by Travis
This is not an academic essay. It contains random musings, and I welcome all comments, questions, and declarations of heresy.
In many ways, my 6 year detour from English and literature studies into Theology prepared me well to be able to handle the fringe Christian response to the Harry Potter series, but put me worlds behind others in terms of literary analysis. I think I’ve managed to contribute some to this realm of thought, but having spent six years vigorously studying theology left no time for catching up on the classics. So as the rest of the world talked about Snape and Heathcliff, I just avoided those conversations…because I had not yet read Wuthering Heights.
Having just finished it, then, I can finally say something. To whatever extent Heathcliff inspired Snape, it helps explain why Rowling struggles to call him a hero. Fandom’s obsession with Snape has been a bit on the scary side, though I do believe there are some deeply spiritual reasons for this. Nevertheless, I’ve always shared Rowling’s surprise at how many people did not loathe, but love Snape. She wrote an awful, nasty man – a man very similar to Heathcliff, for sure. And Heathcliff is hardly a hero. Can we even say he’s an anti-hero? It’s difficult to even go there, because what, exactly, did the man ever do for the cause of good or out of selflessness? His obsession with Cathy was the dominating factor in his life, just as Snape’s obsession with Lily was for him.
Snape is more of a hero the Heathcliff, because when the moment came that Dumbledore’s plan began to be unveiled, and Snape realized he was not doing what he was doing to “protect Lily’s son,” but to bring about the downfall of Voldemort with the sacrifice of that son, he remained faithful to the plan. Even before that, some form of genuine repentance brought him to the point of being will to undergo significant person risk to turn away from Voldemort. His obsession with Lily had taught him some self-sacrificial love, after all. I think it would be hard to say this about Heathcliff.
The anti-hero character is enjoying tremendous popularity at the present, not least on my favorite TV show, House, M.D. Hugh Laurie has won two well-deserved Golden Globe awards for his portrayal of Doctor Gregory House, sarcastic, selfish anti-hero whose bitterness comes from – you guessed it – the loss of the one he loved when he lost some muscle tissue in his leg and underwent dangerous surgery.
What does the anti-hero teach us – at least Snape and House? Whence this popularity? I think at the root of it is hope of redemption. The anti-hero taps into two fundamental questions about human redemption: (1) What of the person for whom life has been unreasonably difficult, who does not have the same resources for love that others have? (2) What of those who have fallen desperately from grace, so far into bitterness that redemption seems impossible? The anti-hero answers those questions; possibility of redemption remains, even if the path there might be exceedingly difficult.
The fundamental difference I see between Snape and Heathcliff is that Bronte seems to have set her story in a world devoid of God altogether. The only references to the Christian religion in the book paint a picture of judgmental hypocrites, and the only tangible picture of afterlife are frightening ghosts who conjure visions of bleeding on a window sill, and walk the moors at night. Perhaps Bronte meant to tell us that she believes Heathcliff’s reunion with Cathy was his redemption; perhaps, indeed, it was. But Rowling gives us a bigger picture than that. Snape comes to realize the value of self-sacrificial love itself through his love of Lily. Heathcliff seems to be eternally united to the obsession that made him such a villain to begin with. (We’ll have to stay tuned on Tuesdays at 9pm EST to find out what happens with House.)
Minerva on 
Beth on 
Arabella Figg on 
korg20000bc on 
revgeorge on 
Loading ...
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }
Delving into my deep, english literature focused academic background, an interesting idea has emerged. I think we need to consider how Snape is nothing like Heathcliff the cat or the character Hugh Laurie plays in the movie Stuart Little.
Let the controversial discussion begin.
Sean, that’s some really piercing analysis right there. I should have just let you write this post.
Agree that Snape is a much more worthwhile human being than Heathcliff who not only doesn’t do anything commendable, he actively conspires to bring down the two families, the Earnshaws and the Lintons, whom he holds responsible for the loss of Catherine Earnshaw. He treats everyone in his power brutally – Isabella, his son Linton, Hareton, and the young Catherine. He has no redeeming qualities whatsoever except for the fact that he loves Catherine always.
Does that redeem him?
I don’t think so. Bronte writes him as a man who neither asks for nor earns redemption. All he wants is Catherine, and that denied, revenge. The only break in his obsession occurs at the end, just before his death, when he sees his relationship with Catherine reborn in the new generation.
I think that Bronte writes a much harsher story than JKR, an amazingly brutal story for anyone of that age to write, let alone a girl who grew up in a vicarage. It is clearly not written for children.
So although Heathcliffe’s obsessive love for his Catherine is a progenitor of Snape’s obsessive love for Lily, the character arcs are not very similar.
But Sean brings up a very interesting albeit tangential point. Wuthering Heights was written in the early 19th century, and for most of the last century its hero was the epitome of the brooding, dark, Byronic romantic hero. Now it is best known to the present generation of young adults as the name of a cartoon cat.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
What does this tell us about what the future holds for Harry Potter? Once the copyright has expired, what product do you think Harry’s name will be used to hawk?
Reyhan,
People will probably think that “Harry” has something to do with the British royal family. Heathcliff, I’m sure, was a name in common usage before Bronte used it. But I agree, when I hear “Heathcliff” I always think of Kate Bush and…
“Out on the wiley, windy moors
We’d roll and fall in green.
You had a temper like my jealousy
Too hot, too greedy.
How could you leave me,
When I needed to possess you?
I hated you. I loved you, too.
Bad dreams in the night
You told me I was going to lose the fight,
Leave behind my wuthering, wuthering
Wuthering Heights.
Heathcliff, it’s me, your Cathy, I’ve come home. I´m so cold,
let me in-a-your window
Heathcliff, it’s me, your Cathy, I’ve come home. I´m so cold,
let me in-a-your window.
Ooh, it gets dark! It gets lonely,
On the other side from you.
I pine a lot. I find the lot
Falls through without you.
I’m coming back, love,
Cruel Heathcliff, my one dream,
My only master.
Too long I roamed in the night.
I’m coming back to his side, to put it right.
I’m coming home to wuthering, wuthering,
Wuthering Heights,
Heathcliff, it’s me, your Cathy, I’ve come home. I’m so cold,
let me in-a-your window.
Heathcliff, it’s me, your Cathy, I’ve come home. I’m so cold,
let me in-a-your window.
Ooh! Let me have it.
Let me grab your soul away.
Ooh! Let me have it.
Let me grab your soul away.
You know it’s me–Cathy!
Heathcliff, it’s me, your Cathy, I’ve come home. I´m so cold,
let me in-a-your window
Heathcliff, it’s me, Cathy, I’ve come home. I´m so cold,
let me in-a-your window.
Heathcliff, it’s me, your Cathy, I’ve come home. I’m so cold.”
Matthew
Returning to the theme of redemption, I agree that the anti-hero does present us with the the theme of hope and reconciliation for someone who has fallen from grace, for someone who is angry, embittered, a sinner, an outcast or an outsider. Sydney Carton, of course, is an excellent example of that, an alcoholic wastrel whose life is redeemed through his love and sacrifice for Lucy Manette.
From that perspective, I agree that Heathcliff couldn’t even be considered an anti-hero. Except that he is clearly an object of fascination and some attraction, if we can go by the actors who’ve portrayed him: Laurence Olivier, Timothy Dalton, Ralph Fiennes, a who’s who of dark, brooding romantic leading men.
One of the most intersting observations about the character comes from the author herself, who famously declared: “I am Heathcliff.” It is understood that an author contains all of her creations, but it’s a puzzling statement. Which aspects of Heathcliff did Bronte resonate to: the sense of being an outsider? the disregard for moral laws? the bitterness and vengefullness? the contempt for those weaker than him, the cruelty and the blatant sadism? the obsessive love? the yearning for what he could not have?
I think that the common ground with Snape is described in the only word he ever utters about his love for Lily Evans: always. That is where he and Heathcliff are the same; in their hopeless and eternal passion for one woman.
Which, if you think about it, could be quite a turn on for a woman, absent the yellow teeth and greasy hair (Snape) and the contempt and cruelty (Heathcliff).
Snape is also important as a hero because we are meant to see that people who are not nice or beautiful can be noble in their actions.
We all make assumptions on how people look, and I think Snape’s personal description reminds us of the scripture’s message that man sees what is external, but only God sees what is in one’s heart. Snape has some very important characteristics that God values: he is truthful, loving,brave and loyal.
I also think that we,as Christians, really don’t believe, a lot of times, in the full reality that people can change and be redeemed in their behaviour.
I believe C.S. Lewis once wrote something along the lines of the following: only God can appreciate how difficult, how courageous, the acts of an individual may be.
Remember, Satan is described as being very deceptive, often appearing as a beautiful Prince of Light, while the Christ, as described in Isaiah, has a face so marred, so distorted with pain and beatings, that all turn away from him.
Again, in the distorted teeth, in the unkempt appearance, I see a man who was never valued, never loved, and yet manages to love enough to die in his mission for one who hates him.
One further note. I used to watch HOUSE, and I agree that Hugh Laurie is a wonderful actor. But I got tired of all Dr. H.’s whining and complaining, and no longer watch it. The character never grew. That is something else I liked about Snape. He endured a lot of mistrust, insults and dislike, but he was not a whiner; he never complained about his own sufferings.
Mary, oh no! When did you stop watching? After two seasons of absolute darkness for House, this season is different, and there’s definitely some interesting character stuff happening with House.
I had tried to read Wuthering Heights twice before I finally managed to get passed the first 50 pages. My reaction after I finished a few years ago was the same reason I’d not finished before–I didn’t like any of the characters. They were all selfish and self-absorbed and mean-spirited–especially Heathcliff. Turning an obsessive, unhealthy love into revenge was just not something I liked reading. So to compare Snape to Heathcliff is something I can’t do. Snape had his faults, obviously, but if he had really been like Heathcliff he would never have joined with Dumbledore to bring about the end of Voldemort.
I think, as reyhan pointed out, that Snape is much more like Sydney Carton, who was also obsessed with love, but who died to save her and her family, and found redemption in his final act of love. Reading the end of Carton’s life, like reading the end of Snape’s, had me in tears and wishing that they had found more contentment in their lives. I was not moved to tears at any point in Wuthering Heights–I was just glad to be done with it, and with all the characters.
That’s actually rather disturbing to think that anyone would describe herself as being Heathcliff–on any level. (I much her sister’s book, “Jane Eyre”, which had it’s own dark, brooding character, but transformed by love and redeemed.)
Pat
Oops–should say:
I much prefer her sister’s book. . .
Sorry.
Mary Jo Neyer,
It’s true! People make assumptions about another’s character based on their appearance all the time. People have crossed the road to avoid my frightening visage when all the while I am a gentle, peace loving individual.
You write:
“We all make assumptions on how people look, and I think Snape’s personal description reminds us of the scripture’s message that man sees what is external, but only God sees what is in one’s heart. Snape has some very important characteristics that God values: he is truthful, loving,brave and loyal.”
I don’t think its Snape’s physical discription that makes us think he’s not nice. Its his lying to, mockery and bullying of children and others that confirm that he is not nice. Snape is truthful? at times. Loving? Extremely selectively. Brave? Big tick there, but also very cowardly. Loyal? Only when kept to it.
I found CS Lewis’ writing about bravery very interesting. Someone’s actions may seem like not much to others but in reality, given their situation and history, are acts of extreme bravery.
Matthew
I find Mary Jo’s scripture message very apt and I don’t think it refers just to how people look, but also to their outward behavior. There’s a lot of good in Snape’s heart, but he doesn’t want others to see it.
I liked Wuthering Heights as a novel, but felt very little compassion for any of the characters, least of all Heathcliff, while I could sympathize with Snape very much. There are some similarities between the two, especially as children, but the adult Snape isn’t nearly as brutal and vengeful as Heathcliff. Snape tries to save people’s lives, while Heathcliff drives them into despair and death.
The nature of their relationships with Lily/ Cathy is also different, I think. Heathcliff and Cathy have some kind of symbiotic love-hate relationship, and they see each other as soul mates. Snapes love was unrequited,, but there was some genuine friendship between Lily and him.
The obsessive love in Wuthering Heights is destructive, while in HP love has a life-giving, redeeming quality. Cathy’s death somehow brings out the worst in Heathcliff, while Lily’s death brings out the best in Snape. He’s not a good person, in many respects, but at least he tries to do the right thing.
I was always taught in school that WUTHERING HEIGHTS was the greater “artistic” novel, and that JANE EYRE was very middle class. But I decided long ago that I must be very middle class, because I really didn’t like WUTHERING HEIGHTS-I could never finish it. I could never see Heathcliff as a hero at all.
Now, JANE EYRE is a book I have read many times, always with a great deal of pleasure, and Rochester is a wonderful,dark, brooding but redeemed hero, in my middle class opinion.
I think others have hit the nail on the head here: Heathcliff really isn’t supposed to be a hero. The novel is dark and difficult from start to finish. I never liked a single character in the story either, but I don’t deny it’s a well-written story and a chilling picture of a “world without God,” and world dominated by selfish people with only lingering echoes of a very legalistic religion.
Mary Jo,
Rochester’s “redemption” is a red button topic for me. I shall expound later if anyone’s interested. Have to go now.
I liked both Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights, but in different ways. One is an engrossing novel, it tells an interesting story, a mystery story in parts, has a dashing, mysterious hero, and is also a classic Cinderella story. Pretty Woman on the moor. Bad things happen to people, and there is suffering, but there is also the happy ending.
The other is a tale of forbidden passion that destroys everything and everyone around it. What Heathcliff and Cathy feel is larger than any constraint of kindness, loyalty, family or friendship. It is lawless. It even transcends death.
It’s not a book to curl up with. It’s a book that inspires awe mixed with horror and repulsion – I will never, ever forget the image of Lockwood rubbing Cathy’s wrist on the broken window pane. Or Heathcliff’s plea at that same open window.
I don’t think I would say the one book is better than the other. They aim for different places in the mind and the heart.
I want to contrast HOUSE a moment with HP. I believe I am older than most of the others who participate in this discussion. I am the mother of 9 children, 6 boys and 3 girls. My oldest entered the teenager years in 1992, and since then I have been struggling to raise intelligent, Christian teens in an increasingly vulgar, unintelligent media world. Another reason that I stopped watching HOUSE is because of the promiscuous sexual behaviour of all of its characters. It is so very hard to find an intelligent show or book which does not portray sex very casually. Another example is NUMBERS, an intelligent TV show which I used to enjoy watching with my teens, but the sexual content of the show has been increasing as of late, so that my husband and I cringe with a lot of its content.
JKR’s world is unique in that it is intelligent, thoughtful, exciting, and deals with deep questions of real love, loyalty, betrayal, etc., without once ever treading into sexual vulgarity.
The only similar movie/book I can think of that interested my teens, and shared the same values, was LOTR, and LOTR was a lot harder to read for the younger children.
I think only a parent who has had to endure the wasteland of the last20 years or so in movies,TV and literature can really appreciate why parents such as myself are so very grateful to JKR.
I might want to ask what the reason is for the portrayal of such promiscuity, and what the consequences are, in House.
I don’t watch House enough to say anything about the consequences. However, the reason? Ratings. And high ratings mean more exposure for the advertisers which means more money.
Sad commentary on the fare on television, but I really do think that’s it. About 5 to 10 years ago I remember hearing someone talk about that very thing; the ratings wars are in November and some month in the spring so we can expect to see more language, violence and sex or sexual inuendo in TV shows during ratings week.
I find myself wishing that they’d bring back the sitcoms of the 50s and early 60s–I Love Lucy, The Dick Van Dyke Show, and the earlier Carol Burnett variety shows. They were funny, families could watch together and parents didn’t have to explain the shows later or wish that they’d not watched.
I spent more time in the 80s and 90s explaining to our then teenage daughters why I didn’t want them watching most of the stuff on TV. I gave in on the Friday night shows–Full House and the others. But I watched with them, and then we could talk about some of the questionable things the characters did or said.
Mary Jo, you’re ahead of me in the number of children–we just have two daughters–but it sounds like ours are are about the same age as yours–my oldest just turned 29 and the youngest will be 26 in February. (And I’m double the age of the oldest one–ouch.)
Pat
I guess my point is: what is being communicated by the way sex is talked about on House? Certainly there is sexual humor (some of which is actually amusing…), and some of this is inappropriate. And I also agree with Pat that some of this is done for ratings.
But House carries with it underlying themes of forgiveness vs. bitterness, faith vs. atheism, grace vs. legalism. I’d be willing to bet there’s a Christian on the writing team for House.
(just wanted to express my appreciation for this site and the postings here; i really enjoyed perusing them; thank you to all who make this site possible. i also appreciated Mary Jo’s Nov. 23 post; although i am not a parent i rarely watch network t.v. and have never seen either of the series she mentioned. for the same reasons she mentioned.)
I found House’s use of prostitutes very distasteful. It is not presentedin a glamorous way, but still, it is presented as a reality which my 14 year old does not need to see. Also, when the young woman doctor started the loveless affair with the doctor with the British accent, I had had enough.
Wishing for the good old days when sex was not discussed, let alone shown, on television may be a double edged sword.
If you remember the Dick Van Dyke show, you’ll remember that Rob and Laura had twin beds. The reason: showing a double bed might suggest that the couple actually had …sex! If you remember the I Love Lucy show, you’ll remember that when Lucille Ball was pregnant, no one was allowed to use that word because it would suggest that at some point Lucy and Desi had had … sex! And remember the brouhaha over showing Barbara Eden’s navel? Reason being the navel was … sexually suggestive?
There was a sitcom in which the characters had some fun with the movie code from the 40’s or 50’s which dictated that whenever a couple was seen on a bed, at least one foot each should be on the floor, to avoid the suggestion that they were having …sex!
I’m not saying tv should be a free for all. Our seven year old watches whatever he wants – from amongst five or six satellite channels all screened to make sure there is no sexual material beyond an adolescent kiss. There is no violence involving live actors either, although the violence on something like Sponge Bob is, if you think about it, horrifying.
I just don’t think the 50s and 60s, which showed a world incredibly divorced from reality, is the answer either.
What is and is not appropriate for a 14 year old is, of course, a matter of parental wisdom and teen development and maturity. The actual use of the prostitutes in the show demonstrated just how far House had fallen, and what the consequences are of his kind of bitterness.
Cameron’s loveless affair with Chase (Australian accent) was troubling. But it was also shown to be vapid and pointless, in my opinion. It ruined a friendship entirely until the end of the season.
It especially bothered me that the prostitutes were college girls earning their way through college. I have daughters who are college age, and they tell me that a lot of girls there think sex is something that is just casual. I felt that these scenes might only encourage such attitudes.
Warning: has anyone else seen BEOWULF? I
went to see it with my 14 year old and my 24 year old boys. We saw it in 3D, and found the story incredibly distorted. It seems to have some anti-Christian content, and I found it awkward to see frequent scenes of a totally naked Angelina Jolie, who is a totally different mother of Grendel than that described by the original author. She is a drawing, of course, but a very accurate drawing of a naked woman.
I just got off the phone from talking with a friend who is not an active Christian, who took her 15 year old to see it, and she had a very similar reaction to mine. So I would not advise anyone to see this movie until they have read the original story.
Of course, there are the unintentional funny things: only Hollywood could show a Viking ship in full sail in a raging storm, with warriors totally clad in heavy armor while rowing through the raging waves, or horses galloping down a snowy hill, or Beowulf dying to save his mistress and wife.
Reyhan,
Further to your comments about sex being a taboo issue on TV, I have read that The Addams Family (one of my favorite show) was deliberately the antithesis of the average American family of the time. That included how romantically attached Gomez and Morticia were and their physical affection for each other!
Matthew
Yes, I read the same interpretation. I guess it was ok for Gomez and Morticia because they were Gothic monsters, and thus unlikely to be seen as role models. Their affectionate behaviour would be construed just as bizarre as everything else about them and their show.
BTW, I loved that show too. And it was because of Gomez and Morticia. They carried themselves with such style and panache that we were willing to do the suspension of disbelief thing. Sort of like with Johnny Depp in his movies. Have you ever seen his off the wall CIA agent in Once Upon a Time in Mexico?
I have come very late to this discussion and come never having read Wuthering Heights or watched House. I do know the story of Wuthering Heights though and cannot see Heathcliff as a hero in any sense. He seems to have more in common with the Phantom in Phantom of the Opera. Both characters have tragic starts to their lives but do not grow beyond them in any way but rather spread their darkness into other lives. I suppose you can argue that the Phantom at least lets Christine go but that does not elevate him to a hero.
Snape however does turn from his betrayal of the Potters and dedicates the rest of is life to penance for that ’sin’. He is the pivotal character of the books around whom the entire plot swings. Harry is the hero of the light, but without his dark counterpart in Snape who lives and dies in the shadows, he could not have survived long enough or succeeded in his defeat of Voldemort.
Karen, I did finally read Wuthering Heights after trying two different times many years apart. I don’t know that I would have finished it except that I had a horrible case of bronchitis and just sat (and coughed a lot) for about a month.
I know some really like the book and the characters, but by the end, I didn’t like one single character in the whole book–either too nasty (Heathcliff) or too weak (many of them) or too coniving (several there also). I never could figure out why that’s considered such a great love story, with such a manipulating horrible person as Heathcliff. Nothing heroic or admirable about him, and his poor start in life doesn’t excuse it. No, the Phantom isn’t much better except as you said, he lets Christine go.
I have watched House, and have found some of the episodes interesting, but I can’t like the character. Underneath all that sarcasm, I’m not sure he does have any redeeming qualities.
And as you said, Snape does repent his life with the Death Eaters and try to do what is right, even though he’s never able to forgive James or forgive Harry for looking like his father. I think one of the important things about Snape is that in the end, he finds that Dumbledore not only used him for his own purposes, but also used Harry. Even though Snape has no particular fondness for Harry, he sees it as very cruel. Yet even knowing that, Snape goes ahead with the plan and ensures that Harry gets the information that he needs to put an end to Voldemort. To me, that says that he really had changed. As you said, without Snape, Harry wouldn’t have been able to defeat Voldemort.
I don’t know about House, but I don’t think that Heathcliff would have remained true to the plan if he felt he had been betrayed–he, instead, would have taken matters into his own hands to control and seek vengence for being sorely mistreated.
Pat
Karen and Pat, thanks for reviving this conversation! It dovetails nicely with the antihero discussion we’ve been having. Several thoughts:
Agreed that Heathcliff is a nasty, awful guy, and worse than Snape is so many ways. I really like Wuthering Heights, but mostly for the tragedy of it all; it’s a cold, grim picture of a world where God has ceased to mean anything to the people in it.
House – See, this is the reason I love House so much. There are redeeming qualities there, but the show’s producers are being very, very patient with that character. We only get fleeting glimpses of it. All around him, his friends and colleagues are shouting at him to understand grace (Wilson actually uses the term “grace” during Season 1), and he plays the skeptic who underneath it all is miserable.
I’m not as convinced of Snape’s repentance as many people are – even Harry, perhaps. That’s a big statement, but there it is. He definitely turned away from being a Death Eater, but this was primarily an act of, as Karen says, penance for having played a role in Lily’s death. But I have a lot of doubt that he ever learned to love as Lily loved. In the Dumbledore/Snape conversation about Dumbledore “using” Snape, I don’t see Dumbledore as the bad guy. What choice did Dumbledore have other than to do exactly what he did? Dumbledore didn’t make Harry a horcrux. Yet Snape, confronted with the boy’s inevitable fate, thinks only of himself and his lifelong obsession with Lily Potter (“For him? Expecto Patronum!” – meaning, NO, I don’t care about the boy in the least!). Lily would not have been pleased.
I don’t disagree with you about Snape never really learning to love. If he had, he would have been able to see the good that was in Harry. Actually, I found that disappointing because I thought that Rowling would take Snape to the point of being able to forgive those past wrongs, even if only grudgingly. But she didn’t get him there.
And I don’t necessarily see Dumbledore as the bad guy. As you said, what choice did he have. But I think that Snape, in that conversation, saw Dumbledore as a bad guy in that he used Snape’s remorse to his advantage and used Harry, who was little more than a child.
All three of them were heroes in their own part that they played in defeating Voldemort, but all three are flawed characters: Snape, because of his inability to love anyone but Lily, Dumbledore because of his mistakes as a youth that prevented him from ever fully trusting himself, and Harry because he, like all of us, was not perfect. By comparison to the other two, Harry’s mistakes were minor, but they could have been the undoing of the plan to defeat Voldemort at any point along the way.
I’m still thinking about this one, but right now I have to finish my packing as we are leaving for home in a few hours. I’ll come back to it later.
Pat
Travis,
Dumbledore and Snape ultimately suffered the same fate: they loved very deeply, but their love was flawed – selfish actually – and because of that they hurt the ones they loved.
Snape’s failure is easier to see: because his love was selfish, he did not think of Lily’s happiness, only his own. And in doing so, he inadvertantly but inevitably betrayed her. What he felt afterwards was remorse, which interestingly comes from the Latin word remordere, which means “the act of biting again.” In modern idiom, what he did came back to bite him. Repentance? That’s slightly different, involving regret, a change of attitude, and an attempt to make contrition. Snape felt regret, and tried to make amends to Lily by keeping her son safe, and also changed his ways, but did his attitude towards people change? Not much. I agree with you there. He remained a misanthrope. But in the words of Meatloaf, two out of three ain’t bad.
I would argue that Dumbledore’s love for Grindelwald was in some ways like Snape’s for Lily: he did not care about the consequences to others – at least until they came back to bite him. He felt remorse, changed his ways, tried to make amends by protecting Muggles. But did he change in his heart? Did he learn unselfish love?
I don’t think so.
There is no doubting his love for Harry. But did his love lead him to act in a loving way, thinking of the best interests of the boy? You say that he had no choice, that he wasn’t the one who made Harry a horcrux. True enough. But suspecting what he did, and with growing certainty towards the end, did he tell the boy what his choices were, what defeating Voldemort entailed? Did he level with him? Did he trust him?
No, no and no.
You could argue that it was a failure to trust rather than a failure of love that kept him from telling Harry the truth. That it was his lifelong tendency to keep his cards very close to his chest. But if the failure to trust ends up hurting the one you love, then
I think the failure to trust is also a failure of love.
And it wasn’t just once – throughout all of Harry’s fifth year, he kept him at arm’s length, refusing to give him the one piece of information that would have ended Harry’s confusion and fear: Voldemort is trying to mess with your mind so you can lead him to the prophecy.
I think that Dumbledore didn’t tell Harry the truth because he was afraid to tell him. He was afraid that the truth would be too much for him. And what was the result? Endless nightmares, alienation and terror in OotP, endless hanging around in tents trying to figure out what was expected of him in DH.
I am very sympathetic with Aberforth’s analysis of the situation: those whom Dumbledore loves, beware.
To my mind, the old deceiver has one true moment of grace in the whole saga: when he admits to Harry at King’s Cross that Harry is a better man than he is.
To be honest, I think that Dumbledore’s character was at least partially plot driven. The HP saga is also a mystery story, and it defeats the suspense if you show all your cards too soon. Dumbledore had to withold the truth for the story to work. But I also think that JKR found a very compelling and credible reason for Dumbledore’s deceptiveness.
reyhan, I think I can agree with most of that. I’m hesitant on a few things. I’m more than half-inclined to think that Dumbledore was actually correct to think that Harry would have lost his head had he had all the information Dumbledore had, which makes the whole situation a lot stickier. Harry was, indeed, the “better man,” but his hot head was still a major issue.
It is interesting to consider the extent to which Dumbledore’s character was plot-driven. Plot-driven, or presenting a genuine ethical dilemma?
Travis & Reyhan,
I think you’re both right to some extent. Not having read Wuthering Heights or watching House, I can’t comment on those things as it relates to Snape, but there are a few other things.
There is certainly a difference between regret & repentance. It’s kind of like the old Catholic defintion of attrition & contrition. Attrition is being sorry for what you’ve done because you got caught or because you’re suffering the negative consequences of what you did. Contrition is sorrow over what you actually did. It’s, in a sense, a sorrow that takes responsibility for the actions committed & a desire to struggle against your sins. This is, again in a sense, what repentance is, a turning away from what you have done.
Now, being repentant doesn’t mean you automatically become a perfect person or that you never fall prey to the same temptations or sins again. But it does indicate a desire to change & an attempt to change & struggle against your old sins & temptations. It’s also something that can’t necessarily been seen by the naked eye but taken on faith.
And so here’s where I think the difference comes in between Snape & Dumbledore & where I still have questions about Snape. In that regard, I’m in agreement with Travis.
Dumbledore, for all his faults & his continued deceptive behavior, I think truly was repentant. That is, he started turning away from himself & started caring for other people. His goal was to help other people by defeating Voldemort. He certainly didn’t instantaneously & magically change into a perfect person, but his desires & motivations changed. And I think it can be said that he really did love Harry & desire the best for him, even though he still hid things from him & manipulated him. But which of us hasn’t hid things from loved ones & comforted ourselves with the idea that we were doing it for their good, to protect them from harm? All love between human beings is going to be deficient in some regard.
Here’s my problem with Snape: I don’t think his love for Lily, if we can call it that, changed him at all. At least not inside, not where it would truly count for his own healing & well being. His actions may have changed but his motivations never did. And his motivation was his selfish, regretful, obsessive love for Lily.
His response truly was attrition, that is, he was sorry for the bad things that happened to him because of what he had done. And everything he did was in pursuit of that feeling, to always assuage his inner guilt of being the one who caused Lily’s death. It was always really about him & his ‘love’ for Lily. Never about anyone else. Never something that changed his attitude towards others.
One could say that he perhaps couldn’t show a different face to the world, because of his role as spy, but yet here’s the thing that makes me think he never changed in his attitude toward anyone, as Travis mentioned, when Snape says, “For him?” And the answer is NO, not for him or anyone else in this whole world but only for my ‘love’ of Lily. In the end, it was all about him & his ‘love.’
And yet, through his selfishness & his desire to assuage his own guilt over his actions, great good came. And here’s where I think we can start looking at Snape as someone other than in typical terms of “is he a hero or an antihero or a villain or a whatever.”
Snape does all he does & he acts heroically & bravely all for the wrong reasons. But yet good comes out of it. Others are redeemed by his actions, even if he himself is never redeemed.
I’d most closely align Snape, not with Heathcliffe or House but with Gollum. Gollum does all he does out of selfish lust for the One Ring. He even does things that go against his nature, helping the Hobbits & guiding them & looking out for them, all because of his desire for the Ring. And in the end he saves the day by his act of treachery & violence against Frodo on Mount Doom. He intends to do none of this but yet despite all his selfishness & wrongness, Sauron is defeated.
I kind of look at Snape in a similar way. All he does is for his memory of Lily & nobody else & yet through it the Dark Lord is defeated.
revgeorge,
I do agree with a lot of what you say, especially the part about Dumbledore’s love: all love amongst human beings is deficient, to a certain extent.
Interesting that you conclude that Snape acted heroically and bravely for the wrong reasons and you draw the comparison to Gollum. Technically, yes, they did have extraneous motives in what they did. But I think the similarity stops there.
In Snape’s case, his motive per se is not “wrong”: he wants to keep Harry safe. Do we really care why someone helps someone, as long as it’s not hurtful to them? And it’s not a means to an end, unless you can count the need to assuage his guity conscience over Lily. And being motivated by a guilty conscience is actually a good thing – it leads us to make amends.
Gollum, on the other hand, mostly helps Frodo because of the Ring. He wants the Ring for himself. And he is quite willing to lead Frodo to his death so he can get the Ring.
Put it slightly differently: Snape only “wins” if Harry survives. Gollum only “wins” if he gets the Ring; Frodo’s long term welfare is not a concern. I think there is a material difference.
As well, I think there are some signs of a deeper change in Snape. Hie reaction to Phineas Nigellus’ use of the word “Mudblood” to describe Hermione: “Do not use that word!” suggests he is aware of the more general harm thinking like that can cause. His compassion has spread out to include other Muggle-borns besides Lily.
As well, when Dumbledore asks him:
‘”Don’t be shocked, Severus. How many men and women have you watched die?”
he responds:
“Lately, only those whom I could not save,” said Snape.’
His response suggests that he has internalized the value that life – any life – is important and worth fighting for. Hardly the response of a man who cares for no one except himself and one other.
I’ve changed my mind: I think that Snape does learn something about unselfsh love.
And so, btw, does Gollum. His external internal dialogue over the sleeping Frodo suggests that there is at least a flicker of gratitude and liking in response to Frodo’s kindness to him. It doesn’t carry him very far, unfortunately, and it’s not what leads to his “right act for the wrong reason”, but it at least shows that he is not beyond redemption.
reyhan,
Am in agreement with most of your points in addendum to my points. I did not mean to imply that Gollum was beyond redemption, just that he isn’t redeemed.
In a similar way with Snape, I’m just not certain of his redemption. Certainly he was moving towards that, & as you point out he does seem to have finally moved beyond simply thinking of himself. Certainly points in his favor.
I guess I will fall on the side of Snape’s redemption, because this is what Harry believed. I hardly think Harry would’ve given his son Snape’s name if he did not believe that Snape had changed & was redeemed.
But just so we don’t break a pattern, I’ll disagree on some points. No, it doesn’t matter in the big picture what someone’s motivations may be, i.e. Snape’s actions helping Harry. But it does matter to the person in question, whether or not those motivations help them become a better person. Feeling guilty & thus doing what you can to make amends is not necessarily the same as repentance, although from an exterior view they can look a lot alike.
However, I do agree with your points in regard to Snape, that he does seem to move beyond just doing things to assuage his guilt into doing things because he has come to care for others, if only in small little ways. He does seem, if only a little bit & if only at the very last part of the series, shown only in his memories, to begin to repent of his actions & to apply his love for Lily towards others.
Just for the record: note that my manuscript was already done and submitted before this particular conversation broke out
It’s ok Travis. We’ve talked about this many times, coming back to it time and time again: is Snape good? Is Snape evil? Is he Machiavelli’s half-blood Prince? Is Dumbledore the wise and good teacher? Is he a manipulative schemer? Is he more Machiavellian than poor love-lorn Severus?
You were having this conversation at this site when I first visited, before DH came out, back when it was still SoG. I can remember the names of some of the principal commenters, most of whom have since departed. I can remember the many threads you started, just on these topics. I remember how heated things got, how you had to impose standards of conduct.
It’s an eternal debate, never satisfactorily resolved, it seems. The mystery of the hearts of Severus Snape and Albus Dumbledore.
That’s right! It was Snape discussion that caused me to have to write those rules.
I guess I never got in on those debates. When I started reading & finally commenting all the rules were already in place.
It’s odd, you know…I always get to Snape last. Here, I covered lots of subjects, but it was only a few months before DH that I finally started working through Snape in detail with you all. Same with the book. I finally sat down to write the Snape chapter just over a week ago. It was the last chapter I wrote before I started editing and revising the whole book before submission.