Snapedom

The January Challenge: Lily revisited

sylvanawood

1/3/11 04:02 pm

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.

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).

• Tags:
  challenge

• Send your Patronus

• Re: Pearlette to 00sevvie

  00sevvie

  1/14/11 06:22 pm (UTC)

  

  Well, obviously none of it *really* happened, but for pretend's sake... ;)
  
  It's true it only says James was unhappy and 'tried not to show it,' yes - but the immediate next line is that Dumbledore has the cloak, "so no chance of a little excursion." Which suggests that his unhappiness is directly tied to the fact that he can't go out and run wild has he has done before whenever he used the cloak. His behavior in the Prologue also fits with this reading far more than with a reading that he offscreen smartened up about it during the short time all this was going on. It's speculation, but the text provides clear evidence of one personality for him and nothing directly supporting any change of heart, so Occam's razor would dictate that he's probably still the somewhat immature person we've seen all along when Lily was writing her letter. But itself, yes, it doesn't prove he was, you are right there. It simply fails to provide any evidence to the contrary, and the text provides such evidence nowhere else.
  
  RE Harry and the broom: I'm with annoni-no here. Just because they have magic doesn't mean the child is immune from harm. It just means it's quicker to fix a broken bone - that's still harm to the child whether it takes ten minutes or several weeks to heal. Also, a vase falling on his head could kill him instantly, and no magic would fix that. Even if the cat thing is a joke, it's still irresponsible. But again, I think JKR's tone shifts might be part of the problem here.

  • Reply
  • Parent
  • Thread

  • Re: Pearlette to 00sevvie

    (Anonymous)

    1/14/11 06:38 pm (UTC)

    Which suggests that his unhappiness is directly tied to the fact that he can't go out and run wild has he has done before whenever he used the cloak.
    
    But an equally likely reading of Lily's simple statement in that letter is that James wished he could get out of the house so he could fight on behalf of his wife and kid, do Order stuff. Obviously the right thing was for him to stay put, but he could hardly help feeling anxious and twitchy about it.
    
    But again, I think JKR's tone shifts might be part of the problem here.
    
    Well, OK. I'm not bothered by tone shifts in a book which sometimes has humour in order to lighten the darkness. But I, personally, don't see it as a problem. This is a fantasy setting, so I'm not inclined to disapprove of a magical mother who allows her magical baby to fly around on his broomstick.
    
    -- Pearlette
    

    • Reply
    • Parent
    • Thread

    • Re: Pearlette to 00sevvie

      00sevvie

      1/14/11 07:25 pm (UTC)

      

      My point is actually that the reading you propose, although not entirely ruled out, is not in fact *equally* likely. It is less likely because there is far less evidence to support it within the text than there is to support the reading that James was still somewhat immature. Neither is conclusively proven, but one is more likely than the other given what we *do* see in the text of James. It's interpretation both ways, but one requires less speculation regarding certain events having taken place entirely offscreen, is thus simpler and so more likely. It is simpler and more likely to suppose that, given no direct evidence of a change, a person acted in a way consistent with their behavior at other recent times than that they did change though we never see other evidence of it, based upon one piece of hearsay that could be read either way. It doesn't mean it's impossible, but one interpretation has somewhat more canon evidence behind it than another. That's all.
      
      I wouldn't have a problem with the tone if using humor to lighten a situation was all she did. But to me and to others that I know the tone shifts are too great and simply do not work. It is as if she was trying to write in two different genres at the same time. Laughing at someone unpleasant who had been traumatized by a wild animal, for example, would work in a cartoonish genre (we do it all the time with Looney Tunes and the like); it's part of the genre and isn't meant to be read in terms of real-world morality. In a realistic genre, that same laughter would indicate a severely-empathy deprived or morally callous character. Thus a lot of the argument that goes on about Snape and the 'Prank' or the Trio laughing at Umbridge; one group is reading it more cartoonishly than another group, and both are right/wrong because the text itself can't seem to decide if the violence is in fact cartoonish or realistic.

      • Reply
      • Parent