The HMS STFU - Post a comment
|
|||||||||||||
May 5th, 2009
| |||
| What strikes me as peculiar about the first essay is the number of vital themes that the author is willing to tear apart in order to make James Potter the villain. This, for example: "We know who did talk of James to Harry: Quirrelmort, Dumbledore, Hagrid, Sirius, Remus under Sirius’ influence, and Severus. As for Severus—for two years Snape DIDN’T throw the despised James in Harry’s face, whatever he might have felt." The author claims that people did not talk about James prior to Sirius' arrival. This is blatantly untrue as, in addition to Hagrid's utter moral outrage at the fact that the Dursleys had not told Harry about his parents, had in fact lied to him about them, which the author seriously downplays, I remember quite clearly that McGonagall told Harry how proud his father would be that Harry showed aptitude for Quidditch-- and smiled as she said it. People talk about the Potters far more than they talk about the Longbottoms, who were considered 'very popular' in their day. But it is true that Snape did not talk about James. And the author regards that as a virtue, rather than a serious character flaw. I'm confused. As I understand it, Harry, as a child growing into an adult and a boy growing into a hero, needed to understand where he came from in order to fulfil his destiny. He needed to know exactly what happened the night that Voldemort killed his parents in order to know how to defeat Voldemort. All the back story, however tangential it may have seemed, had the aim of equipping him to make the right choices when the time came to face his enemy. And Snape isn't a villain, but he is an antagonist. His goal is to keep Harry in the dark. Indeed, for over two years he was willing to persecute Harry without having the decency to tell him why. Harry had to find out what was going on there from Quirrell and Dumbledore. Every bit of information about Snape's past has to be stolen or overheard or wrested from him by force. And just about everything that Harry learns leaves him baffled and angry because it's dropped on him unawares and largely without context. He has to go and find somebody, with Dumbledore, Sirius and Lupin being the primary candidates, who will give him the context he needs to understand what he just learned. Because Snape won't give context and he certainly won't admit guilt. Indeed, we ultimately learn that keeping Harry ignorant was a condition of Snape's service. To Snape Harry was a thing to be protected, not an individual who needed to be taught how to protect himself-- which explains why he behaved so irresponsibly during the Occlumency lessons. Snape didn't want Harry to be an adult or a hero. I always thought that the point of The Prince's Tale was that Snape was finally giving Harry the right to make informed decisions, that he had, at last, stopped lying and concealing and was acknowledging that a lot of the awful things that happened to Harry were, in fact, at least partly his fault. Because Harry needed to know that to deal with the situation in front of him. But apparently not, because the important theme of the Harry Potter saga is that James is just like Tom Riddle. Er. I hope this is okay. I've been reading for a while, and I checked the community information and there was no rule against random strangers ranting about things. And this puzzles me. Almost as much as the author calling Snape 'Severus.' I mean-- I'm very fond of McGonagall. Am I obliged to refer to her as 'Minerva' in defiance of the naming conventions? --maenad |
Reply:
The HMS STFU - Post a comment
|
|||||||||||||