Hog’s Head PubCast #24: Snape (again)

Hi Travis,
Thanks for this pubcast.

I’m wondering about how true is the view of Snape as the down-trodden, bullied and woe-begone sufferer.

From what I read in the novels I see a rather self-reliant and self absorbed person- although bitter and angry. Dumbledore tells Harry that the rivalry between James and Severus was similar to that between him and Draco. If Snape was the outcast that everyone had a shot at, I really doubt that he’d be James’ rival. Sirius’ comment about Snape being jealous of James’ Quidditch skills also suggests that they were comparable – but James was better.

I really think Snape was an excellent and respected student- with his own aura but bent towards seclusion and inner defences. I think it was this and his liking of the dark arts that made him a target for the Marauders. That and his up himself attitude.

Do we know who Head Boy was that year? Was Lily Head Girl?

I’ve been getting that sound in every pubcast except that time you did it from your in-law’s place. Last time I commented on it you said it was some kind of heater you were using.

It doesn’t worry me.

Your voice is coming through heaps clearer than it used to.

Thanks again

Matthew

All the best antiheroes have a dark side. They are in constant inner conflict between the better promptings of their hearts and conscience, and the selfish and cruel urges of the dark side. They are uncomfortable within their own skins, never at peace, as uneasy doing evil as they are reluctant doing good.

Dumbledore would know all this, of course, and accept him as he was, but constantly appeal to his better side. Snape would be angry and resentful of Dumbledore, but do as he bid, because in the final balance the good side would be ascendant. That would not stop him from being nasty and sarcastic and intolerant of any perceived faults in anyone and everyone around him.

The life of an anti-hero is never an easy one.

Dam my comment went missing.

Reyhan, Snape definitely is uncomfortable within his own skin and never at peace. Yet Dumbledore didn’t just believe him to be on his side, to be his ally against Voldemort, he totally relied on him, wouldn’t hear a word against him. Therefore, if Dumbledore was right, Snape can’t have a strong urge towards cruelty and selfishness.

Maybe it’s just my wishful thinking and I “cling to some desperate hope”, like Rowling said. But if Snape is truly a person worthy of Dumbledores trust, he must be essentially good, I believe.

Firstly, Reyhan, I was not remotely suggesting that Snape had a “generalized disdain and even hatred for proficiency”. What I was suggesting was that he was jealous of others’ achievements and the attention it won them. As for the idea that James’ gifts in handling a broom was a skill Severus had no use for, that sounds like a severe case of sour grapes (on Severus’ part) to me.

Next, the term “mudblood” refers to those of purely muggle parentage, so Snape, whose mother was a witch, did not fall into that category and by using the term he was explitly distancing himself from it and aligning himself with pure-blood wizards. Exactly as Voldemort does, in fact. The logic that leads you to suggest that a racial insult expresses a bond leaves me reeling – next you’ll be suggesting that Hitler sent the Jews to gas chambers out of fellow feeling.

Finally, I chose the term “amorous fixation” quite deliberately because I do not consider that to be the same thing as love. In fact I think it is unhelpful to confuse the two and I did not wish to contribute to that confusion. Love is selfless and requires a preparedness to set oneself aside and to give. Amorous fixation is selfish and centers on a desire for something *from* the other person. I see them as pretty close to opposites.

I have seen nothing to suggest that Snape is in fact capable of love (and a great deal to suggest otherwise). So you ask “Why wouldn’t you say that Snape loved Lily” – to which I answer that I consider the idea that Snape genuinely *loved* Lily (or anyone else, for that matter) to be bordering on ludicrous.

Yay, seriously_black, you’re back!

I agree that Snape having an “amourous fixation” for Lily is a possibility too, taking into account Slughorn’s serious comment (which the students took as a joke) on the dangers of “obsessive love”, which serves as potential foreshadowing. How do you explain Snape’s repeated defence (I mean physical, not verbal, naturally) of Harry? You’ve probably explained this numerous times elsewhere on the site, but I’ve forgotten your opinon of the events that some prefer to interpret as unnecessary aid on Snape’s part.

I’m asking because I find your theory intriguing, considering Rowling’s negative opinion of Snape and Slughorn’s comment on “obsessive love”.

The reason why I support the idea that Snape genuinely loved Lily is his repeated (albeit grudging) rescues of Harry, and most importantly, the need for an identifiable driving force behind all of Snape’s actions. I refuse to believe that he can feel a genuine debt to James and be incapable of affection towards Lily. If he can feel a life-debt towards an enemy, he has a strong conscience. He seems so determined and passionate about whatever path he is purusing, the question is: what is it and why?

Interesting, korg20000bc! I’d always thought that Snape withheld his vast insight (that was revealed to exist in HBP) out of selfishness. The way you spin it, he believed the students should figure out the flaws in the textbooks on their own and reap the benefit after dedicating themselves to their work. Hmmm.

Hi shadowquill,
There are a number of possible reasons for Snape’s acts of protection that do not depend on life debts or amorous fixations.

One of them is that he took perverse pleasure in demonstrating his superiority and reveling in Harry’s vulnerability and inability to defend himself. By saving Harry (who he saw as James revisited) he was showing that he was cleverer than James after all and he was enjoying a series of little victories over this “new James”. A perfect opportunity to play out a little emotional drama to satisfy his need to continue to compete with James even years after James’ death.

Meanwhile, I don’t consider that “amorous fixation” suggests emotional detachment – not at all – though the emotions it stirs may not be those I would associate with love. Obsession, jealousy, desire, longing, sorrow, self-pity, euphoria and rage all accompany amorous fixations (along with generous doses of fantasy and self-delusion, not uncommonly). Amorous fixations can be burning and consuming, but they are not love.

By contrast, love subsists in a desire to see another person raised up, made happy, enabled to grow (eg in independence and understanding) without reference to the self (and even to one’s own detriment). To give and to set oneself aside in doing so. To place another person’s needs and happiness above one’s own. To thereby transcend the self. In that sense, love involves a form of detachment that amorous fixation does not. Love *requires* the ability to let go (including to let go of self-referential preoccupations).

In the absence of any other information, I’d agree that Snape’s efforts to save Harry on several occasions might be construed as acts of love. But love is *not* something that gets turned off and on at will, and Snape’s behavior otherwise is utterly unloving. So whatever motivates him, it’s certainly not love. Jealousy, maybe – and a manic desire for some kind of posthumous moral victory over James, perhaps.

S_B, Reductio ad absurdum makes for interesting reading, but does not prove your point. I was talking about verbal insults. You are talking about murder. Insulting members of your own race by using racist epiteths is actually quite a popular sport in some circles now. Doesn’t seem to have led to murder.

Take away the hyperbole, and what do you have? That it’s not ok to hurt someone just because you have something in common with them? Well, I don’t believe that’s what I said. What I said was: hurting someone by putting them down for something which also applies to you is a qualified hurt; the qualification is that you’re putting yourself down at the same time as well. If you must apply the reductio ad absurdum argument, the correct analogy to Snape calling Evans a mudblood would be Hitler gassing his Jewish cells.

But you didn’t address my main point. Do you disagree with my point that Snape does not share in the pureblood view of the innate superiority of the pureblooded? Do you assign a different meaning to the inscription in his Potions book?

I will not take issue with your insistence that agape is the only true form of love. Or that eros inevitably leads to strangling the object of desire. I never argued that Snape’s love was selfless. Just that it does enter the definition of the term as many have understood it since the days of Plato.

It sounds to me like you take exception to people presenting a biased view of the facts in order to support their positions. I am not too fond of that kind of thing myself. But again, I think that you yourself share in the error of “jerry-rigged” trials, just in the opposite direction.

Reyhan, I continue to have problems with your logic.

You say that all I have is that it’s not okay to hurt someone just because you have something in common with them. But my point was that Snape is not a mudblood, so he doesn’t have that in common with Lily. He has wizard parentage and he lives in a world where that gives him higher status – and he chooses to exploit that status to cause hurt.

The fact that the attack we witnessed was verbal and not physical does not, in my view, diminish it’s meaning. True, insults are a long way short of murder. However the series clearly shows that those who hold mudbloods and muggles in contempt think nothing of using them for sport.

As to the meaning of the Half-blood Prince inscription, I’m afraid that interpretation is entirely a matter of perspective. You can say (as you are choosing to do) that it was an acknowledgment that the glass was half empty – that Snape was embracing his less-than-impressive mixed-blood roots. Or you can say that the glass was half-full and that Snape was holding onto the precious knowledge that he was not a “filthy mudblood” by placing focus on the *Prince* part of his ancestry.

While neither approach provides an intrinsically more valid interpretation, there is another way to look at it. And that is that if matters of race were inconsequential to Snape – as they rightly should be – then he’d not have considered his parentage significant in any way. The fact that he placed importance on it (as shown by the inscription) shows that he was placing store in the importance/relevance of race. This suggests that the half-full interpretation is the correct one.

While that may shows a way to break the circularity of the alternate interpretations of the inscription, it needs some confirming evidence. Ie in order to be certain that the inscription means what it seems to mean – that Snape is placing undue store in race as a prop for status and self esteem (and superiority/advantage over others of perceived lower status) – we need an independent example. I’d say that screaming the words “Filthy mudblood” at Lily Evans would qualify amply as such an example.

As to your assertion:

“I think that you yourself share in the error of “jerry-rigged” trials, just in the opposite direction.”

I’m afraid I find that suggestion offensive. For several reasons. Firstly, I did not set up any trials, I merely weighed in to a few existing ones being conducted by individuals who seemed disinterested in balance – or even facts. Secondly, I do not consider that my contributions qualify for the term jerry-rigged – I am careful to avoid inventing evidence or ignoring substantial bodies of evidence. I’m sorry to hear that you think otherwise. Thirdly, you’ll be surprised to hear that I consider my position to be a balanced one. It’s true that most of my contributions here have been presenting the case against good!Snape – but that is because as I see it the balance has been in dire need of restoration. I do not consider my efforts to inject some sanity and reality merit being characterized as an effort to overthrow reason with prejudice. But, as always, you are entitled to your opinion.

In theory, I can see that the use of the term “half-blood” could be a claim of superiority over “mudbloods” as much as it could be a defiant acknowledgement of inferiority to “purebloods”. However, I don’t see Snape as a “half a loaf is better than none” kind of person. So I go with the defiant stance.

Someone – was it Travis or someone else? – used the word “shame” in describing what Snape principally felt about his childhood and origins. Shame about his poverty, shame about his impotent but physically abusive Muggle father, and perhaps shame about the mother who would lower herself to marry a Muggle. His response to shame, I believe, was not to try to hide his origins, but to reject any claim to superior merit based on birth or inheritance.

It’s not fair to say that matters of race “should be” inconsequential to Snape. Who amongst us is so impervious to the opinion of our peers that we can reject their norms, no matter how superficial? However, if my interpretation is correct, he did successfully reject those norms, although at the cost of a generalized sense of resentment and bitterness.

I realize that I am constructing a case for an antihero, to a certain (great?) extent justifying your complaint about people who “bend and massage the story to vindicate him”. What I’m trying to do is to find what drives the character. His internal, emotional logic. What I’ve constructed has some explanatory power, for me at least. I don’t necessarily “buy” all of my own arguments. I’m trying on this explanation, to see how well it fits the facts.

I do agree that the balance is in some need of restoration. I suppose applying a strong weight on the other side could theoretically restore balance. But I find that these debates tend more often to create wild see-saws, each side becoming more extreme in an attempt to counterbalance the other, than either would have alone.

Reyhan, in systems based on inequity and prejudice, intermediate status is indeed fiercely contested.

The middle classes may rigorously defend their status on the basis that they are not common working class – though they cannot lay outright claim to title or privilege of the ruling class.

In fact it is a rare and enlightened member of a middle class in *any* society who rejects their middle class status in favor of identifying with the oppressed masses. But Snape does *not* do that – instead he *emphasises* his claim to privilege, underscoring his wizard heritage – and further distancing himself from the despised underclass by using invective such as “filthy mudblood”.

It’s touching that you see in Snape such rare traits of empathy, enlightenment, selflessly egalitarian spirit and concern for social justice. Curious, though, that such elevated and selfless principles should co-exist with sadistic bullying and abuses of power, don’t you think?

You’re trying to prove my point about the wildly oscillating see-saw, I think.

I’ve said earlier that Snape doesn’t “identify” with anyone, seeing himself as a minority of one.

And therefore, I don’t see that he makes any claims to privilige, except that given to him by his skill and knowledge and personal attributes.

I don’t see Snape as empathetic, enlightened, selflessly egalitarian or concerned with social justice. Nor do I think you would consider that perspective “touching”. I do see him as cruel, bullying and certainly abusive of the power he has.

I think the night is late (in my time zone anyways) and I still have something to finish for tomorrow. So I’ll retire from the lists for the night.

S_B,
I agree but your own views are based on arguable evidence specifically you use of quotes by Rowling that may or may not be conclusive. I know that you take Rowling saying that Snape is a sadictic teacher to be excellent evidence for an evil Snape. That’s entirely possible. It would be stronger is Rowling had said that Snape is a Sadist. To to my way of thinking there is a huge gap between a sadist and a sadistic teacher. I’ve know teachers who could and have been labled as sadistic but to infer that they are actually sadists is quite wrong.

I further agree with you that we shouldn’t lose sight of the facts. But what are they? Many sources are inconclusive and Rowling is deliberately evasive in her interview responses. We have the books and ROwling’s official site. But the books themselves are open to being interpreted in different ways and many theories may fit the facts.

Also, I don’t think we’ll have all the answers nicely squared away with the next book. I think that’s good too. Will keep the discussion going on sites like this excellent one.

Matthew

And my apologies for typos…it is way too late for me. I also didn’t mean to sound like I’m a vengeful teacher with certain difficult students (read: annoying and/or whiny, not those that struggle as I often bent over backwards to help them) . It’s just hard to put up with almost perpetual moaning and complaining and asking silly questions when it’s either in their lab manual right in front of them or posted on the board. But I really did love teaching, promise!

Let me tell you a little story about one of my teacher when I was a teenager, many years ago.
I always think of these events when I heard about Snape… (Please be indulgent for my English.)
My teacher of History was a tall young man (P.) . His family was well known.

His father had a gun shop .This man was known as a bully and a military supporter .His youngest son hate him and contributed to this bad reputation. The elder P. seemed more like his father .He chose to study History to share with pupils his taste for Napoleon’s battles and the two World Wars.

In University, P. met a girl. She was two years older than he was .She was graduated before him. She became teacher in my school when he was in the army ( national service) for a year . They were engaged , but they never married . She died just before the end of the term ( surgery accident!). Before his army period, he had asked for an appointment in the same school, and he gets it.
She was an excellent teacher, funny and brilliant. He was awful! Bullying children, especially boys. In addition, his lessons were boring. He has no authority he was just scaring pupils. In the same time, he seemed very sad and nervous.
One day he was so violent that he had almost wrenched the ears of a boy . Of course, the headmaster was not happy of what happened and warned the young professor that such behavior will have to be punished another time. The headmaster of course knew the sad story, but do not like him at all.
However, in the class we were a few to think that we must talk to P.. We understand that he was more afraid of us that he would never admit. That was his first year as a teacher and we felt a bit sad about it. Nevertheless, we think that we must be clever and don’t want to point him as a monster. Therefore, we went to teachers and asked them for a small discussion about the class, the school, lessons, and authority.

This year I learned something very important, because P.« the bad guy » and some almost forgotten teachers accepted very friendly our proposition, but no « good » teacher (according to parents and Management staff criteria).
They looked at us with arrogance and contempt … « we don’t need to talk with children ! ».We was disappointed by them and almost betrayed.

In fact, the same year a sort of Draco began a dangerous Nazi adoration game with some friends. We tried to warn some of our teachers and parents , nobody believed us… except the « bad teacher »… But who listen to a bad teacher ? A few years after the French Army refused « Draco » after some tests : a too dangerous man !

The bad teacher didn’t switch himself in a brilliant our perfect one but was happier and confident and more respectful with children, even I bet that he still verbally bullies pupil sometimes.

Now , I think that Snape isn’t a good teacher and he isn’t kind with children. But we must wait to know the truth about his final choices in the war not in the classroom .

Hi Matthew,
When you say:

“I’ve know teachers who could and have been labled as sadistic but to infer that they are actually sadists is quite wrong”

I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree – I think the distinction you are making is a contrived one. A sadist is any person who in engages in a sadistic act (morbid enjoyment in inflicting mental or physical pain, according to the closest dictionery). I don’t think that Rowling used the term with some other special (and less significant) meaning.

Which brings me to the main thrust of your point. You and Reyhan and a few others here would like to set aside Rowling’s comments and discount there significance to the interpretation of the story. You are, of course, entitled to do so if you wish.

However on occasions when I have referred to quotes that are not conclusive, I have been happy to say so. I fully agree that many of the things Rowling has said contain hints and oblique references rather than unequivocal statements. But not always. For instance, if the author uses a phrase like “more culpable even than Voldemort” about a character, I think it is reasonable to at least consider what that means, before confidently declaring the character to be “Dumbledore’s man through and through” etc.

While Rowling does try to avoid outright spoilers, she has nevertheless given quite a lot of crucial information. Sometimes the information is direct (eg “Dumbledore is definitely … dead”) and other times it is indirect (eg Harry is not the heir of Gryffindor). But it is all information which warrants being considered before making pronouncements about how the books should be interpreted.

To simply say “Rowling’s answers are evasive” and thereby dismiss information which they may contain is way too easy IMO.

S_B, Rowling’s comments are significant in interpreting the story, but I think they have to be seen in context with other things that she’s said, with the story that she’s written and with the characters she’s created. For me, Dumbledore’s character is somehow the lens through which I see Snape. That’s just my take on it.

seriously_black, I will not try to cope with you by arguing. You have at least 95% of all the evidence about Snape being a selfish and evil guy on your side, and I only have about 5% – or even less – and a strong gut feeling on mine. (Anyway, I’m not as eloquent as you are.) So, just some thoughts of mine that you may consider or not.

If there should be nothing more about Snape than we have already been told and shown, if book 7 should prove that Snape is exactly what he seems to be most of the time during books 1 to 6, i.e. that he is not at all capable of love (in the “agape” meaning of the word, according to your very good defintion), I don’t expect any postings here at SoG trying to excuse his behaviour and deeds, even so, like:

“Poor Snape … he has always been abused, he never was as famous as James or Harry, Lily didn’t love him … he just had no other choice than to become a Death Eater, to enjoy bullying students, to murder Dumbledore and – of course – to wear dingy underpants for the rest of his life … Don’t blame him, blame his parents, the marauders and the establishment …”

I believe you don’t have to worry that all the Snape-will-prove-to-be-essentially-good-in-the-end believers here are dunderheads like that

Whatever Snape turns out to be or not to be, I am confident that JKR willl have done a great job in the end – and some hard work, too. Either she will explain the 95% mentioned above in a way that makes Harry call Snape “Professor” (alive or dead) voluntarily and respectfully. Or she will prove that it is not necessarily a spoiler to let your most opaque villain explain what he is up to in the second chapter of the penultimate book of the series.

P.S. “Culpable” does not mean “guilty”. In my interpretation JKR said that Snape had a choice and is responsible for whatever choices he made and for their consequenses. No less and no more.

Rena, I interpret JKR’s statement about Snape being even more culpable – in the sense of deserving blame – even than Voldemort as confirmation that Snape did love and was loved, as Voldemort did not and was not. It was the fact that he did experience love, and subsequently betrayed it, either by becoming a Death Eater, or by causing the death of the Potters, that makes him blameworthy. I think JKR’s point is that he should have known better.

As for the object of his affections, there is such a paucity of known candidates (by my reckoning, the Evans sisters and perhaps Madam Rosmerta?!) that it was almost certainly Lily Evans.

In my opinion, the statement about Snape’s culpability has nothing to do with being – or not being – Dumbledore’s man, but with having betrayed his own better nature by turning to evil after having experienced good.

I doubt, myself, given her views of Susan Pevensie, that JKR would discount that love if it was merely lustful eros rather than pure agape. But since she does use the word “culpable”, I would conclude that it was agape, the selfless love that only desires the happiness of the beloved, that Snape experienced. And betrayed.

Hi Matthew,
It seems you are offended, which is unfortunate and was not my intention. My problem is with your argument, not with you.

The remark you have quoted above was made in response to your attempt to draw a sharp distinction between a sadistic person and a sadist. Not only do I not agree with you, but neither does the dictionnary, as I pointed out.

I did not, as you suggest “attack you as ignorant”. I politely pointed out that the attempt to build a semantic argument based on a fallacious distinction was a nonsense. You are clearly an intelligent person and I believe you can do better than that.

Really Matthew, this is not sensible.

Firstly, a thesaurus groups words with related meaning but does not provide definitions, so it is does not provide support for a fine distinction such as you were hoping to make.

Secondly, you have quoted selectively from Encarta, choosing one of the three definitions given (in fact the one least likely to be Rowling’s intended meaning), then dismiss it. Thereby proving nothing.

FWIW, the rest of the Encarta definition, which you chose to omit is:

2. being cruel for fun: the gaining of pleasure from causing physical or mental pain to people or animals

3. cruelty: great physical or mental cruelty

At which point the “flawed arguement (sic)” you refer to is nowhere in sight.

S_B,
That’s exactly what I’m talking about. I used your argument technique of picking one entry from the dictionary to illustrate that you that it is inconclusive to base too much on the Rowling quote.

“I’m afraid we’ll have to disagree – I think the distinction you are making is a contrived one. A sadist is any person who in engages in a sadistic act (morbid enjoyment in inflicting mental or physical pain, according to the closest dictionery). I don’t think that Rowling used the term with some other special (and less significant) meaning.”

“Secondly, you have quoted selectively from Encarta, choosing one of the three definitions given (in fact the one least likely to be Rowling’s intended meaning), then dismiss it. Thereby proving nothing.”

I chose that definition to make the point that there is more than one way to interpret what Rowling was meaning by saying Snape is a sadistic teacher.

I understand what a thesaurus is for and that it is not a dictionary, but in this instance I believe that it is more helpful in understanding what Rowling was meaning.

I am not trying to convince you that you’re wrong. You may well be right. What I am trying to say that there is more ways to interpret the evidence than the stance you’re taking and that lumping everyone who holds a differing view are all coming from the same camp.

Matthew

Matthew, the culpable reference comes from the part three transcript of the July 2005 (post HBP release) interview Rowling did with Emerson and Anelli. The specific question and answer were:

MA: Oh, here’s one [from our forums] that I’ve really got to ask you. Has Snape ever been loved by anyone?

JKR: Yes, he has, which in some ways makes him more culpable even than Voldemort, who never has. Okay, one more each!

There was earlier discussion in the same interview about whether Snape was evil, but this q/a did not follow directly from that.

Dork. You’ve never, when put on the spot, used a word that wasn’t the right word for what you were trying to say? Or used a word hyperbolically? You always use words with their exact, precise dictionary meaning in mind when you’re talking?

Rena, given the question which preceded JKR’s use of the word “culpable”, I think it’s possible that the person who loved Snape might be one of two people: it could be Evans, as I originally suggested. Or it might be his mother, Eileen Prince, who might or might not be Madam Pince, the librarian.

I like the suggestion that the person who loved Snape was actually Lily Evans better, because then his act of betrayal becomes even more reprehensible, and almost certain to lead to remorse if he loved her back.

However, if the person who loved him was his mother, then that highlights one of the chief differences between Snape and Voldemort: Voldemort never knew his mother’s love, because she self-destructed from an overdose of selfish love, eros. Which adds more weight to the observation about not underestimating the power of obsessive love.

But you know what? Merope actually self-destructed only after she gave up her selfish love for her husband, and stopped feeding him the love potion, in the hope that he would love her of his own free will. So it was only after eros turned to agape that she got dumped. Which is a point for Machiavelli, I guess, which is not the message that JKR is trying to give. It’s very sad.

Ah, Snape. The selection of adjectives to describe his behaviour leads to emotionally charged verbal sparring and the consultation of many dictionaries. The moral implications of the colour of his underwear brings up childhood memories of familial laundry habits. If he loved, whom he loved, and who loved him back consumes bytes and bytes of blog space.

Snape. Not a Potions Master, nor a Death Eater, but the 21st century’s first literary Rock Star.

You’re skirting the point over and over again. Do people, or do they not, often use words in casual, on the spot conversation in a way that does not fit their specific dictionary definition? Or, conversely, do people always, in every situation, without fail, use words exactly as they are defined by Webster?

Please spare me the projection nonsense. Fair point about skirting the issue as far as my missing your comment goes. I apologize for overlooking that particular response. What’s maddening to me is that your words make it sound like if we disagree with you, there’s no nuanced position in the middle. Either we accept your dictionary-definition theory, or we’re willy-nilly making up meanings for words with no rhyme or reason whatsoever.

“Dork” was because I thought your post before was a deliberately over the top attempt at humor. It was your sarcasm to which I responded, “Dork.” Trying to keep things light-hearted here is all, hoping your comment #48 wasn’t as bitingly sarcastic as it appeared. Next time I’ll use an emoticon or something, even though I loathe them.

I’m not sure how affirming that one chooses their words carefully and has a command of the language guarantees they never, ever, in any circumstance, ever use a stronger word than they meant to. I make every effort to choose my words carefully, especially about issues I care very deeply about. That doesn’t change the fact that I sometimes use stronger words than I intend to, or use hyperbole, intentional or not. All anyone is arguing here is that it is possible that Rowling does this, too. That was the whole point all along – that there are other possible interpretations, and that simply quoting Rowling and interpreting her words a certain way does not equal the final say on the argument. Again, remember that you’re responding to someone who’s not as convinced as you are, and simply trying to work out all the options.

No one’s trying to twist her words or make up new meanings for words. We’re just arguing that even people who are very careful about their words don’t always use words exactly according to Webster. I can’t believe we’ve gone on for this many comments about this.

We’re at a simple disagreement, I guess.

Comments like these:

However since you and others here don’t, I accept that there is no point in continuing to discuss what her comments mean. They apparently mean whatever you’d like them to

are uncalled for, really. You know full well how much time we all spend here pouring over Rowling’s words and taking them seriously, and “they mean whatever you’d like them to” is the furthest thing from what anyone here has said about that one particular interview. It’s empty rhetoric that doesn’t accurately represent what anyone is trying to say.

I’ve made it very clear in multiple comments throughout this board that I don’t think Rowling has ever said anything in an interview that would give away Snape’s loyalties. So it’s not like I’m randomly deciding, because of what I think about Snape, that Rowling couldn’t literally mean “sadistic,” because hey, that fits my view of Snape better. I’m leaving the option open that she used too strong of a word simply because I honestly don’t think she’s given Snape’s loyalties away. As far as I’m concerned, as I mentioned in this podcast, I think the option is open that Snape is every bit as bad as he seems, and even sadistic in the Webster sense of the word, but loyal to Dumbledore himself for personal reasons. (I’m not sure I think that’s the best view…I’m just working through the options).

Let’s not call it skirting the issue; let’s call it misrepresenting your opponent in order to win the argument. We’ve probably both done this a time or two. Let’s move on without doing it, k?

update: I missed a lot of this thread, got it confused with another, and missed some of the discussion surrounding the word “culpable.” My comments above pertain particularly to the discussion surrounding the word “sadistic.”

s_b, I do agree with you that Rowling’s interview comments are very harsh on Snape, and that they constitute some of the toughest pieces of evidence that us Good!Snape types have to deal with. Ironically, her interview comments tend to be less equivocal than the things we pull out of the text itself.

So I don’t think it’s out of bounds to dissect her comments about “deeply horrible” and “sadistic”, and to wonder whether that’s the whole story on Snape, or if she’s being selective about what she can say without giving anything away. In particular, we should be very suspicious when the text of the books does not support those adjectives as a description of the character.

Seriously_Black,

You remind me first Order of the Fenix: You are outnumbered at least five to one in here.

Anyway, I have something against your case. I you do not mind to have one more duel drop me a line.

Mia, I share your point of view on that. I believe it is the absence of conscience that makes Voldemort what he is. It is interesting what JKR said about Voldemort and about Harry in two different interviews:

“If a psychologist were ever able to get Voldemort in a room, tape him down, take his wand away, I think he would be classified as a psychopath. So there are people for whom redemption is not possible.”
“Harry is guided by his conscience” – “His particular role in the group [ of three friends] is conscience.”

So, there might be a correlation between the experience of love, conscience and culpability?

Doug, like you, I always thought it was just a misleading rumour that Dumbledore thought, the DADA teacher position would “bring out the worst in Snape”. But when I read that interview some time ago, I changed my mind. I think, JKR would not have said that, if it wasn’t true. I re-read the parts of the story, where Dumbledore expresses his trust in Snape, and I came to the conclusion, that it grew year by year, esp. after Voldemort was back. Only at the end of book 6 does Dumbledore say “I am sure. I trust Severus Snape completely”.

But I agree with you that Voldemort’s curse on the DADA post was an important reason for Dumbledore, too.

Reyhan, it looks like the forum accepts standard HTML tags. So you would create italics by typing <i>some text</i>. Similarly bold text is <b>some text</b>.

I forgot to include the closing tag above, which is what messed up the formatting for the rest of my post.

Oh! That html question was just answered a single post before! Oops! Thanks!

And it’s too close to absolving him from responsibilty for his acts. I prefer to look at it from the perspective that there is more hope for redemption for someone who knows that he or she has done wrong, than someone who doesn’t have a sense of right and wrong, only what I can get away with and what I can’t.

Reyhan, I share that view. I didn’t mean to absolve Voldemort from responsibility, he is responsible for the path he has chosen. Nobody forced him to commit murder or to make Horcruxes, deliberately destroying his soul. But I think he’s reached a point where he literally doesn’t know right from wrong any more and has become less culpable than others.

He’s got no insight, he cannot repent. He’s dehumanized himself so much that may even be beyond hope for redemption, like Rowling suggested.

Matthew writes:

“Please help me to understand how you stand on this.”

Seeing as you have asked so nicely, I will try.

First let me say that I find no inconsistency in the passages of mine you have quoted. I am surprised that you do.

Dictionaries purport to document the range of alternate meanings with which a word can be used. There is a judgement to be made about which *of the accepted meanings* applies to a given instance. They are not my dictionaries, not my definitions as you, Travis and others have repeatedly alleged.

I proposed that in using the words “very sadistic”, Rowling meant one of the accepted meanings of sadistic documented in any of several established dictionaries. To support this I offered the dictionary definition (taking pleasure in inflicting suffering) that I thought was the best fit. Another (sexual practices) seemed less relevant so I did not use up space with it. But I was (and am) happy to entertain any reasonable argument that another accepted definition (eg from the same or another dictionary) should be considered equally valid for interpretation of Joe’s words.

You have not done that. Instead, you have done two things:

1. You’ve proposed that Rowling used the word “sadistic” with a meaning which is not among those listed as accepted meanings in any of the dictionaries mentioned so far.

2. You’ve pointed to an accepted meaning (sexual practices) that is *not* a good fit for Rowling’s use of the word, have pointed out that it is not a good fit, and you seem to think that shows either that all the accepted definitions are not a good fit, or that I was remiss in neglecting to cite a definition that, frankly, seems irrelevant to the discussion.

However the fact that one accepted definition does not apply does *not* mean that others do not apply. Alternate definitions are given in dictionaries precisely because one may not always be adequate.

Moreover the fact that *one* accepted definition does not apply also does not indicate that *none* of the accepted definitions apply. Nor does it make it reasonable to begin proposing new meanings that aren’t documented anywhere.

If you would care to cite a credible source that lists the word used in another way that you think is a better fit, I’ll be perfectly happy. If Rowling goes on record (as she has done in other matters) to state that she wants to clarify what she meant because she may have given the wrong impression or chosen the wrong word, then I’ll be perfectly happy too. In the meantime, I’ll continue to believe that the words mean what they are commonly understood to mean (as documented in any of various credible sources), not some other meaning that you or I might ascribe to them on the fly.

So this is not and has never been about me and my definitions, as you and Travis have repeatedly sought to imply. It is about working within reasonable limits of the language rather than inventing our own. The style of debate in which words have mutable meanings is what has been known as Doublespeak since 1984.

You know, “rules” for commenting aren’t a bad idea. I’m going to come up with a list later. But it will start here:

Rule #1: No one will ever, under any circumstance, attempt any psychological evaluation of another commenter. This includes accusations of “projecting,” “avoidance,” or any other such things. Those have no place here.

S_B – I wrote about your “dictionary-definition THEORY” (i.e., the idea that we must use Webster to define every word Rowling uses), not “your definition.” You’re reading that incorrectly.

Though I’ve used them before, I hate emoticons. I will always use them in the future in response to you, however.

You are free to diagnose yourselves, any character in the HP books, and even discuss Rowling a bit (since it’s naturally part of postmodern literary analysis to learn what we can about the author’s intention and psychological makeup). Just no more attacking one another.

Rules are up. Check the sidebar. Rule #1 definitely includes criticissm of the supposed behavior of commenters. S_B, check your email. We deal with this privately from this point forward.

Travis Prinzi ,

1 and 2. If I post a really foolish post, are the others banned to attack my ideas? If so why? I did never mind criticism, that is to the point.
3. How is the question supposed to look like and when to use it?
5. What is PG-level ?
6. Just a though: What if this rule would be in direct conflict we some of other five?

Travis Prinzi,

Some goes for this one.

Plus I think the word “attack” is the most significant word. Attacking is different than critiquing.

Shadowquil,

I guess you might be right. If all the rules meant you just what you have written I do not have any more question.

Rena, I think you are right about Crouch Jr. At the trial, it was obviously unimportant to decide whether he was guilty or not. It was all about propaganda and his father’s career. Not to mention how his father treated him during all those years after his escape from Azkaban. As a teenager, he probably wasn’t the evil person that we’ve seen in GoF. We don’t know, of course, whether he’d helped torture the Longbottoms, in which case he would have deserved punishment.

But delivering him to the Dementors is also some kind of torture, that would deprive almost anyone of their goodness and sanity.

Martin, thanks for your thoughtful responses to the rules. Here are my responses to your questions:

1 & 2: Please feel free to criticize ideas, debate theories, and get plenty fired up about your point of view! Just don’t make people feel stupid in doing so. It’s personal insults and attacks I want to avoid, not healthy debate.

3: If you think someone is being snarky with you or insulting you, or you’re uncertain about what a person is saying, trying to ask questions like, “It sounds like you’re saying X – is that what you’re saying? Or am I reading you incorrectly? Can you clarify your position?” The idea is to give a person a chance to re-word or clarify before jumping down his or her throat. For example, several times on this board, people have assumed that others are ignoring certain points simply because it fits their view better – i.e., deliberately twisting facts to win an argument. Better to say, “Did you understand my point?” Or, “What is your response to when I made this or that comment? I’m not sure you’ve answered that point adequately yet.” Kinder, gentler language.

5. I’m not going to gripe about the occasional “damn” or “hell.” Don’t start dropping F-bombs or taking the Lord’s name in vain.

6. This is an overall principle that I’m encouraging rather than a rule, really. Bring the Golden Rule into your conversation. That’s the idea.

I know that rules can make things complicated, and that this can be very subjective. But there are people like myself who are very inclined towards “thick skin” type of debates – including harsh words and insults. I want to keep myself from that and others as well. Thick skin debates have their place. This blog is not it.

I’ve started to read Rowling’s interviews several months ago and take her comments into consideration. I’m not ignoring them but the books are still my primary source of information and my view of the different characters is mainly based on that. It is interesting to learn how the author interprets them and where she’s coming from.

My main concern is what the overall message will be. For example, will it prove right to trust people who have failed and to give them another chance? The Ministry obviously doesn’t believe in second chances and we’ve seem the outcome in Barty Jr.’s development. That’s one reason why I hope that Dumbledore made the right decision with Snape. I wouldn’t want to think that he’d been better off in Azkaban in the first place.

It would somehow send out the message that people don’t change and that trust doesn’t bring out the best in them.

Mia, I feel the same way as you. After the events on the Astronomy tower, it seems to be the message that trust doesn’t pay off in the end. Harry and all his allies, having heard his story, believe that Dumbledore was wrong (at least those who talked about it). Even Lupin. And so do most of the readers, I think.

Maybe I suffer from lack of imagination, but I can’t see any positive and satisfying message (from my point of view), if Dumbledore was wrong in trusting Snape – considering that he accepted responsibility for whatever Snape did with his second chance. I can’t believe that JKR would want us to see Dumbledore as starry-eyed or just too good for this world. And I can’t imagine how she could manage to avoid messages like these:
[Barty Crouch Jr.:] “But me – I say there are spots that don’t come off, Snape.”
[Dumbledore:] “I acted exactly as Voldemort expects we fools who love to act.”
[Voldemort:] “But nothing I have seen in the world has supported your famous pronouncements that love is more powerful than my kind of magic, Dumbledore.”
[Harry:] “Dumbledore’s inexcusable trust in Snape”

Reyhan, I didn’t understand the second part of #92, but I would like to catch the meaning. Did you mean, that even if Dumbledore was wrong (in trusting Snape?), the message would be “that goodness and love and faith will conquer over evil and selfishness”? If so, how do you think this could work?

Reyhan, I like your idea that in the long term, good will win out. But to me, for the outcome of this particular story, it does matter very much whether Snape is good, evil, or Machiavellian. In a way, he’s the pivotal character. And I’m not sure if it’s a good thing to trust a person who may be completely untrustworthy, and to let a higher magic work it out. It would seem rather irresponsible, in my opinion, and Dumbledore should have known better.

I’d say that Bart Crouch Jr.’s (disguised as Mad-Eye) statement about how there are “spots that never come off”, taunting Snape and causing Snape to involuntarily grasp his arm, really emphasizes the theme of redemption.

Reyhan, it’s a beautiful idea, but I don’t believe that goodness is always returned by goodness. Dumbledore could have trusted Snape as much as he wanted, if it didn’t change him during the 15 or so years he lived with him, it probably won’t influence him to make a good decision at some crucial point in the future.

I don’t think that Dumbledore trusted Snape in a “Zen-way” or based on some spiritual belief or principle, but because he was absolutely convinced of his repentance and had an ironclad reason for it.

Reyhan, thank you so much for explaining. I think I understand what you mean and I like it very much. Dumbledore did believe in those good forces when he told Harry: “In the end, it mattered not that you could not close your mind. It was your heart that saved you.” Harry didn’t learn Occlumency, although Dumbledore repeatedly insisted that it was the most important thing for him to do. But his love was more powerful than any magical skill could have been.

I think these forces also work in the opposite direction for someone who underestimates or ignores them continually. Voldemort is possibly bound to vanquish himself rather than being killed by somebody, and will thus lose what he most desired: immortality. By using any means for achieving his goal, he destroys his soul, his very vehicle for immortality. (However, I always have problems with the idea that a soul should be destroyable at all.)

I have to admit that I am a bit obsessed by the idea that Snape just has to turn out to be good at heart. That makes it difficult for me to imagine his being evil could lead to some good. But, who knows? Dumbledore trusted Lupin, who – in some way – betrayed his trust, but later regretted to have done so and decided to trust in reply.

Anyhow, I completely agree with you, that the message will be “that goodness and love and faith will conquer over evil and selfishness”. And this is even more important if we realize that we don’t have to be wizards and witches to make it come true, because every muggle is capable of these virtues.

Rena, I too believe that Snape is working for the forces of good, albeit driven by his own guilt and rage. I just wanted to make the point that there are many ways to the same end, that end being Dumbledore´s faith in any of the assorted people he has shown mercy for bringing about the triumph of good over evil.

One other way is if a character who has been primarily evil makes a decision to do the right thing at a given point, thus tipping the balance. This could be Wormtail, or Draco. Another way is when an evil character does an evil deed, which backfires on him – along the lines of Gollum´s actions at Mt. Doom.

I do know that goodness will triumph over evil, because it can´t not, not in this story. The worst that will happen, I believe, is that victory will come at a cost. Good people, whom we love, will die.

Mrs. W,
For smiley, just type a colon and a right paranthese.

Rena,
I noticed the same thing about the lockets. I, too, am confused. Are they supposed to be the same locket? It has to be, or it wouldn’t make sense. Someone goofed, I guess.

No, if you type that in, the goofy yellow one will come. : )

Meant no disrespect to you, Mrs. W. Just didn’t explain myself well to you. The keyboard smiley transforms into the yellow one automatically on this website.