Why Snape was so much more interesting than Harry

[julilith]

I think this article said it all: http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070725/cm_csm/ysawyer_1

Best,
Julie

Comments

[stephantom]

I actually kind of disagree with some of the points in that article. Mostly, that a character with a moral dilemma doesn't sell because it isn't as entertaining. What? I'd say the opposite -- society loves gray characters. It's the true-blue heroes that often get neglected by fans in favor of morally gray sidekicks. Think of Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. Etc.

Harry, though... I can understand the criticism, but I actually do think he's a pretty good character. He does feel lost from time to time, but he's also sure that he's fundamentally good and on the right side -- as most people are, really. Even when they aren't. But I actually saw a lot of parallels between Harry, Snape, Voldemort, Dumbledore and Sirius. They all had pretty serious moral dillemmas, faced a lot of hardships in their childhood, and had to make some huge chooses that changes their course of their lives.

[stephantom]

*choices that changed

[julilith]

I think you took away the exact opposite message that the article was trying to get across. What it was saying was that moral dilemmas *do* sell and complaining that Harry had little if any moral dilemmas to deal with. He was good from the day he was born.

[stephantom]

I don't think I was clear in my second paragraph. I meant that I think Harry is a good character as in, an interesting character, with a moral dilemma. But yeah, that first part, about whether or not moral dilemmas sell, I guess I read wrong. I sorta skimmed it. I don't know if it's necessarily about people being able to relate to more conflicted characters though. I find Harry a lot more realistic than characters like Snape, or say, Erik. Even though I love them. Characters like that are a romantic idea that people love to read and think about, but when do we really come across them?