JKR's attitude toward Severus and the thinking she attributes to his fans. I never thought of Severus as sexy or someone to be converted by the love of a good woman, but I've liked Severus from the beginning. I liked him because he was the one I knew wouldn't fall down and worship at the feet of Harry Potter: Saviour of the Wizarding World. He represented to me someone who knew that what Harry needed (and rarely ever got) was someone to freaking teach him discipline; respect for his peers, his elders, and for the rules (because they're usually there for a damn reason); the benefits of forethought and premediated, logical action to solve one's problems; the advantages of using one's brain/intelligence to your benefit in conjunction with your brawn (if you have it). Severus would be the one to call Harry on his dumb-ass, self-indulgent behavior (something I find characters like Harry are prone to anyway). I thought Severus would provide the balance Harry needed to become the type of person who could defeat Voldemort with love. That, unfortunately, didn't happen.
Oddly enough, I didn't fall in love with Severus until PoA when we find out what he suffered at the hands of the Marauders. That a fellow classmate would view his safety and life so indifferently that he not only willfully endangered it but then failed to see (1) what the big deal was, (2) felt Severus deserved to have his life endangered and (3) failed to show adequate remorse even as an adult made my heart break for the man. That people called him petty for harboring a grudge against someone who would have gleefully arranged his possible death, maiming, or transformation into a werewolf always seemed strange to me. SWM just made my feelings toward Severus more positive and destroyed any positive feelings I had for James and Sirius.
Speak for yourself! hahaha. I find him insanely sexy and it is because I can't REALLY identify with him. I am mystified and fascinated by him.
Bad boy is a rotten description to hang on someone because it can involve many things. Sure Snape could be a bit of a bad boy, but not that much of one if someone was not bothering to look very far into him.
YES, James and Sirius were real bastards as far as I'm concerned. REAL bad boys. Most everything Snape thought about them, I believe too. Yeah, I think James STRUTED around Hogwarts.
Especially since DH I have felt a real love/hate relationship with JKR. I mean, I can't totally hate her. She gave me the fantasy world I adore so much I want to go live there. But she also seemed to be totally baffled by the thing she created and not even aware of its complexities. She created Snape but yet seems to have no real awareness of who or what he is. I don't even listen to her anymore because it's like someone else wrote this stuff. I've read far more fan fic people give better analysis of Snape and the other characters than I've ever heard from her.
Really, I have no idea what Rowling considers a bad boy. She often seems to think she's shown us something she never wrote. I agree with everyone who says James and Sirius, honored to walk with the hero at the end of his life, are less than stellar human beings. They are popular, though. They are also unambiguously male. Snape is neither. Going out on a limb, I think Rowling finds him abhorrent because he is not popular or manly -- he is physically ungainly as a youth and is psychologically "weak," as the female has traditionally been vulnerable, i.e., sensitive and emotional, waiting for someone to love him and validate his existence, but too insecure to take the first steps. As an adult, Snape embodies many female principles, as you noted earlier. Rowling wrote Snape as a female stand-in, and she hates him.
Who are Rowling's bad boys? Draco Malfoy who lamely sacrifices for his family, who cries like a girl in the bathroom. Severus Snape who sacrifices his life for the memory of a woman he wronged, who, aside from a few words, is not shown to hurt others with malice aforethought, but who emotion has made weak and somewhat of a passive vessel for Dumbledore's schemes. At the time Rowling made her statement, in 2004, Draco and Severus were not fully-developed characters (not that they are now). In 2004, she should have known their characters, but she always has been such a tease and an off-the-cuff moralizer, it's hard to believe anything she says. I mean, she made an Important Statement about girls and body image, and while she was at it, took a dig at Pansy Parkinson (whose character had not been developed at that point, so it was hard to know what she based her statement on). Roughly two years later, at her Harvard commencement speech, the first thing Rowling says is she's grateful because being nervous caused her to lose weight! What? I thought it wasn't supposed to matter? (That's when I stopped reading the speech, although I saved it for when I'm feeling more able to withstand the WTF factor.)
Of course, it turns out Pansy Parkinson was based on girls Rowling knew and despised as a child. Sort-of like Snape. I think Rowling gets reality and fiction mixed up a bit too much. Mostly, I think she wants to be popular and feisty, and lives in terror of a time when she wasn't. Hence, the mind-twisting, psychotic-episode-inducing pronouncements on the messages in her writing. She wants to be great and loved, like Dumbledore. She wants to set a moral standard, with Harry as its bearer. She feeds into a society that doesn't read as much as it absorbs entertainment, with morality depicted in nostalgic colors and broad strokes, and action!
just one thing before I read all the other patronuses :
a. JK had that bad boy syndrome and
b. described both james and sirius as what she sees as sexy.
Johari-who-still-can't-log-in
now that's I'ver read all the patronuses....
1. I guess that the reason I love Rowling's books is because the way she writes a story - she shows us only part of the story, and then reveals another part that makes the first one look compeletly different : if I had to choose the moral from that series, it won't be "racism is bad", but " don't judge something unless you know for sure you really knows everything about it (and since you can't know everything, let's summarize it as don't judge)"
2. Snape's sexiness ( and yes, he is ;-) ) - I suppose that maybe we all Snape's fan, but going and saying that we likes snape because he's sexy... is... well... simply wrong : I fell for Snape after reading how many books he has ( seriously), I know some women who had a crash on him since she learned that he took care of Harry for his mother.
3. sirius as bad boy - sirius is "half done" character - we meet him too late, learn quickly to like him, and losing him - only to be left with the feeling that we had him for too little time - he's the perfect "didn't grow up" man, he's living on the edge, and though he's not a classic bad boy ( he's not mature enough to be interested in girls, sorry), he doesn't really care for anyone - but what he wants to do. to make long story short - he's too ego centric to be the bad boy.
4. James - yes, we do see him as the classic bad boy, but before and after everything - he's Harry's father, and in every disscusion here, it seemed to be lost. :-/
Great essay and many great comments.
And he is, as far as I can remember, the only person in all seven books who ever truly apologizes for anything he has done.
I think so to. The only one who feels remorse and tries to atone for what he has done. First he apologizes to Lily for calling her a mudblood, which wasn’t good but didn’t convince me he was prejudice. I think he was going through his own issues on how to identify himself, which many kids go through at that age especially if they are a child from mixed marriage. Hogwarts also didn’t seem like a very good place to give support for half-bloods. Also I think at this time Tom was recruiting and there wasn’t a war going on. I’m not sure. I also think what James said was pretty bad “because he exists” he really thinks he is better than Snape and he isn’t bulling him because he thinks he is prejudice or into the dark arts, but “because he exists.”
To quote a movie “Phone call from a Stranger”:
“he was a good man because he wanted to right the wrong he had committed” and the character goes on to say something like if he wasn’t a good man he would have just not given it a second thought.
Severus does try, once, to control Lily, but he backs off quickly when she draws a line
Many people interpret that he feared for her safety because he knew Lupin was a werewolf.
“Phone Call from a Strange” is about four people who meet while waiting for a plane. The plane crashes and one man out of the four survive and he takes it upon himself to contact the families of the victims. One of the men that die in the plane crash was responsible for his friend’s death because of a drinking and driving situation. At the time of the accident he said his friend was driving through the years he was haunted by this. The man had planed on telling the truth, but it was too late he died in the plane crash. The man that survived goes and tells the truth to the son and he gets upset because he no longer believes that his father was a good person. The stranger says bad man would have not even given a second thought to it.
I knew guys like Sirius, and they were serious, even dangerous, creeps. I knew guys like Potter, so full of their own entitlement they thought they could shag any girl they liked and she should thank them for the favour. Date rape? Oh, don't make them laugh, why would they when they have (in their mind) girls just gagging to shag them? If the girl claimed it, well, it's just sour grapes because she wanted more than he wanted to give and only got a shag for it instead. Yeah, real hero types there, JK. *rolling eyes*
Well, as I always say: just because the Muse gave her the bunny, does NOT mean she interpreted it correctly or wrote it at her best.
Well considering the fact that this above mentioned bully befriended a werewolf and didn't join Voldemort, I would say a pretty complicating one. For a fictional and thus non existent character whose main role in this story is the one of a sperm donor. :)
Also i hate how she names characters. "Hm, a werewolf... Oh I know, I'll name him Lupin!" and when it came to naming people back on various family trees, did she just consult wikipedia??? ("Hm, the malfoys. Syltherin... evil... lets check the demonology names! Ooo Abraxas, that sounds cool")
I'm working on a story myself, and came across the following demonology info, and I am Sooooooooo tempted to work in the evil demon Nybbas JUST to make it a thinly veiled representation of JKR.
On Nybbas "Jo" the Demon: this demon manages visions & dreams. S/He is attributed with inventing TV, and blamed by some for manipulating the press in all forms. s/he is regarded as a charlatan, her/his grinning face is depicted as sickening and terrifying and beneath an otherwise amicable exterior; s/he is disdainful and manipulative with eyes that are always hidden behind a veil or some obstruction (in the 18th century it was seen as a large hat). No one has ever seen his eyes to suggest her/his nature as a liar. S/His charge is to dehumanise and desensitise humanity, making selfishness and cruelty appear moral, and generosity and gentleness to be seen as childish. Nybbas is also a low-ranking servitor of Vapula.
And BTW, Vapula is a griffin winged lion. That just cinched it for me. XD
Certainly as a teacher, I'd much rather deal with ten Severus's than one James or Sirius. Overt neglect is easier to handle than spoiled brats.
Rowling prequel: James and Sirius
Without providing much in the way of spoilers, I can say that this story is another example of James and Sirius doing what they do best - getting in trouble and being "bad boys" supposedly for a good cause. There's no specific mention of Snape, which maybe can be considered a good thing due to the tone of casual recklessness that borders on Muggle-baiting. Lily is nowhere to be seen - must be elsewhere baking cookies.