Into the Pensieve we go, for our first of several trips! Here we meet the Gaunts, Gothic pictures of evil in the form of dehumanization.
June Cummins wrote a fascinating article for The Gothic in Children’s Literature called “Hermione in the Bathroom: The Gothic, Menarche, and Female Development in the Harry Potter Series.” It focuses primarily on non-Gothic Hermione and how Rowling uses Gothic imagery in her development (compared with Gothic Myrtle, who remains static), which is obviously not the subject of Bob Ogden’s memory, but some of Cummins’ insights are important to grasping the Gothic Gaunts. Cummins writes:
At crucial junctures, the Gothic is blended with elements of Horror or the Grotesque in a swirl of allusions that evoke age-old narrative traditions surrounding female development.
Now, in the scene that plays out in front of Harry, we do have a picture of female development – that of Merope, whose development as a witch is stunted by her abusive, dehumanized family. Cummins writes that the portrayal of the monstrous in Gothic literature serves to prevent the heroine from becoming monstrous (you’ll remember that Hermione is in the bathroom when a troll shows up and attacks in Philosopher’s Stone). The appearance of the grotesque is often a Gothic pointer to female development, which is considered by a male-dominated society to be disgusting. Cave imagery (Cummins notes that “grotesque” comes from the word, “grotto”) usually accompanies the grotesque.
So when Harry encounters the dehumanized Gaunts, and we begin to hear of “large amounts of … yellow pus,” which “flowed” from Bob Ogden’s nose, blood, filth, pale faces, dead snakes, “muck,” Merope’s “flushing blotchily scarlet,” spit, and other pointers to gross distortions of humanity, you can begin to guess we may have entered a Gothic world. Add to these items that much of the scene takes place after entering a dark, dirty house, and in that house, Merope’s developing sexual desire is mocked because it’s directed toward a Muggle, and much of Cummins’ description of the Gothic in female development fits this scene.
But I don’t think the key to the scene is Merope’s development. I think it’s Harry’s. This is, after all, Dumbledore’s first lesson with Harry. In his last lesson with Harry, the one from which Harry will emerge the hero, enacting the “You are with me” / “I am with you” transition, they enter a cave and encounter more images of the Gothic – Inferi. Harry plays the role of the Gothic heroine throughout the Harry Potter stories – a thesis I started playing with around the time Beedle was released, and something for which evidence continues to pile up as I re-read (which you can find more on in my forthcoming essay on Rowling’s “Moral Imagination” in Hog’s Head Esssays: Conversations on Harry Potter).
The other important element of the Gothic, of course, is its stark representation of evil – distorted humanity. This is what the Gaunts are: less-than-human “due to their habit of marrying their own cousins,” and due to their loathsome treatment of fellow humans who were not just like them.
We also get a foreshadowing of the clearest symbol of dehumanization in the series: the Peverell ring, first in the memory, then on Dumbledore’s desk, which we’ll later discover is a Horcrux. The locket also made an appearance.
Note: You’ve all been great at bringing up issues that I leave untouched. I’m deliberately not commenting on everything I see in these chapters in order to leave room for your contributions, and to keep the length of these posts under control. So feel free to address issues from this chapter which I’ve not raised in the post.
Red Rocker on 
revgeorge on 
Ally on 
PotterMom05 on 
Joivre on 
Arabella Figg on 
Loading ...
{ 1 trackback }
{ 85 comments… read them below or add one }
Travis, care to expound on your comments above on the Gothic. It seems rather convoluted to me & Cummin’s description seems somewhat contrived to me. That is to say, if the Gothic imagery is a pointer towards female development, what does it say that it is a female who is using this imagery? I guess, I’m just having trouble grasping where the point of your comments is going. Thanks.
Ah, see, I feared that in typing this up, I wouldn’t be clear, because there’s so much background info that is necessary.
There’s way too much for me to go into now, but very quickly: Cummins sets up two contrasting characters – Hermione and Myrtle – and concludes thus:
“Hermione’s story slip sinto a Gothic mode when she reaches puberty, becomes a woman, but she then exits that mode to go on to become a much more dynamic and genre-busting character. Moaning Myrtle, however, is stuck in the bathroom, which is the very site of female development, and is stuck in a Gothic mode as a permanent ghost. We can argue that Myrtle is sacrificed to the Gothic plot.”
The “Gothic plot” being this “grotesque” portrayal of women. Hermione breaks free of it, and her difference is embraced rather than villified, and patriarchy subverted in her character, rather than established and defended. Hermione is a Gothic heroine as well.
The point of the feminine gothic section in the post above was to draw on the only published work so far on the gothic in HP and to get to Harry’s gothic development.
Travis, your discussion of the gothic is very interesting. I hadn’t really thought much about Hermione’s being attacked by a troll in a bathroom before. The Gaunts are certainly appalling in their dehumanization – eyes like snakes, talking like snakes, living in utter filth, and so unkempt they make Snape look like Beau Brummel. Dumbledore suggests Merope uses a love potion on Tom Riddle, but where would she have learned to make it I wonder? None of these Gaunts seem to have seen the inside of Hogwarts in generations and there are no books in the hovel.
Interesting catch on the love potion, Lily Luna! You don’t really get the impression they’re very friendly with many, or any, other wizarding families either.
By female development, do you mean female puberty? And is the analogy between Gothic (that is to say dark, horrible, and grotesque) imagery and female sexuality?
Yes, that’s the basic idea.
Clarification again: I’m still mulling over Cummins’s actual thesis. The point in bringing her into the conversation was to note the gothic elements in the Gaunt story.
“Adrienne Rich claims that men have traditionally viewed “the female body [as] impure, corrupt, the site of discharges, bleedings, dangerous to masculinity, a source of moral and physical contamination” (quoted in Lee & Sasser-Coen 1996: 13).”
Why am I having images of General Jack D. Ripper flashing through my head? Ah well.
Thanks for the reply to my post, Travis. Your answer helped clarify things immensely.
Yeah but isn’t all that a predominantly male perspective? Isn’t it possible that to the inhabitor of a body that comes equipped with female organs and female functions, to wit menstruation and childbirth, isn’t it possible that all this is quite normal? And even if it is not particularly prized, it can not by definition be seen as abnormal, aberrant or strange because it is after all what one lives with, day in, day out?
But isn’t it also true that women find Gothic novels, especially Gothic romances, as compelling as do men? So to explain the power of the genre in terms of the fascination of and with the female anatomy and bodily functions – isn’t that kind of male-centric?
Actually if Merope were going to use a potion, I could see her using Polyjuice Potion, finding a way to get some of Cecelia’s hair, and then disguising herself as Cecelia (looking pretty for once), and “hoodwinking” Tom into eloping with “Cecelia.” If at some point she stopped drinking the potion or ran out of it, he would see her for what she was, be disgusted, and abandon her.
If not a potion, Harry’s suggestion of the Imperius Curse sounds more likely and easier – just a one word curse and determination/force of mind. Eventually Tom might have started fighting it and broken away from her. The Imperius Curse would also be consistent with Tom Marvolo Riddle’s (inherited?) instinct for domination and control.
One wonders who Merope’s mother was and when she died/left. Quite a sad contrast between Merope raised by an abusive, ignorant father and brother and Luna Lovegood raised by a doting, intelligent though wacky father. I think I’d take gurdyroots over the Gaunts any day.
Getting ahead of ourselves a bit, if Merope was ill and dying at the time she gave birth, what magic is she supposed to have done to save her own life? Would she even have heard of St. Mungo’s? If she had, wouldn’t she go there to give birth? Where do wizard women give birth? One gets the impression they do so at home the old fashioned way (shudder).
Going back to the beginning of the chapter, I find it interesting that Ron has trouble reading the HBP’s handwriting and that Hermione refuses to try the HBP’s instructions. Even more interesting, when we get to DH and she knows the HBP is Snape, Hermione is happy to use his spells. As if in her book, Snape’s okay but unknown prince is not. Hermione’s comment that the HBP’s handwriting looks like a girl’s is also interesting in light of the alchemical idea of Snape as androgyne. On the other hand, her comment, together with Slughorn’s saying that it’s undoubtedly from Lily that Harry gets his abilities, acts as a red herring to make us wonder if the HBP is somehow Lily (although why she would use the name HBP is a stumper).
There’s also an almost-encounter with Trelawney and her deck of cards (really, she becomes a bit of a leitmotif in this book). I’ve been meaning to go back through the books and note all of Trelawney’s predictions, but there are quite a lot that are actually accurate, despite everyone treating her as a Cassandra to be disbelieved. In this instance she sees conflict, an ill omen, violence, a dark young man, possibly troubled, who dislikes the questioner. And what do we get at the Gaunts? Conflict, an ill omen (the snake on the door), violence, and a dark young man, possibly troubled, who dislikes the questioner (Morfin disliking Bob Ogden)! Trelawney, however, doubts herself and reshuffles her cards and exits stage left (I’m being strongly reminded of a Shakespeare play, but can’t think which).
Lily Luna,
I think you mean Snagglepuss & not Shakespeare.
Of course, you might be thinking of MacBeth: “Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.”
Or from As You Like It: “All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances;
And one man in his time plays many parts…”
I think this gothic/female view might be of very limited scope. Not a universal truth but one derived from the dark ages and abandoned in modern times. Not sure it really applies to HP but I haven’t read Cummins book.
I do think the JKR made the Gaunts as disgusting as she did because of her deep hatred for their way of thinking. I think it could be argued she went over board except she wanted no one to be confused on this the Gaunts were the very worst of the wizarding world.
Well, menstruation’s not exactly fun, but it’s a normal monthly event to today’s women. In an earlier era, say a hundred years ago, menstruation actually wasn’t a regular event in a woman’s life. The onset of menarche was much later, near the age of marriage, women often became pregnant shortly after getting married, would have a pause before menstruation would kick in after childbirth, and then often became pregnant again not long thereafter. This could go on for years until menopause. I don’t know what the age of menopause used to be but it would not surprise me if it was earlier than today.
Can’t say I thought about menstruation or caves or whatever when reading gothic lit. I can always read Are You There God, It’s Me Margaret for that (Judy Blume, boys)!
But I really think it’s Snagglepuss because his line was always “Exit, stage left.” As well as “Heavens to Murgatroyd!”
In other things related to this chapter, I always thought the young dark man, who possibly dislikes the questioner, is Harry & his feelings toward Trelawney. But I must admit, Lily Luna, you put a plausible dual explanation on it.
Another thing I found funny about the HBP book was Ron’s observation to Hermione that Harry was just following different instructions than she was.
I would also think this chapter brings back to mind many of our discussions on moral culpability. Seeing the dehumanization of the Gaunt’s & their total mental instability, how culpable is Voldemort for his crimes? I think we came down on the side of him being placed in an extremely bad situation but not free from responsibility for his choices.
revgeorge, I confess I don’t know who/what Snagglepuss is.
I wasn’t thinking of those passages from Shakespeare. I was thinking of a character who enters and exits on several occasions for brief scenes of comic relief or for accentuating a point (like a leitmotif).
Oops – I wrote my last comment before your last posted, revgeorge, but mine posted after. Both exit stage left and heavens to murgatroyd are familiar to me, but i didn’t mean that exit stage left was what made me think of shakespeare. I meant that the leitmotif character made me think of shakespeare.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snagglepuss
Lily Luna,
“Snagglepuss is a Hanna-Barbera cartoon character created in 1959, a pink anthropomorphic mountain lion …”
Here’s the link to the wikipedia article on Snagglepuss. I watched entirely too many cartoons when I was growing up.
Sorry about the confusion, Lily Luna. I was going off your comment about it being a play in particular & not necessarily a certain theme character. Although I do like the word ‘leitmotif.’
Is there really a debate about Voldemort’s culpability for his crimes? How can one not hold him responsible? He knew wizarding law and that he was flouting it and he knew what people consider moral law and that he was flouting it, even if he did not in his bones understand why what he was doing was so wrong. Relieve him of responsibility and we give license to any sociopath to abuse society with impunity. Voldemort may have taught Quirrell that “There is no right or wrong, only power and those too weak to seek it,” but I don’t see why he should not be judged by the standards of right and wrong when he’s been given fair warning what they are.
This conversation is getting to be too funny with us writing comments and posting them at the same time so that the thread keeps jumping around!
Voldemort’s orphanage may have been a fairly loveless place, but it was clean, the children were decently fed and probably treated with at least some kindness, and I imagine at that era may even have been shepherded to church on Sundays or otherwise taught basic values. The Gaunt household had none of that. But neither Merope nor Morfin nor Marvolo actually killed anyone. That’s all on Voldemort.
Lily Luna,
I don’t think there was a debate so much about LV’s moral culpability as there were questions about it. If Voldemort was the product of many generations of inbreeding & was possibly born with mental deficiencies, is there a question of him knowing right from wrong? I think most of us came to the conclusion, looking at how his character was drawn throughout the series, that, yes, even with all that had happened to him, he still had the opportunity to know right from wrong & to make right choices. Not necessarily easy choices but right ones.
Looking just at Voldy’s relatives, Marvolo certainly knew there were some things you could & couldn’t do, even if he thought he was entitled to preferential treatment. He knew that one could not ignore the Ministry & its decrees, no matter how he felt about his status as Slytherin’s heir. Merope knew that there was something wrong in the way she had gotten Tom Riddle Sr. to “fall in love” with her. Morfin seems to be the one who was certifiably insane, with no sense of right or wrong, just his father’s authority controlling him.
Tom Marvolo Riddle may have been born with quite a few mental instabilities but there was always a cold, calculating nature about him that showed he knew the results of his actions & the moral quality of his actions but just didn’t care.
I’ll have more to say in response to the questions on gothic imagery of female sexual development when I have more time to write, but I did just want to note, in response to Lily Luna’s comment, that Cummins does draw on Blume’s book in her essay!
I think that I should have started my response by asking for a clarification of the term “Gothic” in literature. Because I’m not convinced that all the books I see as falling in the genre are that similar. Which might also limit the somewhat sweeping statement that gothic horror reflects horror about female reproductive functions.
So I consulted the lazy scholar’s favorite resource: Wikipedia. The entry under Gothic Fictions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gothic_novel
gives a list of Prominent Examples, which includes the works of Horace Walpole, Ann Radcliffe, Mary Shelley, Jane Austen (who parodies the genre), Edgar Allan Poe, the Brontes, R.L. Stevenson, Bram Stoker, Nathaniel Hawthorne, de Maupassant, William Hope Hodgson, H.P. Lovecraft, Daphne DuMaurier, Victoria Holt, Mary Stewart, Ira Levin and Stephen King.
With a couple of exceptions, I’ve read works by all of these authors. I would question that a horror of female reproductive organs and functions explains the fascination or appeal of most of them. I can see it in the works of Lovecraft and at a stretch, Edgar Allen Poe. But there seem to me to be much more powerful explanations for why the rest of these authors, or rather their works, compel. For the horror sub-genre, I would posit that the main draw is our fascination with death and all things to do with death. That in itself covers a lot of ground: decay after death, which really fascinates Poe, immortality or resurrection (Shelley, Stoker). For the romantic sub-genre, the main draw might be what Stephanie Meyer has tapped, not too long ago: the powerful, mysterious and perfect dream lover, analogous to the relationship with the Supreme Entity or not.
Anyways, there’s a lot going on there, and while the male horror at female reproductive function might have some explanatory power, I can’t see that it’s a very important factor overall.
It seems to me, Red Rocker, that there is potentially some relevance there, which I was beginning to explore above. But I’m still fairly unfamiliar with the many works which argue for the “grotesque” representation of female sexuality, so still have to weigh the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments. I agree with you that this issue is not the primary explanation for fascination with gothic lit, and that exploring death is by far the more important; but that doesn’t mean it’s not there (like you said, “might have some explanatory power”).
I also didn’t intend the statements to be “sweeping.” Like I said, I’m exploring the idea (should have been more clear about that in the post, which I wrote far too hastily last night in a rush to get back to working on my essay for the book), not embracing it entirely. Better wording in the final section of that post would have been, “The more important element of the Gothic…,” rather than “the other important,” because I think that portrayals of depraved humanity, along with the human fascination with and fear of death, are the most important draws of Gothic lit.
Red Rocker, thanks for the research, even of the lazy kind, which is mostly what I do too.
I’m in sync with your thoughts on this. When I first read the comments on gothic horror reflecting horror at female reproductive functions, I thought, “I must have been reading all the wrong Gothic horror novels.” Because I don’t really pick up those themes in Gothic literature, & I’ve read a fair sampling of the authors you listed.
Perhaps I should wait until Travis clarifies his comments more or expounds on Cummin’s thesis.
As with any interpretation of a work or genre, there is a wide variety of approaches, and much disagreement. It sounds like, at initial hearing, several here fit the “disagree” category concerning portrayals of female sexuality in the gothic – but that might be more about my quick, cursory, insufficient presentation of the idea than the idea itself.
About a year ago, I visited the library to take out some books on Gothic lit, and was shocked how many of the scholarly books on Gothic lit were explorations of gender representation. There’s a 30+ year history of this; could be a passing fad, a result of our postmodern times which sees and deconstructs the power plays in everything, or it could have some valid “explanatory power,” as Red Rocker mentioned.
So, with y’all, I’m cautiously beginning to explore the idea, and I’ll have more to say about it when I can dig in to Heilman’s 2004 book, Gothic and Gender: An Introduction, along with other works on the subject.
But I have to admit that my first response to Cummins’s essay, despite finding some really interesting insights and ideas, was, “She recognized there hasn’t been a good treatment of the Gothic in HP, and she decided to focus on this?” I think you’ll find some more interesting thoughts on the Gothic in Harry Potter in my essay in Hog’s Head Conversations, in John Granger’s book, Harry Potter’s Bookshelf, and most importantly in Amy Sturgis’s The Gothic Imagination (Zossima, 2010).
You need a little tagline that says, “This post has been brought to you by Zossima Press.”
Well, Penguin also – Harry Potter’s Bookshelf is not a Zossima title. And whoever published The Gothic in Children’s Literature, and Heilman’s book
So, how about a tagline that says, “This post has been brought to you by books.”
Back to Voldemort and his degree of culpability.
I think that to a certain extent JKR is writing about the nature of power, how power impacts people. And of course, she’s writing about love. She presents us with many characters who have extraordinary power, but two stand out: Voldemort and Dumbledore. And despite the latter’s earlier dalliance with the destructive uses of power, for the most part the story is about the diametrically opposite choices the two characters make with regards to the uses of power: to dominate or destroy vs to nurture and protect.
And then there’s love. Here the comparison is between Voldemort and Harry. They both grow up without much love in their lives, although the orphanage seems more benign than the Dursley household. And once again they make diametrically opposite choices: Harry chooses to love the friends he finds with all his heart and strength; Tom chooses to love no one.
I know we’ve argued whether JKR ever really gives her protagonists a choice, whether they’re doomed from the get go to be as they are. But I think that possible deficiency is due to the limitations of the genre in which she writes as well as the need to stay focused. The villain can’t be too human, because he starts becoming sympathetic. And misquoting Donkey from Shrek II: the role of anti-hero is already filled, thank you very much. The same argument applies to Harry: the hero can’t be too dark because he starts losing sympathy; even the cruciatus spell he used against the more-than-deserving Amycus Carrow cost him 10 popularity points in these posts.
Looking at it from a psychological point of view, of course we can see why Harry is how he is, and how the other two are as they are. Harry comes from responsible, loving, altruistic parents (more so in Lily’s case, but we’ll assume that James had to reform for her to fall in love with him). They aren’t there to bring him up, but he has their genes, and self-control and the ability to empathize with others are pretty hard-wired (and probably heritable). Tom, on the other hand, is stuck with the Gaunt genes: no self-control, no emotional control, no empathy, not a single fleck of altruism. But in writing her characters this way, I think that JKR is being realistic. Decent, loving people can come from irresponsible, callous parents, but they face an uphill struggle.
So although you could rightly argue that it was more than likely Tom Riddle was going to turn out to be a bad egg, given his parentage, that objection is secondary to the main point of the story: our destinies are determined by the choices we make.
In a way, of course, it would have made a more interesting story if the resident anti-hero, Snape, had been cast as the main protagonist. But the same objection I raised above would apply: the genre requires simpler prototypes of good and evil. It might have made a good story, but it would have been a different kind of story.
And at a strictly legalistic level, yes, of course, Tom Riddle knew the difference between right and wrong, as most psychopaths do. It just didn’t matter to him.
What you said, Red Rocker.
Not to be too legalistic, but psychopaths don’t know the difference between right and wrong because they are psychotic. Sociopaths do know the difference but don’t care.
Hmm . . . I guess that was a very Hermione/know-it-all comment that could have been left unposted. Sorry, Red Rocker.
It’s ok LL, a lot of people assume that because the word psychopath includes the word psycho, that must mean psychopaths are psychotic, or in the common vernacular, crazy. Just the way being a schizophrenic doesn’t mean having a split personality, psychopath doesn’t mean being crazy. Actually, psychopath and sociopath mean pretty much the same thing and are used pretty much interchangeably: someone who lacks morals or a conscience, sense of guilt, empathy, someone who takes advantage of or uses others, can lie easily and fluently, steals from or hurts others without remorse, and leads a life centered on pleasing #1 right here and now, and without regard to the rights, needs or feelings of others. With all this, psychopaths/sociopaths are not crazy in the common sense of the word: they know right from wrong, but it doesn’t control their actions.
Psychotic people, on the other hand, are crazy, and don’t know right from wrong.
Red Rocker, excellent summary.
Travis, my response to reading the Gothic/female development information was surprise, but also interest. I don’t have a lot of knowledge of either feminism or Gothic literature, so commenting on it is a bit out of my league right now, but I’m looking forward to your future thoughts on the subject.
From a not-fully-informed perspective, though–I would answer nay, I think, at least in part, to Red Rocker’s question about whether the male-dominated view is disgust at the female body and the female considers it normal, as I tend to be a little skeptical of ideas like Rich’s and Russo’s. I don’t think men are responsible for the idea that bodily fluids are disgusting–science teaches us that they may carry disease, so our own response seems naturally prepared. Also, men may be freaked out by menses and birth, but they have seem to have less of natural revulsions at bodily fluids and less instinct for cleanliness than women. In this case, feminism seems to me to read its own horror of certain female realities into male motivations.
The “Harry as Gothic heroine” thing is especially interesting in light of John Granger’s treatment of Harry as the alchemical hermaphrodite. I don’t know whether the two are related, but I’m curious.
Lily Luna, you beat me to mentioning Trelawney.
This book, as far as I recall, is the only one in which her sketchier divining practices come up with any real accuracy.
Hah … Red Rocker, I didn’t see your last comment before I posted. I meant your comment about Voldemort’s culpability was excellent. Beautifully put.
Library Lily, yes! I think this goes right along with the Harry-as-alchemical-hermaphrodite reading. I’d have made this a 7th point in my chapter, “The Witching World?”, if I’d been aware of it at the time I wrote it.
I’m getting to this a little late, but I’ll chime in with my two cents. I find the scholarship on the gothic feminine stuff pretty interesting (not that I’m especially well-read in this area; I’ve just come across it a few times) but, regardless of how you or I feel about it, I think the real question is whether Rowling was working with this element. My guess is that Rowling is familiar with feminist perspectives on gothic literature, and, since she has played with any number of other literature theories, she may be playing with this one, too. I’m curious about what some of those essays have to say. I wonder if Rowling uses this crazy imagery in a way that, in the end, sticks it to the man.
The mention of gothic authors reminded me of the spectacle I made of myself today at Ye Olde Borders when I stumbled on a copy of a book called Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic Regency Romance – Now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem! I was pretty startled! I am now 39th on the library list to get it, and they’re processing 46 books, so it should come to me soon!
SchoolMarm, good insights. Studies in the gothic feminine run the spectrum, from seeing the gothic as belittling to women and defending of patriarchy to being subversive literature meant to deconstruct patriarchy. And, of course, critics put this on a timeline as well (older gothic lit tending to be the former, more recent being the latter).
Given that Rowling is a subversive writer in many ways, and also a feminist (way too much baggage attached to that word; it almost doesn’t mean anything), I’d be inclined to think that if she’s playing with this realm of literary criticism, she’s definitely the “stick it to the man” type.
You’re the third person, I think, to recommend that Pride and Prejudice and Zombies book. I’m going to have to pick up a copy!
Lily Luna mentioned where these mamas were having their babies…I’ve been curious about that, too, but in regard to Tonks. She must have had Teddy at home, or someone’s home, and that made me wonder who was playing midwife. More babies in England are born at home than in the U.S., and other European countries have even higher numbers of homebirths (and correspondingly lower infant and maternal mortality rates), so I would guess that a lot of wizarding babies are born at home. The wizarding world must have a whole culture of midwifery, and we never hear a word about it. This seems strange to me since Rowling has given birth a few times herself and midwifery has a long history of association with witchcraft. Rowling toys with other historical ideas surrounding witchcraft (like burning witches) so why not this one? There’s probably a simple answer: these are kids’ books, and issues surrounding childbirth might too heavy-duty. She skips a lot of discussions about sexuality, after all.
This comes late in the game, but I wanted to add it in the interests of touching all the important bases.
With regards to Voldemort’s (and I suppose anyone’s) culpability, the point I tried to make earlier is that JKR emphasizes the different choices the protagonists make with regards to important life decisions. I mentioned power and love. What I left out – and I can’t imagine why – was death.
How to face death is one of the most important decisions the protagonists have to make. And there too we can see the opposites as well as some variations. Voldemort’s entire existence is devoted to defeating death. He fears death more than anything else, and fragments his soul in an effort to avoid death. Harry on the other hand, learns that there are things more important than death, and sacrifices his life for those things. Dumbledore has another approach still. He uses magic – but not dark magic – in order to prolong his life, but when the moment comes, orders his own death rather than let it come to him. Through their choices the protagonists are the masters of their own destinies.
One last thought on this and then I promise to shut up. The question of culpability – or its flip side, responsibility – is perhaps most clearly demonstrated when it comes to how the characters face death. This is where they appear to have the most freedom of choice. How they face death is so individual – to the point of being unique – so deliberate, and so clearly a matter of decision, that no matter what the forces which shaped them, this particular choise is totally self-determined.
In regard to Trelawney, I think its great how Rowling uses things like Trelawney’s predictions and Harry’s dreams. Looking back, most of them make perfect sense. She must’ve gotten a kick when writing those parts. Trelawney thinks she sees The Grim, but it could foreshadow Sirius.
Not to mention Harry’s always been marked for either death or “death” under Dumbledore’s secret plan (since D knows Harry is a horcrux).
Just how much did Slughorn know about Tom Riddle’s history, I wonder? Might he have known about the “obsessive love” that produced the most evil wizard of their time? Even if he didn’t, it seems like Rowling is foreshadowing this chapter with Slughorn’s comment, particularly since Dumbledore suspects Merope used a love potion on Tom Sr.
I just love Dumbledore’s comment to Harry just before they go into the Pensieve – the poetic bits about the “murky mashes of memory” and “thickets of wildest guesswork,” which recall his remark back in chapter three about “that flighty temptress, adventure,” and the line about “Humphrey Belcher, who believed the time was ripe for a cheese cauldron,” just because I find that concept terrifically funny. Then, too, there’s his admission that his mistakes tend to be bigger than most people’s, which seems particularly significant in light of DH.
I doubt Slughorn knew anything about Riddle’s background aside from that he was an orphan. In one of Voldemort’s thoughts that Harry eavesdrops on when Voldemort learns Harry’s hunting horcruxes in DH, Voldemort thinks that no one ever knew about his background except for Dumbledore knowing some info and maybe having learned more from the woman who ran the orphanage. Riddle would have kept his background quite secret, I think. (Although he seems to have imparted some info to Barty Crouch, Jr., who tells Harry that both he and the Dark Lord had the curse of being named after their fathers and the pleasure of murdering them.)
I like your idea of Slughorn’s comment about amortentia being one of the most dangerous potions in the room foreshadowing what Harry learns at the Gaunts. I hadn’t connected that before. I thought it was foreshadowing the revelation of Snape’s love for Lily. Perhaps it does both. Or at least, the part about the most dangerous potion may foreshadow the Gaunts and the part about “never underestimate the power of obsessive love” may foreshadow Snape and Lily.
This may not be the best forum for this, but hey, it’s a slow blog day, I’m no longer very interested in the outcome of the Stanley Cup finals, and I’ve been a Snape fan from way back. So here goes.
Why are Snape’s feelings for Lily so frequently stylized as “obsessive love”? Why not “devoted love”? How about “selfless love”? Or “undying love” Or “love that transcends death?” How about “the purest love a man can have for a woman”?
Did JKR tell us that there was something morbid or pathological about Snape’s love? Was there some supra-textual comment I missed about how Snape’s feelings for Lily were really creepy?
Didn’t Snape’s love for Lily redeem him from evil and set him on a heroic course? Did he not daily risk his life in order to do the right thing for her sake? Did he not give his life for her son?
Doesn’t that make his love truly a thing to wonder at and admire and be moved by, instead of pathologizing it like the psychiatrists who would include “bitterness syndrome” in the new Diagnostic Manual of mental disorders?
Red Rocker, I agree with you about Snape, BUT he does spy on her as a child (okay, I think, for a child, but would be creepy and close to stalking if he continued to do it even after Hogwarts; however, there is no sign he did that) and he remains devoted to her his whole life, even unto 16+ years after her death, 18+ years after she married another man, and over 20 years after she defriended him. It’s devoted and beautiful, but arguably also obsessive that he can never move on.
However, Harry often notes a cold, dead look in Snape’s eyes. Part of Snape died at each step away from Lily – first when she refused to be his friend anymore, next with his years as a Death Eater doing soul destroying things, probably more so with the news of Lily’s marriage, and finally with Lily’s death, when he tells Dumbledore he wishes he were dead, too. Dumbledore tells him if he truly loved Lily, he has to live and protect her son. While this gives him a reason to live, it ties him firmly to the past to his one true love, and he really can’t move on. I’m not sure I agree that his death was necessary to his redemption. If he had lived, he would have been able to begin a new phase in his life, learning how to interact with others in a positive and kind way and learning to love another woman besides Lily. I don’t think that would be impossible or out of character, it would have required a peeling of the protective layers of negativity he built up around himself to rediscover the eager boy who first befriended Lily. (I was reminded as I typed that part about peeling layers of the episode in Voyage of the Dawn Treader where Aslan digs deep to peel off Eustace’s dragon skin and makes him bathe in the pool, and Eustace rejoins the others human again and a much nicer person.)
I’m certainly not against re-thinking Snape’s love, and you make good points, Red Rocker. Here are my initial, up-way-too-late, break from my essay, too tired to think responses:
I’ve always been skeptical of Snape’s “redemption,” as I wrote in HPI. The thing that pushes me toward belief in redemption for Snape is John Granger’s explanation of the Beatrice/Lily parallel, not his acts of love.
Mostly, I have a hard time with Snape’s inability to love anyone other than Lily – something Lily herself would have hated. This is why I struggle with calling it anything other than obsessive love. If what Snape was doing was “love,” it was something that happened to him, not something he chose, because you can choose to love and act in love toward anyone. (Perhaps we can argue he chose this in the end with Harry.)
“Devoted love” would have given up on the Death Eaters for Lily. “Selfless love” would have managed to actually act lovingly toward Lily’s son for Lily’s son’s sake, or for the sake of the goodness and rightness of love itself.
On the other hand, I’m a cynic about eros, which probably plays a role in shaping my thoughts here.
I’ll echo Lily Luna’s & Travis’ comments. Primarily Travis’.
I don’t think we can say definitively that Snape never loves anyone other than Lily. In terms of a girlfriend or desired girlfriend, yes, he’s devoted to Lily, but he appears to also come to love Dumbledore as a father-figure. At a minimum he appears to be emotionally dependent on Dumbledore, jealous of the time and attention Dumbledore gives to Harry, but based on his reaction to Dumbledore not coming to him more quickly after the ring injury, there seems to be something deeper there. He agrees to Dumbledore’s request that he kill him, even though he doesn’t want to do it – why? Because of Dumbledore’s comment about sparing an old man pain? For Draco? To protect the students of Hogwarts? All of the above? Aren’t all of those acts of love?
I also think he comes to care for Harry before his death. He is quick to yell “No!” to stop Rowle from torturing Harry at the end of HBP even though Harry has just made him angry by trying to curse him with his own spells. He spies on Harry during the silver doe scene just like he spies on Lily on the playground. He uses the silver doe as if he wants Harry to figure it out. In the Shrieking Shack he grabs Harry’s robes and never lets go throughout the time Harry is collecting the memories. When he looks into Harry’s eyes, he seems to be both looking into Lily’s and making peace with Harry. Harry can see something in the depth of Snape’s eyes that vanishes a moment later when Snape dies, and then Harry does not know what to feel except shock; his hatred seems to be gone. This implies that what he sees in Snape’s eyes is something very different from what he is used to seeing. It’s not a warm and obvious love shining out, but Snape seems to have made his peace with Harry. Going back to the Silver Doe scene, we should also think about it from Snape’s vantage point. Harry raises his wand light and looks around, sensing someone beyond the range of the light; he doesn’t hate the person, he doesn’t even really fear him, so he would have a neutral look in his eyes, not the hatred he’s been showing Snape for the last several years. Snape is standing outside the range of the wand light looking at Harry who is lit by the light, the first time he’s seen Harry in six months, and is seeing Harry not looking at him in hatred. During those six months instead of looking into Harry’s eyes and seeing Lily, he’s been looking at Lily’s photo and, perhaps, seeing Harry. Perhaps even coming to miss Harry as time goes by – fanciful conjecture, I know, but possible, especially considering that he now has no friends except a bunch of talking paintings; his colleagues who used to respect him hate him; most of the students who just disliked him hate him; and he has the extremely difficult task of trying to contain the Carrows and protect the students without appearing to do so. It seems plausible that he would look at Harry in this scene with a bit of longing, but knowing he can’t say anything. Or, alternate theory, seeing Harry may make him realize that he misses him. Either way, his next step is to retreat to the place between two trees and watch Harry try to retrieve the sword and begin to run out to rescue Harry when Ron appears (Ron sees movement in the trees). He may watch longer than we realize. When Harry runs over there after Ron pulls him out of the pool, he sees no footprints and no one there, but Snape may have magically wiped his prints and risen up into the tree to continue watching (similar to Harry watching Snape interrogate Quirrell in the Forest from the top of a tree in Sorcerer’s Stone). In which case, he may have watched the horcrux tormenting Ron (horcrux-Harry and horcrux-Hermione trying to stoke Ron’s jealousy of Harry, parallel to Snape’s jealousy of James) and Ron stabbing it. Might this not be a catharsis for Snape, too?
So if I understand the above arguments, if you’re unable to love more than one person, or unable to be loving towards more than one person, then it’s obsessive love?
I”m not sure that I would characterize the inability to love as pathological. More of a personality trait, I’d say. But accepting for the sake of argument that the inability to love is pathological, then I would also argue that the one time when that inability is overcome – as in the case of Snape vis a vis Lily – would be an instance of nonpathological, or actually healthy behaviour.
So Snape’s love for Lily was actually a good and normal thing. It was his inability to love anyone else that was the bad thing.
And continuing with the same line of thought:
You could say that because of his deficiency – pathological or otherwise – in the ability to love, when Snape does love someone, it is in an unpracticed, awkward or even pathological sort of way. Since he doesn’t know the rules for love, or how to love appropriately, for example by moving on after the loved one has died, when he does love, he loves inappropriately, even obsessively.
To which I would say: the fact that he loves at all is healthy and good. I would support the argument that there was something pathological about his love if it hurt him or someone else. But it doesn’t. It makes him act better (we’ll drop the word “redeem” because it evokes controversy). It makes him save someone else’s life – over and over again.
Here are some other perspectives on it. Was Penelope’s love obsessive? Remember that she was the one who persisted for ten long years in the belief that her hsuband would come back from the war, while the more healthy people around her urged her to declare him dead, remarry and get on with her life. Was Sidney Carton’s love obsessive? He’s the one who loved Lucy Manette through her marriage to Charles Darnay, through giving birth to two children, and followed her and her family to Paris to make sure she was safe – was he “stalking” them?
You say obsessive, I say heroic.
Red Rocker said, “I would support the argument that there was something pathological about his love if it hurt him or someone else. But it doesn’t. It makes him act better…”
Yes, it makes him do the right things. Or at least he feels compelled to do the right things, out of obligation for Lily. But doing the right things & actually having a changed heart are two different things.
Without getting too theological, the fear of punishment by the government compels many people to do the right thing every day, do not murder, do not steal, do not defraud, etc, etc, but just because a person does or does not do certain things doesn’t mean their heart or attitude has been changed at all.
Has Snape’s heart changed at all? Or is his love still only given to Lily & to no one else? And is his love composed mostly of a feeling of obligation to make it up to Lily somehow?
I think there’s evidence to show that he really never changed except in his outward actions, & I think there’s evidence to show he did change. Lily Luna gave some good examples up above. I think Snape’s comment to DD about not being able to save people also speaks to a change in him.
But I think it is appropriate to talk of him having an obsessive love for Lily. Where a devoted love switches over to obsessive love might be a fine line. I think this discussion is helping us flesh out Snape a bit more & his nature & his motivations. Much more helpful than simply saying Snape is either good or bad.
Thank you, revgeorge, for bringing up Snape’s comment about saving people. I meant to mention that. I think it’s a very important bit of evidence, that regardless of whether or not he loves Harry or Dumbledore, he has changed tremendously from his Death Eater days, that he is actively trying to save whoever he can and to oppose Voldemort because he doesn’t want people to die. In other words, he’s not just trying to bring Voldemort down to avenge Lily’s death and he’s not just trying to protect Harry for Lily.
Red Rocker, I see what you’re saying – if a person who struggles to love finds the capacity to love one person, it’s a step away from their problem and in a good direction.
I look at it from the other way around. A person like Snape who tends to be bitter and selfish who finds the capacity to love one person only has not found love, but an infatuation with a person. Because ultimately, love is not about finding someone lovable, but about loving the unlovable.
But, again, this is my cynicism about romantic love, which I find fickle, fleeting and something one does not choose to feel.
Obviously, we’re dancing around different definitions of love. And perhaps Snape’s love for Lily really was, as Dumbledore said, “the best of him.” Maybe in time, his love for Lily continues to work its way into the ability to love others, and apart from his untimely death, we see that redemptive love work its way through all his bitterness and creates a loving person.
Problem is, we’re just not told enough about Snape or his love for Lily to know.
Red Rocker, I don’t think there is anything wrong with Snape’s love for Lily. I agree with everything you and Lily Luna said about it. But there is an unhealthy obsession with his jealousy of everybody Lily (and later Dumbledore) cares for (like Petunia, James, Harry and Gryffindors in general), who is not himself. We could argue that he had a reason to hate James for bullying him. But he also hated Harry from the first moment they met, only because he was James’ son and looked like him. It seems he never allowed himself the choice to feel sympathy for Harry until his last breath. His obsession derives from the combination of his love for Lily and his lack of self-confidence, I think. But on a subconscious level he followed his guardian angel as Harry follows his doe patronus. Despite all his hatred. Even after Dumbledore had died. I always had a feeling that Snape was better than he himself knew. Maybe this is why he is such a compelling character.
Poor Severus Snape. Unloved even after he gives up his life for the sake of the woman he loves. His critics count his sins like the beads on a rosary: he failed to love anyone besides Lily; his love for her was lacking; he hated Harry; he did not love any unlovable people; his heart remains a hard, obdurate place.
Tough crowd here at the Hog’s Head.
Red Rocker, that sounds about right.
I’d argue, though, that Snape gave up his life for the sake of the woman he loves. What part of Snape’s death in the Shack is sacrificial? Voldemort murders him. Snape doesn’t throw himself in front of anyone. Voldemort simply kills him; Snape was trying to find any excuse possible to get out of LV’s presence.
I’d say that Snape perhaps lived his life sacrificially in the sense that he gave up his own goals & dedicated himself to Dumbledore’s goals, even if he never understood them or, more to your liking perhaps, he was always being deceived by DD.
You also say, “he failed to love anyone besides Lily; his love for her was lacking…” Well, that’s exactly the question under scrutiny here. I guess we could call it love that he had for Lily but we could call it obsession. Which is it, & does the text support either one more than the other?
Again, there’s perhaps a fine line between what you call heroic love & the examples you give & a stalker like obsessive fascination. Both could be called love. Perhaps the problem is the English word love is so very very inadequate to the task of giving us the many nuances of love.
But I’m not trying to be hard on Snape. I find him to be a fascinating character & just as ambiguous & perplexing in death as he was in life. I would say he is redeemed but more based on Harry’s forgiveness & as Travis said, the Beatrice/Lily parallel. Or as Lupin says in the movie POA, Lily had a way of seeing the best in people even when they could not see it themselves.
On a side note, this discussion is part of the reason I would hate to see JKR do a Marauders prequel. I have more faith in her that she would not pull a George Lucas, but I also think it would really take away a lot of the mystery & ambiguity of the original series, which has given us so much fruitful & oftentimes frustrating discussion.
What are you talking about, Red Rocker? You, I, revgeorge and Rena all defended Snape. I daresay I love Snape as much as you do (see my really long post above – June 2/2:06 am – as an example). I can really imagine and feel for how Snape felt with everyone hating him during the last year, and I argued that he comes to accept and even love Harry well before his death. I’ve never said his love for Lily was lacking or that his heart remained a hard, obdurate place. And as for not loving unlovable people, he saves Remus Lupin’s life even though he disliked him. I think we seriously wrong Snape, and fail to appreciate the depth of Rowling’s characterization, if we assume he remained cold and hateful to everyone and everything except Lily to the end. Travis is the only one who appears skeptical of Snape in these posts. And why do you assume obsessive is always a bad thing? It can drive people to productivity, perseverence, success. In this case obsessive and devoted are really the same thing.
I’ll agree to disagree with the majority on the subject of Snape. But I will contest that one person’s love or forgiveness (with the one major exception and Harry is not it!) can redeem another, except through their response to it. So either Snape redeemed himself through his own actions, or he died an unredeemed wretch.
I would be fascinated by anything JKR wrote about her world, prequels, sequels, parallel realities, the whole shooting match. I would not trust her, however, to stick to her original conceptualization because she is just too inventive a writer and there are so many intriguing alternatives.
My last post was written before I saw revgeorge’s, so I retract any words I may have put in revgeorge’s mouth.
I would argue Snape’s death is sacrificial because he chooses to release his cloud of memories to Harry and let Harry collect them while the time in which he maybe could have been saved and his blood gush away (the fact that Rowling twice points to Firenze’s injuries – first when she says Firenze lay on his side in the Great Hall, his flank pouring blood, when Harry looks in after returning from the Shrieking Shack, and second at the end after Harry has defeated Voldemort when she notes Firenze lay recovering – suggests Snape’s life could have been saved; also Mr. Weasley was saved after he was savagely attacked in the side by Nagini in OOTP). The cloud of memories ensures Snape’s mission from Dumbledore is completed, enables Harry’s self-sacrifice, and also saves Harry’s life since it ensures Harry is “killed” by Voldemort instead of by someone else (who would have really killed him).
Red Rocker, I agree with your last post that Snape could be redeemed only through his own actions.
We’re studying a literary character here, not making a judgment call on a friend’s life. And besides, I think we’ve covered the ground well enough already already that one can think a character pretty nasty and still love the character (*cough*Dumbledore*cough*). I’m a huge fan of Severus Snape, and I think he’s a brilliant character. I haven’t said anything here that I didn’t say in HPI – he’s a shapeshifter in death as he was in life (which revgeorge echoed a few comments ago, the content of which comment I agree with). His redemption is just as mysterious. I could look up the exact quote, Red Rocker, but didn’t you call that chapter a better farewell to the character than his own author gave him?
I could do the same lament: Poor Dumbledore, struggled with his temptations all his life, tried to love, tried so hard to overcome his temptation to power and avoided the Minister of Magic position to do so, gave up everything – even his life – for the defeat of Voldemort, the greatest evil in the Wizarding World. And yet his critics continue to count his sins … he was manipulative, he didn’t love well enough or purely enough, his heart was cold and he was distant …
You get the idea.
Unless we want a unanimous, discussion-ending chorus of “Love is All Snape Needs,” then I’ll keep prodding and poking at this one a bit. I’m not really sure where the “majority” is on Snape here – it seems split pretty even in this thread. Out in fandom the vast majority agrees with you, Red Rocker.
Snape remains a mystery to me still, and I’m exploring it. I don’t mind being “against the majority” either, and I’m guessing I’ll have a few unhappy people at the Snape panel I’m moderating this summer at Azkatraz if I start poking around the idea of Snape’s love for Lily not being the magical, pure love most of fandom thinks it was.
Did I really say that you gave Snape a better farewell than his creator had?
Got to read that chapter again. In fact, I’ve got to read the whole book again – or at least the chapters which speak to me. Been thinking recently that we haven’t gotten into it enough. At all, actually.
Need to point out that just because the unwashed masses agree with me doesn’t mean I’m wrong. It does make it more likely, I’ll agree, but not certain.
But elucidate further, o cynical one, about the kind of love that loves the unlovable. Isn’t that divine love you’re talking about? And isn’t that too heavy a burden to put upon the shoulders on a mortal man?
Tiptoeing with trepidation into the thicket of theology, I thought loving the unlovable was what every Christian aspired to? Love the sinner, hate the sin. Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.
Forgive Kreacher as Harry does: From “He would have found Kreacher, with his snoutlike nose and bloodshot eyes, a distinctly unlovable object even if the elf had not betrayed Sirius to Voldemort” (DH 191) to a few pages later giving Kreacher Regulus’ locket and promising to protect it while he searches for Mundungus.
Lily Luna, you can still include me in your comment if you like, although technically I wasn’t defending Snape, simply laying out various possibilities about him.
Red Rocker, in real life I would never say that one person, except for one in particular, could redeem another person’s soul. But in a literary context, I think it could be said that Harry does redeem Snape, for no one would know of Snape’s sacrifices & actions except that Harry makes them known because he’s seen Snape’s memories.
Plus, redeeming isn’t something that a person necessarily does only for themselves. In modern usage it means buying back something that belongs to you; in Old Testament usage it meant buying captives out of slavery, that is, buying their freedom.
I think in a literary sense Harry redeems the character of Snape. We don’t know whether or not Snape himself is redeemed. We’re not told; his state at the end is ambiguous, kind of like Heathcliff. I’d like to think he was, but as Travis says, his redemption is mysterious.
About the love that loves the unlovable & isn’t that the divine love, here’s a quick answer that hopefully won’t stray too far into an indepth theological one. The answer to your question is, yes & no. I’ll stop there.
I haven’t come to a full conclusion on Snape yet, nor on DD either, & I’m not sure I ever will. Both are characters of such complexity & mystery. And I can love both without loving the characters per se, as Travis also noted.
I can’t even remember how we got on Snape. I think it was something I said wasn’t it.
Anyway, here’s another comment. I think there’s some credit towards Snape for changing. Because as soon as he knew Lily was dead, he could’ve followed her in death by taking his own life in despair. But he didn’t; he kept his promise to DD & he held to that no matter what.
There’s no denying that he was not a pleasant person, perhaps even a cruel, vindicative person, who cut people much more easily with his tongue than he ever did with sectumsempra. There’s no denying that he seems to have really cared for no other person but Lily & that he seemed to be unchanged by that “love” for her, in the sense that his actions towards others didn’t change.
Why does he then do what he does, the double life of a spy, despised & hated by both sides, constantly in peril of discovery & death by LV? Is it simply vengeance for the death of Lily? Is it a sense of obligation to Lily’s memory? Is it because he has seen the error of his ways & now wants to redeem himself by striking a blow for the light? What is it? This is the great Snape mystery, which endures even after the books have ended, & I for one hope JKR never forces an explanation on us.
Personally, I’m inclined to believe Snape loved Lily (primarily based on his ‘always’ response to DD) & that he continued to love Lily, perhaps even more than he did while she was alive & that this love & not simply vengeance motivated him to devote his life to bringing down her murderer. It is perhaps heroic love, just heavily camouflaged in a very unpleasant, ambiguous person. It’s really brilliant on Jo’s part to do so. But it is also a deficient love to a degree because it doesn’t seem to extend to others, although I think Snape does care for others, as his comment on not being able to save people indicates.
He’s just so hard to figure out, though, because so much of what goes on with him is hidden in layer upon layer. He practices occlumency not only on Voldemort but on the reader.
And so I extend him the same charity that I extend to Dumbledore, except the Michael Gambon version.
You had me totally eating out of your hand, until you spoke the name that must not be named. And now the the bubble of all that is good and beautiful in the Potterverse has burst.
Sir Michael awaits.
Ah, sorry about that. Perhaps Travis needs to add a function that allows us to edit our comments, that way I could remove the offending words.
Plus, I had to say something because I was reminded again this weekend of how awful a certain person’s performance was in GOF, which was playing on ABC Family Channel.
We go through this everytime.
My 8 year old called me to the tv with urgency, saying my favorite scene from PoA was on. He was right: it was the scene where Lupin/Thewlis instructs the DADA class in dealing with boggarts. A little later on, he told me GoF was on, but without the urgency. I explained that I wasn’t that crazy about GoF
Actually, I agree with your previous comments: Snape’s heroism – and his love for Lily – are disguised by his fairly unpleasant personality. So we never really know what motivates him. He doesn’t hold a final lecture at King’s Cross to instruct Harry about what drew him to the dark side, and what made him pull back. We’re shown his actions, but without the apologetic voiceover. Which is as it should be.
Well, this is slightly off topic, but we are talking about Snape (or we were until MG popped up) and we are in the Gothic Gaunts thread, so I’ll bring it up here:
It struck me that Snape’s death in the Shrieking Shack, where Nagini rips his neck and Snape completely drains of blood, is symbolic of being attacked by a vampire – perhaps Voldemort as the figurative vampire. I know there was speculation that Snape was a vampire after the earlier books came out and that Rowling stated categorically he was not. His death seems to turn that around (pointed at perhaps by the presence of Sanguini at Slughorn’s party in HBP), with Snape being victim, not perpetrator. I’m not sure what to make of it though. I don’t think Snape was a vampire, although for a while I thought he might be an animagus whose animal form is a bat, but there are a lot of references to Snape looking batlike. Bats generally are very useful and harmless, misunderstood creatures (unless carrying rabies). The aspect of being a misunderstood creature does describe Snape.
There is also a similarity between Snape’s and Dobby’s deaths, in the sense of both being pierced by something sharp and both dying more or less in Harry’s arms, looking into his eyes, and Dobby’s ears are described as batlike.
LL, I think that the vampire imagery is not central to Snape’s role – although the bat imagery is certainly suggestive of something nocturnal and furtive and strange. As you say, useful but misunderstood.
I think that Dobby and Snape both die in Harry’s arms, or close to it, because the plot requires him to be impacted by both deaths. Dobby’s death to get him focused back on the horcruxes. Snape’s death to make him realize Snape was on the side of the angels all along.
This topic has a lot of energy behind it, so I’m going to write up a post on Snape soon, probably after I get through the three HBP chapters for this week. I’ll summarize and quote what’s been said so far, propose some contrasting ideas, and see where Snape takes us.
And, Lily Luna, don’t forget that “huge, batlike shape flying through the darkness towards the perimeter wall” …
I wondered if JKR deliberately wove some references to wide spread fan speculations into her last book, when I read this. And Ron trying to convince Harry and Hermione that the doe could have been sent by Dumbledore, reminded me so much of the Dumbledore-is-not-dead theory. (Hm, I confess I was a supporter of that theory until JKR put an end to it.)
Sometimes I even dare to think that she originally planned a different end for Snape (“as it should be”, Red Rocker), but was so annoyed or disturbed by his increasing popularity in fandom that she finally changed her mind. But that is a bit far-fetched, I suppose.
Rena, your comment about an alternative ending for Snape reminds me of the answer to the question: why was Rowena rescued from Torquilstone by Cedric the Saxon? The answer is: Ivanhoe is too wounded; Aethelstane is not the hero and rescuing Rowena would have put him in a heroic light; and Robin Hood is just too attractive. Thus elderly, fatherly Cedric is the only viable option.
Now the thing about Snape’s death is not so much that he had to die (he could have been just as mysterious and noble living the typical Head Master’s monkish life at Hogwarts and brooding on Lily till the end of days), but that he had to be gotten out of the way in preparation for the final duel between Harry and Voldermort. Snape is just too interesting – too compelling – a character to have around when all eyes need to be on the main event. So I’m thinking that there was no alternative ending possible for him.
Red Rocker, I didn’t mean Snape should have lived. He had something of a tragic figure about him and was always doomed to die. I never expected him to walk with Harry through the forest either, hand in hand with James and Sirius or something similar. But I think he deserved more than ‘Poor Severus’ and ‘that bit didn’t work out’; at least that Harry called him ‘Professor’ voluntarily for just one time before he died.
But I don’t want to complain too much. Snape’s death scene was well done after all – revealing to Harry everything he had so desperately hidden from him all these years and then asking him to look at him … beautiful, but too hasty, if you ask me (or treebeard).
I see what you mean Rena and completely agree with you. I always thought that Snape’s ending was a shoddy one. And Dumbledore’s dismissive “Poor Severus” was the icing on the unappetizing cake.
Like I was reminded of having said before: our own blogmeister gave him a better send-off than his creator, who seems to have had issues with her own creation.
Speaking of which, has anyone here read “The Shack”? I picked it earlier today because I’m always a sucker for stories where God talks to man – always hoping we’ll get some answers to those burning questions: Why did you let George Lucas create Jar Jar Binks? It looks like it’s pitched a bit on the low side, sort of like “Five People You Meet in Heaven”. Any observations, comments? Total waste of time? Nuggets of insight? Book that’ll change my life?
Red Rocker, regarding The Shack, apparently it’s a good read but very deficient in many points compared to what orthodox Christians would confess, especially regarding the Trinity & the person & work of Christ. But even the Christian critics I’ve read on the subject say it’s a good & compelling story. Sorry can’t help more as I haven’t read it yet myself. I’m quite sure though it doesn’t answer the big questions regarding what George Lucas was thinking in his prequels.
Well, I have always been a little uneasy with Snape’s love for Lily. It was the term JKR used when Snape was spying on her –
There was undisguised greed in his thin face as he watched the younger of the two girls….
That term always struck me as possessive – not a healthily way to love someone. I was creeped out when I read this sentence. And then I realized it fit Snape’s character and JKR was reinforcing in my mind that he was a shadowy-kind-of-guy.
Hi, new poster here. Inevitably, the release of each HP movie rekindles my fascination with the books and I go on a re-reading marathon. I’m now back in the early chapters of HBP and by happy coincindence stumbled across this site.
Having just finished Chapters 9 and 10, this particular page made for great reading as well. Much like Red Rocker, I’m a long-time Snape fan – he’s hands-down my favorite character in the entire series. It really speaks to the skill of an author and the brilliance of a character that – after all this time and countless readings – many of us still find ourselves wrestling (even if just amongst each other and only for the sport of it) with the questions of his basic nature, capacity for love and whether that love ultimately redeems him. The insights/comments here are made of awesome. It’s really got me thinking about my own previous insights, the characters and the series as a whole in rather intriguing new ways. I am really looking foward to the DH read-through.
One (hopefully) quick thought I’ve had which I’m hoping one or several of you may be able to touch upon and perhaps expand/clarify a bit has to do with the alchemical nature of the series. While a voracious reader of practically everything, I’m a rookie of the highest order when it comes to this particular aspect of literary analysis but I find it fascinating and hope to gain more knowledge. So, my thought is this: how literal and/or figurative is that particular symbology? Can it vary, depending on the type and/or layers of the work in question? Or are the only real limits to the scope/number of alchemical meanings an author’s knowledge of its nature and their own imaginations?
The next level of that question now becomes: what, if anything, do concepts/symbols such as the crucible and/or catalyst have to do with the character of Snape and his overall narrative arc within the framework of an alchemical story… beyond, of course, the rather literal symbolic meaning of his being the Potions Master… and particularly with respect to Travis’ comment above: “… ultimately, love is not about finding someone lovable, but about loving the unlovable.”
I ask because crucible/catalyst are two symbols/attributes I’ve associated with Snape for ages – and always rather distinctly with respect to themes, lessons and concepts of love/redemption as expressed within the canon. Yet, odd as it may sound, it wasn’t until I read Travis’ comment above that I realized just how deeply I associate these symbols/attributes with this particular character and those particular themes/lessons. Considering both the workaday and literary definitions of crucible and catalyst (and that, unless I’m mistaken/forgetful, Snape is the first threshhold guardian we/Harry meet), I find it makes a certain sense: that perhaps the truest nature of a character such as Snape is to experience the transformative power of genuine love and yet remain essentially unchanged by it. Or that his primary role is to be the test/means by which ultimately others’ love is transformed/exalted/purified… or even perhaps a whole lot of both.
For me, to have an understanding of Snape as a character represented by those two symbols, essentially defined by Travis’ statement and one whose primary purpose is to not necessarily complete that journey but instead ensure the hero does… well… it begins to cast matters in a slightly different light (though still one with oh-so-many shades of gray… bloody shape-shifter). The more I consider this facet, I’m finding that the question of Snape’s redemption can more fully encompass aspects of love that have less to do with how well he achieves it and more to do with well how his choices/actions drive others to embody it. That’s not to say that his character doesn’t also traverse that path, learn those lessons and/or find redemption of his own to some degree as a result (after all, leave any vessel on the fire and/or substance in the pot long enough and even it too eventually “changes”), merely that his doing so is in many ways a shadow function of the role his character serves for others.
As a part of this whole literary-alchemical-transformation-couched in-workaday-chemistry-lab-means, I also find it interesting that by series’ end Snape is considered, for all intents and purpose, a Gryffindor/Slytherin. In essence, a fiery snake (the last two words of the Spinner’s End chapter… pretty certain at any rate that the post on this chapter is the reference I’m thinking of). What’s doubly-interesting about that is the snake of Slyerthin represents water as well… fire and water being two elements we most commonly associate with “purification” (and destruction too, for that matter).
I’m not entirely certain I can define it any more than that with absolute clarity yet but it’s a concept I’ve been more and more intrigued by lately. At the moment, part of me feels I might be on to something here and the rest is wondering if it’s just that my coffee hasn’t kicked in yet.
So… any thoughts?
Late to this fascinating party. I’d just like to point out that Jesus told his disciples that “greater love has no man than he who lays down his life for a friend.” Since Snape laid down his life in many ways, and then literally, for James’ son, whom he prejudicially hates, and for love of Lily (friend), doesn’ this seem doubly redemptive?
Regarding The Shack. There are matters for quibbles and the first part drags a bit, but my husband and I loved it (after avoiding it for a year for fear of Christian cheese). Very thoughtful, tackles tough issues in a diagonal and refreshing way; end not as good, though.
At last, on the computer instead of iPod (how we suffer in America!).
Vampire Voldemort–I’d never thought of him in quite that way, but it’s quite true.
Red Rocker, you wrote: “Decent, loving people can come from irresponsible, callous parents, but they face an uphill struggle. So although you could rightly argue that it was more than likely Tom Riddle was going to turn out to be a bad egg, given his parentage, that objection is secondary to the main point of the story: our destinies are determined by the choices we make.”
Studies show most “bad eggs” have bad family backgrounds. But most people in general, with such backgrounds, are the “decent, loving” people you describe. Further, they tend to be Type-A overachievers who do very well in life (despite internal struggles and relationship problems); they make good choices to be more than their roots. We can certainly see Riddle as an overcompensating overachiever, but he seems to lack any internal angst, even as an orphanage child. This puts him in the unbonded sociopath realm. Harry’s benefit, despite the Dursleys, was that he bonded with loving parents for 15 months.
Snape only made the “good” choice because of Lily’s death and therefore became an adult in this one area. But he left the rest of his life stunted and turned in with bitterness, holding on to old prejudices and grudges like a sullen teen. (Both he and Sirius were similar, actually, in never maturing beyond adolescence.) That Snape could still be faithful to the memory of his one love and unswervingly serve good through Dumbledore–although it speaks of his deep hatred for LV, I think it speaks of true, devoted love, rather than self-serving obsession. His Patronus and his “always” to DD demonstrate this.
It IS a fascinating party, isn’t it? LOL!
Arabella, you make some great points… particularly with the reference to scripture re: laying down one’s life. I have always thought the notion that Snape not only laid down his life – and completely agree, not just in death – but did it for those he did not even like and/or perhaps hated did have a certain “double”-redemptive quality about it. As great as Harry’s sacrifice is, there is no doubt that he makes it for a community/people who, for the most part, embrace and cherish him; for people who already sing his praises and will only continue to do so. Granted, Snape has much to atone for – whereas Harry does not… but I’ve always found that to be a rather interesting contrast between them – another “shadow”, if you will. Then again, perhaps it’s just that I would really like to believe Snape was redeemed – even just a little bit. I also agree with your comment re: Sirius/Severus being more alike in many ways than either would care to admit. That’s part of what fascinates me about Snape’s character: how he serves as the “shadow” aspect of so many others, be they “good” guys or “bad”.
Interesting thought about the Patronus. I’ve have always thought that JKR has been leaving us clues throughout the canon with regards to Snape’s being (in essence) a good man, despite also a genuinely bitter and unlikeable one. That whole “nice” is different than “good” thing (which our culture tends to forget sometimes, I think)… Certainly, until he went all-the-way-bad, one could argue that Voldy was actually “nicer” than Snape. Voldy definitely used the cover of “niceness” to get what he wanted from people, particularly until he grew powerful enough to not have to care about his methods anymore.
Anyways… back to your thoughts on the Patronus. We are told in the the text (I believe by AD… ??) that a Patronus is one of the most, if not the most, strong forms of White magic there is… it is in a way love made manifest. Even those who use simply a strong “happy” memory to conjure it are engaging a memory based primarily in love to do so. I also tend to feel/agree the Patronus is a clue with regards to the nature of Snape’s love for Lily… rather “obsessive”, yes perhaps, but no less genuinely “love” for all that.
In fact, it was upon re-reading Chapter 9 that this idea was really refreshed for me. When Slughorn is telling the class about the various potions, he makes the statement that the love potion can’t create love – “It is impossible to manufacture or imitate love.” (HBP, pg. 186, US vrs). He then says that it will “… simply cause a powerful infatuation or obsession.” What is interesting about that little scene is that it sets us up for Harry’s visit to the Gaunts in the Pensieve, where he learns that Merope did in fact use a love potion on Tom Riddle, Sr. – that Voldemort was, in essence, not conceived in love but was a product of infatuation manufactured as the result of obsession. Even more interestingly, AD later tells Harry that he believes Merope eventually released Tom, Sr. from the spell because she genuinely loved him – that her initial obsession had grown into something larger/better/more genuine (and yet what did her new greater/higher version of love bring her? Emotional pain, disgrace/scandal, loss/grief and then grief-related death. Again, this is a path that Snape to some degree “shadows” as well). What is most fascinating to me about that scene in the classroom (other than JKR’s great use of foreshadowing & parallels) is that after Slughorn very clearly gives us the “rules” – i.e. genuine love can’t be “faked” – he then goes on to tell the class that when they’ve experienced more of life, the way he has, that “… you will not underestimate the power of obsessive love… ” (also HBP, pg. 186, Us vrs). That’s a very distinct and interesting choice of words. He doesn’t tell them they will not underestimate love… or that they will not underestimate obsession… no, he tells them they “will not underestimate obsessive love.” That really feels like a clue to me that while it’s perfectly “ok” to recognize and/or categorize Snape’s love for Lily as being rather “obsessive”, that we are also not supposed to discount/discredit it as not being genuinely love either. After all, I would consider the love a parent feels for a child “obsessive” to a certain degree – particularly when the child in question is an infant. The parents’ “obsession” (dare we say: focus) is on ensuring the child is protected, cared for… survives. And, when you look at Snape’s “obsessive” love for Lily (compared to oh, say Heathcliff’s for Catherine) it becomes pretty clear that his obsessive love leads him to work for good… for the better… and not for destruction (though there is, certainly, also an aspect of “vengence” to it and in the end it does cost him his own life). In that sense, I have always tended to think of Snape’s love for Lily as not being “obsessive” in and of itself – i.e. that not being the only defining quality to it, or even the most important one. JKR really does a wonderful job of showing us the duality of things… that everything is, for lack of a better phrase: two sides to the same coin. Therefore, how you perceive the object depends largely on which side you’re looking at… it’s that whole “shadow” theme again.
Really, really great points about Voldemort as well… that’s one of the things I’ve enjoyed most about the series. JKR is giving us some major archetypal characters to play with, yet even the “big baddie” becomes so through very human, mundane and decidely non-alluring means: his family background and psychology… the “magic” part of his transformation into the evil villian is really just the cherry on the cake of his madness, so to speak.