![[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."