Snapedom

Reply to sailorlum about Remus, because the comments were getting tl;dr

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.

Reply to sailorlum about Remus, because the comments were getting tl;dr

Previous Entry Add to Memories Tell a Friend Next Entry
I didn't want to take up any more of the thread in terri's post, or make other commentators there uncomfortable, so I've moved my reply here.

ETA to avoid any misunderstanding: THIS IS NOT A STAND-ALONE ESSAY. It is a REPLY to a long discussion on terri's Remus as Parent post. Please, if you think something is missing or unclear, please read back in the discussion to be sure, for the sake of avoiding misunderstandings. Link is

http://asylums.insanejournal.com/snapedom/260607.html?thread=2032639#t2032639

Thank you.

There are a couple of points I want to make, sailorlum. I was trying not to tl;dr but I did it again. Sorry. :( Thank you for not taking my rantiness personally.

The first point that occurs to me reading your response is "how could Remus NOT assume he'd be traumatized to some degree?" Not, let me be clear, that Remus ought to be able to judge the specific degree of it to a millimeter. Just that, knowing the *fact* that Severus had nearly lost his life to a werewolf, Remus could reasonably be expected to assume that maybe Severus might have a less than enthusiastic response to living in the same castle as the werewolf again, and that this would need to be respected and addressed somehow.

And no, Severus wouldn't have cried about it in front of everyone. That's not the point. It's a normal, standard human reaction to deeply impacted by such a near miss, even if you don’t talk about it constantly. So much that we would consider abnormal someone who *wasn't.*

But. People do heal, yes. Usually, after such a near miss, when they have a good deal of support and counseling and time. Which Severus didn't have. But, as you point out, Remus hadn't been in contact with him (as far as we know) for over a decade. He wouldn’t necessarily *know* he still hurts. Ok. Maybe he thought Severus had gotten over it? Let's start over, again assuming the best. Let's assume Remus did not *know* how traumatized Severus really was. I'll do more that take that as my new starting point, I'll grant you without retraction that, up through the end of that scene, it's as possible/valid as the reading that he did *know.* As you say, he hadn't been in contact with Severus in years. So you’ve adjusted my thinking with that.

But. My second point, after having considered how your point affects my previous argument: What did he do, upon returning to Hogwarts and encountering Severus again? Did he (from the indications in the text), in re-establishing his relationship to Severus, attempt to discern how the man really felt, now that he was present? (Regardless of how Severus might have responded, did Remus *try*)? Did he give an indication of considering *the possibility* that Severus, still wary and suspicious of him, might be reacting to the presence of the werewolf who nearly mauled him? That is, did he even once attempt to put himself in Severus' shoes and think about the *possibility* that the man was still suffering?

No. He made *assumptions* about Severus. He *assumed* that Severus either was not traumatized (as a normal person would have been) or that he was over it. There is no sign in the text that he attempted to get confirmation of this fact from Severus, no sign that he ever accorded Severus the human respect of *asking* him how he felt. Even if Severus wouldn't have responded well, that's not the point - Remus had a duty to think of the situation from Severus' POV for a moment rather than make assumptions about the feelings and state of mind of another person regarding a life-threatening incident.

His failure here is exactly the same at base as if he had *known* for certain. He failed to accord Severus the human respect of thinking of him as a separate person who can feel pain, who has his own POV on things, and whose pain *matters.* He failed to consider Severus' possible pain as real or *worthy of thought* - whether he knew for certain that Severus was in pain or whether it was merely possible that he was, based on a normal person's reactions to things. He did not think of the mere possibility that Severus might hurt as something *he needed to investigate,* however minimally. He assumed. And acted, on the basis of that assumption, to deny and invalidate Severus' pain when he was brought face to face with it - regardless of motive or of his conscious awareness that that was what he was doing.

People are often emotionally dumb, as you put it, and far far too often fail in exactly this way. They fail to think of other people as truly, fully *human* beings who feel pain and have their own perspectives. It's a very very common failing, and I do not exclude myself from that. It is also, most of the time, not a particularly conscious failing. That still does not excuse it. It may be human to fail in this way - I'm not saying Remus is the worst person in the world for failing like this. He’s not Voldemort, and he has positive traits. But it is a failing, and I won't let him off the hook for it even when I assume the best motives.

Regarding your argument that he later realized what he'd done and tried to make up for it...well, perhaps it holds in the moment. No longer. It doesn't actually impact his behavior - because he again fails to respect Severus' pain even after this incident. He again makes Severus track him down with the potion at the last minute. And we get words from his own lips, that second evening, that confirm that he *still* does not think Severus' pain (which, in your argument, he was now conscious of) worthy of regard. He is still failing to respect Severus as a human being that evening. Because, having seen that Severus is indeed still traumatized and hurting, he explicitly tells Severus *to his face* that he needs to get over it, that it is just "a schoolboy grudge." Here it's not a question of not realizing Severus was hurt; Remus (now) knows he's hurt. He simply thinks, and says, that Severus has no *right* to be hurt. He trivializes the impact of a life-threatening encounter, to the man's face. Severus' pain *does not matter to him.*

As you say, Remus certainly minimized the Prank in his own mind. That is precisely my point, overall. He minimized another person's life-threatening experience, and in so doing necessarily minimized the meaningfulness of that person’s pain. An action which, conscious and deliberate or not, is a step towards dehumanization. And he continued to do this even after seeing for himself that the person was still hurting. You can argue that, before the tussle over the potion, it was merely a failure to do his human duty and consider things, not a deliberate act. I...don’t entirely agree with that reading, but it’s certainly possible. But after that encounter he ought to have realized and acted, but he did not. And in the Shack, when he explicitly acknowledged and then dismissed Severus’ pain to the man’s face, it utterly ceased to be a passive failure. At that point, if not before, it was willful refusal. A refusal we never see him apologize for, nor recant. - Had he repented and changed, that we could see, I would not come down so hard on him. I would also be more willing to accept arguments that it was unconscious, passive failure most of the time, such as in the first tussle over the potion. The fact that he never significantly alters his attitude or behavior (speech is another thing) that we see inclines me to read it as a consistent aspect of his character, not an unconscious failing he’d likely repent once awoken to it.

See, I understand that you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, that you like him and want a flawed but human Remus. Of course that’s your right. Even more than that, I agree that he *is* flawed but human. He is not Voldemort, and does have good points. He’s willing to risk his life to defeat Voldemort, for one thing. He’s loyal to his friends (for better or worse). For those in his pack, he does care, even if he is not always perfect about fulfilling his responsibilities to them. He wants to make the WW a better place. And he suffers, yes, decidedly, and sometimes beyond anything deserved. But he has his flaws. This is exactly my point. He has flaws, and these are his flaws. He can be insensitive to other people. He has recurring moments of moral cowardice that he repeatedly gives into. And if you aren’t in his pack (like Severus), he can fail to accord you the respect due another human being, at times willfully. The *reasons* for these failings, and his various motives at any point in time, may add shades of grey, but they don’t excuse his behavior towards Severus. Perhaps we see him at his worst with Severus. If you want to grant him that, I’ll go along with it. It’s these complexities that make characters fascinating to me - and I am fascinated by Lupin, even if I *like* him less and less with time.

I don’t mean to pick on Remus. None of the characters in the books are shining angels, Severus included. But I tend, personally, to point out the flaws in seemingly-blameless characters like Remus, and to emphasize the pain of those like Severus who are discarded by other characters, for a reason. If we go along with the bias that the narrative voice, and JKR’s pronouncements, encourage and tolerate or cover over failings like the one I’ve described because the characters are otherwise sympathetic to us, we fall into a trap that IMHO is very, very dangerous. The books encourage us (in behavior) NOT to think of other people as human beings unless we *like* them, or if they are close to us in some way. The people who might seem unpleasant - bitter, or pompous (Percy), or what have you - are shoved off to the side, and we are encouraged to distinguish between our & our friends’ pain (real, terrible, worthy of vengeance) and the pain of people we don’t particularly like (exaggerated, they need to get over it, they have no right to criticize US). When, IMHO, it is our human duty to at least try to put ourselves in other people’s shoes even for a moment, to respect a fundamental baseline humanity in every person. When a character fails at exactly this, and the narrative either whitewashes it or *encourages* us to go along with it, I hit the brakes. (And, obviously, go tl;dr on everyone. ;) ) It’s a common failing that I’m sure I’ve been guilty of myself, but when I am conscious of it I won’t tolerate it. And I see it in these books.

Which is why I’m not letting go of your argument. Not that you are consciously doing this, not at all. I understand that you sympathize with Remus, and have your own reading of the books - totally fine and your right. And maybe I’m taking it more seriously than you want to - I tend to get really serious about these things, maybe because I’m a lit student. :) But it seems to me that your argument is still...not really acknowledging the real failing that I see here, nor satisfactorily explaining away the evidence that leads me to see that failing. Really damning IMHO is Remus’ comment in the Shack, and the fact that in the scene before Severus *twice* drew his attention to the potion. Even with your argument that Remus wasn’t aware at first of Severus’ pain, after the potion incident he ought to have realized his failing and acted to change it (knowing and not acting being another kind of failure). But he didn’t. And even if at that point it was not a deliberate *refusal* to see, it was still a *failure* to consider - a passive fault rather than an active one, but very real nonetheless. I’m not asking Remus to be a mind-reader (at least, not anymore. I grant I hadn’t considered the years apart. But he still can be faulted IMHO for assuming rather than considering Severus’ possible POV.) I’m asking him to stop and think of Severus as a real human being for a moment, and act in consideration of that. Something I think every person has a duty to do towards others (and which just about every character in the series, Severus included, at times fails to do). Which Remus repeatedly fails to do. And...I don’t see how your argument acknowledges/gets rid of that lack of consideration here. Which is slightly frustrating for me - I feel like we’re talking past each other. :( Your arguments acknowledge that Remus has his flaws, but discount or explain away every concrete instance of those flaws, which makes the acknowledgment seem hollow.

So how about this, to be fair to you. If, after all this debating, I still haven’t convinced you....Why don’t you give me a couple of concrete instances in which you see Remus really, really failing? What are his worst moments, to you? And I mean tell me in detail - don’t worry about tl;dr. :) The things that you, personally, *can’t* bring yourself to explain away, make light of, or give him the benefit of the doubt on? You say (earlier) that Remus can be passive-aggressive towards Severus, just that the potions scene isn’t an example of it. So what WOULD be an example of it? Give me some real dirt. Convince me that we really do have two very different interpretations of the character, including where his real flaws are. If you don’t want to fill up the thread here, make a separate post or email me - moviemaedchen@gmail.com

If you want to, of course. Obviously this stops having a point when you start to not enjoy it, and I don’t want to wear you out. Sometimes (like Severus), I have a hard time letting go of something. ;) But I do genuinely enjoy debating with you, and if you haven’t convinced me of your reading in toto you’ve still made me consider things from different POVs, and taking more things into account. Which IMO any good debate should do, for all involved. It helps strengthen skill at reasoning, always a good thing, right? :) I thought the Lily thing went pretty well, am I right? I hope I’m not upsetting you, and that I haven’t slipped up somewhere and said something about you personally rather than your argument. I know you really don’t like that, and I can be sensitive that way myself, so I’ve done my best to keep it about the argument. Please correct me if I have - or if I have misunderstood you somewhere along the line.

Thanks for reading and responding to all this. Wow, tl;dr to the tenth degree. *sigh*
  • Re: The redemption of Severus

    "I would just add that Harry's comment in the epilogue actually has nothing to do with the issue of Severus' *moral* status - obviously something key for the question of his redemption. As Susan Sontag points out, bravery is morally neutral. One can be brave in the service of an evil ideology, after all."

    I agree that bravery has no morality.

    But neither you nor I wrote the story. JKR *does* see bravery as a very high virtue. So when Harry calls Snape "the bravest man" JKR is having her protagonist call Snape the highest standard of what *she* (not you or I) considers the greatest virtue.

    That is extremely important. You and I may not think that Snape's bravery is an indication of his redemption, but JKR would think so and she appears to have tied the two together in her comments about wanting to show redemption. That is, she specifically said she wanted to show redemption (and who else but Snape could be redeemed in the scene?) and yet what she does is have her protagonist attest to Snape's bravery. I think it's one and the same for JKR. I'm sure she would never consider Bellatrix brave.
    • Re: The redemption of Severus

      I wish someone asks her about the bravery of Bellatrix Lestrange, just to get her reaction. Because if Rowling really believes that bravery equals goodness then I want to know what she calls someone like dear Bella.
      • Re: The redemption of Severus

        As I pointed out in my other comment just now, JKR very specifically said that to her, the highest virtue is courage, and not just "physical or flashy" courage, but "moral courage". So she does make a distinction. I found it interesting to note that she said, after DH, that even Voldemort could have changed, but he didn't have the "courage to repent". That was a fascinating comment, because it reveals that JKR saw real repentence as an act of courage.

        So when she has Harry proclaim Snape as the standard of bravery, we know that JKR considers bravery/courage the highest virtue when it is not just physical or showy, but moral courage as well. And that she even sees repentance (which Snape has in spades), as taking courage - presumably moral courage.

        It's always instructive to understand exactly what a person *means* by their words. We are all using English, but not everyone views words in the same way. Courage and bravery are highly charged words and do not carry the same meaning to everyone. My guess is that JKR would never consider Bellatrix truly brave, because she has no real morals with which to have moral courage.

        I think it was Aristotle that said something about courage or bravery being dependent on the individual making a choice that was actually worth the risk that was being taken. One might say, if one believed that was important to true bravery, that if the choice is evil, then it's not worthy of the risk and hence not "brave" at all.
        • Re: The redemption of Severus

          "It's always instructive to understand exactly what a person *means* by their words. We are all using English, but not everyone views words in the same way."

          This is true, but it does not IMO resolve the problem. This is exactly the sort of thing than an author has to take into consideration when writing. It's probably not possible to make sure that every single person on the planet will get what you intend from a certain bit of text, but you can take steps to insure that the majority of readers do. JKR's personal notion of bravery has precisely zero to do with how readers interpret her text unless she communicates it effectively through that text. Which she does not really manage here, if her explicit statements about bravery have to be brought in in order to make Severus' moral redemption unambiguous. We shouldn't NEED her interviews in order to get the fundamental, meaningful points of her narrative from her text. It's her job as an author to give us those as clearly as possible *in the narrative.*
          • Re: The redemption of Severus

            "Which she does not really manage here, if her explicit statements about bravery have to be brought in in order to make Severus' moral redemption unambiguous."

            Well, I disagree about it needing to be unambiguous. That's a big call for any author. After all, readers will always interpret many things differently. To make sure every reader gets the exactly right interpretation, an author would have to be far to blatant.

            And did JKR really do such a bad job *overall* of convincing people of Snape's redemption? After all, there's a very large group of Snape fans who were convinced of his redemption ages ago. Did we all just dream it up without any help from the text? Was it all a mistake on JKR's part, cluelessly giving so much evidence that Snape was actually a good guy? I mean think about it. JKR convinced loads of people that Snape was a good guy long before that last page.

            Remember the Barnes and Noble marketing campaign for DH? It was all about whether Snape was good or bad. Obviously they had done their market research and *knew* that was the Big Question and that a huge portion of the readers were already thinking he was good, with another large portion thinking him evil. But the point is, JKR convinced a huge number of people of Snape's character.

            I agree that the later part of DH should have been a lot better written. And I certainly think Harry got let off the hook without ever having to do the real work of forgiveness. But just because JKR didn't convince every one of her readers that Snape was good, doesn't mean she didn't do her job of convincing people. Because a huge number of people *were* convinced.

            People love Snape as a character not because everyone re-wrote him. They love the character JKR created, even if fan fiction enables people to do more with him. Still, no matter how messy the ending, JKR did indeed convince a whole lot of people that Snape was good.
            • Re: The redemption of Severus

              You have a point that she did convince *us* that he was good. But that's not my problem with the text. When I mean I don't find the issue of Severus' redemption clearly resolved in the text, I don't mean did she convince her readers he was good. I mean, did she convey that within the structure of the narrative arc and within the fictional world she created, was he *redeemed.* Was his goodness *acknowledged.* It's entirely possible to create a literary work where a character is presented *to the readers* as good, but whom the narrative voice disdains. Done deliberately this can very very effective.
              • Re: The redemption of Severus

                Well, personally I think JKR was conflicted in herself about Snape. My own opinion is that she was conflicted about Snape because she was conflicted about Nettleship. And Snape, in my opinion, is based very strongly on Nettleship. My guess is that she had a person that in real life she could not reconcile in her thinking and therefore, because Snape is so strongly based on a real person who she could not completely decide on, she couldn't be clear on Snape in her own head. I think it comes across in the way she talks about Snape.

                But Snape is not the only character who she has a love/hate relationship with. Notice how she deals with Dumbledore. Sometimes Dumbledore is the Great Wise Wizard and the "epitome of goodness", sometimes the picture of remorse and repentence, and quite often he is Machiavelli (by her own admission).

                Of course, in reality most people are not consistent and can present quite different aspects of character at different times, with different people, and in different situations. Snape and Dumbledore are very real in part *because* JKR makes them so ambiguous in their actions, motivations, etc. Is it bad writing? Did she do it by mistake? Or did she base many of her characters on real people and was simply an extremely good observer of real individuals and good at putting them down on paper? I don't know. I sometimes lean toward the last possibility.

                Nice talking. :) I need to go.
                • Re: The redemption of Severus

                  Ok. ;)

                  I'll just add that I agree she's conflicted about Snape, probably because of Nettleship. That explains but doesn't change the fact that she tells us she gave us a clear redemption when, in fact, it's rather ambiguous. I expected that clear redemption, and I miss it.

                  Anyway. Nice talking with you. :)
                • Re: The redemption of Severus

                  Er -- I'm prob'ly going to sound like an idiot here, but who is "Nettleship"? I'm a bit lost...
                  Alison
            • Re: The redemption of Severus

              It's not a question of proving Snape good. It's a question of having that goodness be consciously, deliberately recognized by the text.
        • Re: The redemption of Severus

          Wynnleaf, I think you did a really good job of summing up the virtue of courage as presented in the books, here. (And I think your other posts on the subject here were good as well). :) You've summed it up better than I could, certainly.

          And I certainly think JKR means for Snape to be seen as redeemed and for Harry's statements and attitude towards Snape at the end of the book (after TPT) to reflect and signify that.

          Personally, I saw Snape as redeemed immediately after reading TPT. I didn't even need Harry to acknowledge it (and I didn't read interviews till I had finished with the books). In the end, Severus used his bravery in the fight against good and evil, on the side of good (and had been doing that for 15 yrs or so). And I saw true repentance in TPT: Snape bared his soul to Harry by way of Pensieve (and on purpose, since he gave him the memories) and Snape was shown to have realized some very big wrongs and repented, IMHO. He wasn't perfect (far from), but I don't think he needed to be. I would personally assume, that at the very least, Severus wasn't damned. Frankly, I'd assume he got a good afterlife.

          The way I see it, in the universe of the story, whether Snape was redeemed or not depends on Snape (the state of his soul is ultimately up to him), not Harry or any other mortal. Harry acknowledging the true bravery of Severus Snape and naming a kid after him (well, middle name), and giving a "Take That, Snape was on The Good Side all along" speech to Voldy, was literary sign enough, for me, that Severus was as redeemed as I thought he was.

          Sure, no character dropped the Anvil and said verbatum "By golly, that Severus Snape was ultimately a White Hat all along. He really redeemed himself! Huzzah!" ...but I don't think they needed to. Not for ultimate redemption, which is above and beyond redemption in the eyes of the public (wizarding world and whatnot), IMHO.

          Also, I agree with your estimation of whether JKR would consider Bellatrix brave or not. I think JKR would go with Aristotle (or whoever said) that true bravery has to be for good, not evil.

          I rambled... ;P
Powered by InsaneJournal