Snape: the authentic protagonist
Moon in Sagittarius
Here's an awesome article by Jenny Sawyer from the Christian Science Monitor.
SNAPE RULES!
Go read!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070725/cm_csm/ysawyer;_ylt=ArZbvgwAh5bqvY1f97kSwAkE1vAI
But there is one character who does face a compelling inner crisis: Snape. With all the debate - and with all of Rowling's clues - about whether he was good or bad, it's fair to say that the sallow-faced potions professor has entranced many readers. His character ached for resolution.
And it is precisely this need for resolution - our desire to know the real Snape and to understand his choices - that makes him the most compelling character in the Potter epic. His decisions, not Harry's, were the linchpin. And his moment with Dumbledore after the death of Harry's parents, not Harry's last duel with Voldemort, is the authentic climax of the series.
For Harry, there was no choice. The way forward was clear, the conflict - and journey - external. We cared about Snape because this was not the nature of his story. Every action was weighted with the pain and subtext of his choices, or lack thereof. For Snape, there weren't - there couldn't be - any easy answers. And yet, in the end, his moral journey was overshadowed by this fact: It was merely one more plot device to propel Harry toward his pre-destined victory.
Snape: the authentic protagonist
Rowling has publicly expressed mystification over her readers' fascination with Snape, even suggesting that his appeal is simply "the bad boy syndrome." Instead, her readers, whether consciously or not, have tapped into something that Rowling herself may have failed to recognize.
That something was a need for a protagonist who genuinely struggled to define - and do - the right thing. A passive main character with no authentic moral dilemma is not only hard to relate to, he or she is also no guide in circumstances in which right and wrong are anything less than black and white.
In a society increasingly steeped in moral relativism, it's not the Harrys of the world who will make a difference. It's the Snapes. It's those who need redemption, then choose it. It's those willing to press on and fail and then to press on again - especially when there are no clear answers.
There is much to love about the Harry Potter series, from its brilliantly realized magical world to its multilayered narrative. Unfortunately, Rowling did her readers a great disservice by making the story about Harry when it really should have been about Snape.
And yet, it's hard to imagine Snape's story emerging from a society where entertainment is king - and where the moral of the story is that there's seldom a moral at all.
That just about nails it, yes?
Here's an awesome article by Jenny Sawyer from the Christian Science Monitor.
SNAPE RULES!
Go read!
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20070725/cm_csm/ysawyer;_ylt=ArZbvgwAh5bqvY1f97kSwAkE1vAI
But there is one character who does face a compelling inner crisis: Snape. With all the debate - and with all of Rowling's clues - about whether he was good or bad, it's fair to say that the sallow-faced potions professor has entranced many readers. His character ached for resolution.
And it is precisely this need for resolution - our desire to know the real Snape and to understand his choices - that makes him the most compelling character in the Potter epic. His decisions, not Harry's, were the linchpin. And his moment with Dumbledore after the death of Harry's parents, not Harry's last duel with Voldemort, is the authentic climax of the series.
For Harry, there was no choice. The way forward was clear, the conflict - and journey - external. We cared about Snape because this was not the nature of his story. Every action was weighted with the pain and subtext of his choices, or lack thereof. For Snape, there weren't - there couldn't be - any easy answers. And yet, in the end, his moral journey was overshadowed by this fact: It was merely one more plot device to propel Harry toward his pre-destined victory.
Snape: the authentic protagonist
Rowling has publicly expressed mystification over her readers' fascination with Snape, even suggesting that his appeal is simply "the bad boy syndrome." Instead, her readers, whether consciously or not, have tapped into something that Rowling herself may have failed to recognize.
That something was a need for a protagonist who genuinely struggled to define - and do - the right thing. A passive main character with no authentic moral dilemma is not only hard to relate to, he or she is also no guide in circumstances in which right and wrong are anything less than black and white.
In a society increasingly steeped in moral relativism, it's not the Harrys of the world who will make a difference. It's the Snapes. It's those who need redemption, then choose it. It's those willing to press on and fail and then to press on again - especially when there are no clear answers.
There is much to love about the Harry Potter series, from its brilliantly realized magical world to its multilayered narrative. Unfortunately, Rowling did her readers a great disservice by making the story about Harry when it really should have been about Snape.
And yet, it's hard to imagine Snape's story emerging from a society where entertainment is king - and where the moral of the story is that there's seldom a moral at all.
That just about nails it, yes?