Severus's Wife

But now the company holiday party is upon us.

And I’ve been lying about the girlfriend.

Reasonable: “just say she couldn’t make it!”

At, I believe, Terminus, I gave a paper related to Snape and female heroism. I’ve threatened for years to turn it into something more formal, and no doubt should. But since people are always asking me for it, and I actually want to reference its arguments in a post I’m working on about the patterns in how people jump from one fandom to another, I’d thought I’d throw up an edited, bloggy version of it here.

I should warn you it’s profoundly dichotomous about gender, because with the possible exception of Tonks and various people expressing horror at having to polyjuice themselves into the form of another gender, the Harry Potter universe is profoundly dichotomous about gender, so I’m arguing from within its constraints.

One of the persistent criticisms of the Harry Potter series has been its portrayal of gender roles, and specifically its lack of representation when it comes to female heroism. While significant female characters exist in the form of Hermione Granger, Bellatrix Lestrange and Molly Weasley, each of these characters are largely defined by their relational roles: Hermione is Harry’s friend. Bellatrix is Voldemort’s romantically, or possibly erotically, chosen, and Molly Weasley is defined through her epitomization of motherhood.

In fact, while the Harry Potter series can only barely pass the Bechdel Test, the test is arguably a poor gauge of female strength for novels which center constantly on the status of both Harry Potter and his adversary, Lord Voldemort, within the plot.

Despite all this, adult fan involvement with the world of Harry Potter can look predominantly female (certainly HP cons are generally 90% female in attendance). This can be explained by many things, including word-of-mouth fandom culture in female-dominated spaces like Livejournal, the long-standing not not especially proven argument that “girl will read books about boys, but boys won’t read books about girls” and, of course, the possibility that the conservatism of the Harry Potter universe’s view of women may be reflective of real world norms and even desires.

Or, it might be something else entirely.

In fact, I’m now going to totally contradict myself and say that female heroism isn’t absent in the shadow of Harry’s journey, it’s just in a superficially male guise. That guise being the character of Severus Snape.

In many ways, none of what I’m about to go into regarding Snape is a particularly unique phenomenon. There is, of course, a long history of queering the villain. However, as the series ultimately reveals, Severus Snape is no villain, which is what makes his representation of female attributes, and in fact, female heroism, so unique.

From the first time we meet Snape we are presented with a powerful figure, but not one who is overtly masculine. In fact, almost immediately, from his first speech about “foolish wand waving,” JK Rowling informs us that this character is, on some level, a rejection of masculinity, especially in light of the many moments of phallic humor wands provide us throughout the series.

This is compounded by other key details of Snape’s work from the cauldrons in which he brews to the very nature of the cultural associations we have with potions work. Potions are easily interpreted as women’s work, whether you examine them from the Muggle equivalent of cooking or the fairytale lexicon of witches stirring pots.

Even the violence in Snape’s work – from the dissection of ingredients to the presumed skill with poisoning – speaks to feminine archetypes. In traditional narratives (and Harry Potter is a decidedly traditional narrative), a man murders with a gun or a sword or a knife. A woman poisons.

Additionally, coded language about gender exists in almost every description offered of Snape throughout the series. Mad-Eye Moody is particularly vocal on the matter of Snape’s Dark Mark. He says in chapter 25 of The Goblet of Fire, “There are some spots that don’t come off, Snape. Spots that never come out.”

On the surface, this remark speaks solely to the series’s cultural centerpiece of the Death Eaters and their social structures. However, it also speaks to that thematic element of forgiveness and redemption that has so often been highlighted in the novels. That Mad-Eye Moody feels Snape is precluded from redemption, speaks to the nature of his perception of Snape’s sins in his time with the Death Eaters. However, to speak of an irremovable taint is to also invoke the spectre of Original Sin, which, in Christian mythos, of course, arose into the world through first Eve and not Adam.

And the idea of a woman being marked or tainted and ultimately of lesser social or commoditized value because of often youthful indiscretion – often sexual – is sadly ubiquitous in our culture.

While Snape’s indiscretion is arguably more one of violence than sexuality (although that issue does loom large through implication throughout the series both in terms of Snape’s own suspected sexual history, which I’ll address later, and and also through repeated instances of implied sexual violence in the series.), rape is an acknowledged crime in the Wizarding world, and one we must suspect Death Eaters of having committed.

Sirius Black and the Marauders of memory, too, offer commentary on Snape from a gendered perspective both in word and in deed. While “Snivellus” is a typical school-yard taunt – after all, in our gendered society bullies have long mocked children of both genders for non-strict compliance with expected rolls and behavior, the comment is of significance in light of both the other language used to address Snape and the fact that he does frequently deviate from the expected portrayal of masculinity in Harry’s world.

In fact, feminine references follow Snape back into his childhood. Not only does Harry note the handwriting in the Half-Blood Prince’s book looks like that of a girl, but in the memory presented of Snape’s first meeting with Lily Potter he is described as wearing something that looks like an old women’s blouse. This is not only the second reference the series gives us to Snape in women’s clothes (the other being Lupin’s encouragements to Neville to picture Snape in his grandmother’s wardrobe to defuse the boggart that has taken on the potions master’s appearance), but it references a common piece of generally British slang. To call someone a “girl’s blouse” is, according to urban dictionary, to call them “a male displaying percieved feminine characteristics through actions which cause his peers to think less of him.”

And as much as Snape is embroiled in both the first and second Wizarding wars, he is not a fighter, but a spy. He doesn’t duel at dawn (that training incident with Gilderoy Lockhart aside) or look a man in the eye and draw on the count of five. While Rowling gives us no clear portrayal of the violence Snape commits in the name of his mission, his function is clear from the moment Dumbledore asks him if he is ready, if he is prepared. He will not fight, but observe.

In war (and we must acknowledge the Harry Potter series is, in fact, that of a world at war, even if it is largely a guerilla war and not one of standing armies and open fields), women have historically not been open combatants. Even today’s American military theoretically bars women from combat positions. Yet, women have long fought in war through activities of support, resistance and covertcy. This is the role Snape takes in the struggle – that of secrecy and betrayal, characteristics historically portrayed in literature as women’s sins.

Snape has a range of other female roles throughout the series as well. His expertise at legillimency and occlumency are, as psychic arts, also stereotypically feminine skills.

Narcissa Malfoy’s request that Snape protect her son in the place where she is unable to do so, portrays Snape not as a father figure, but as a mother figure as he is to stand in her stead.

And, of course, in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Snape takes on his most prominently female gendered role in his clandestine provision of the true Sword of Gryffindor to Harry through the use of his patronus. In this scene, Snape essentially plays the Lady of the Lake, which is consistent with broader Arthurian readings of the Harry Potter series.

Snape’s role as The Lady of the Lake is broader than the simple provision of a magical weapon, for not only does he lead Harry to this necessary tool, but he also reunites the young man with his most loyal companion, or, it might be said, knight – Ron Weasley.

Shades of Snape’s role as the Lady of the Lake also exist in his complex relationship with Albus Dumbledore. While Dumbledore has clearly served as a mentor, friend and confidant to Snape, Snape’s contempt for Dumbledore’s use, and, it can be argued, exploitation of him, is clear, implicitly throughout the series and explicitly in Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows. Additionally critical to Snape’s portrayal of the Lady of the Lake is his role in Dumbledore’s demise.

These matters of status and use between the two men mirror the problematic relationship between Merlin and The Lady of the Lake in Arthurian legend. While there are many different versions of these tales –- in large part because Arthurian legend has been the subject of fanfiction-like cultural revision and expansion for centuries — one oft repeated theme in these stories is that Merlin mentored the Lady who took on her exile within the lake in response to and rejection of his unwanted romantic and sexual advances. In these stories, ultimately, it is the Lady who eventually helps to secure Merlin’s downfall.

Snape is clearly mentored by Dumbledore throughout his history, but he also rejects Dumbledore’s attempts to make him a truly different man. Just because Snape rejects the evil of the Death Eaters, does not mean he does so for noble purposes. Rather, they are selfish and so he essentially rejects Dumeblore’s own greedy advances to sway him to the side of light. Finally, it is Snape who assassinates Dumbledore. While this is planned between the two men and is clearly portrayed as a subject of grief for Snape, the fact remains that Avada Kedavra requires feelings of true hatred and it is certainly possibly that Snape found these feelings not just about Voldemort and his actions, but towards Dumbledore in the moment in which he utters the killing curse.

Snape’s actions in the Sword of Gryffindor scene also offer us another, non-Arthurian nod to his representation of female gender in the form of his patronus. Snape’s patronus is explicitly female, and this possession of a patronus of a different gender than its caster is, in fact, nearly unique in the series. While Tonks’s patronus is noted to be a dog or a wolf when she is harbouring her then unexpressed crush on Lupin (a feeling mistakenly thought to be directed at Sirius Black), its gender is not, in fact defined. Additionally, as a metamorphmagus, it’s arguable that Tonk’s gender is not really defined either despite the fact we always see her in female form. While it is certainly possible that her patronus is male to represent her feelings for Lupin, this seems unlikely or at least atypical in light James and Lily’s patronuses matching but being gender-consistent.

This leaves Snape’s Doe patronus as a startling anomaly for which we have no clue within the text on how to decode. In thinking about this, I kept trying to look at the way the daemons work in His Dark Materials – same sex demons only occur in gay individuals – what does a same sex patronus mean? Is it representative of great sexual or romantic love? Is it symptomatic of Snape’s profound covetousness of the woman he can’t have? Is it an expression of grief? Or, does it ultimately emphasize Snape’s feminine characteristics and underscore both Snape’s identification with, and the reader’s identification of Snape with, the feminine within the Harry Potter series?

Snape’s association with the feminine is also highlighted by his struggles to claim a masculine role. While being unable to claim masculinity must not be equated with being able to claim femininity, these two conditions so work together to help to establish Snape’s literary gender. For example, Snape’s insistence that he is “not a coward” is an attempt to claim masculine authority, as no idealized man, especially in a society as Western-tradition bound as the wizarding world, could if suffering under that label.

Snape’s performative masclininity is also challenged in his love for and loyalty to Lily Potter. Being so driven by romantic love is, of course, an arguably stereotypically feminine trait in the modern world. By contrast to Snape, Harry rejects his relationship with Ginny to be a warrior, whereas Snape only chooses to go to war out of his adoration of Lily Potter.

To a certain extent this mirrors the well-documented phenomena of women going to war, disguised as men, largely during the 19th century in order to follow lovers who had left them behind to fight.

Similarly, we learn that there have been no other women for Snape because of his devotion to Lily Potter, or, at least, her memory. This is, in the context of the books likely to be both an emotional and sexual fidelity. Snape can then, therefore, be speculated to be a virgin – a state often revered in women, but maligned in men.

It is, in fact, only in death that Snape achieves literary manhood, for his passions and desires are only revealed in the examination of his memories, which he emits in viscous fluid at the moment of his death. While this is no little death, that is, no orgasm, it is the culmination of all that Snape is, and stands in for the sexual and romantic life he subsumed to duty, obsession and error.

And it is in death, that even Harry acknowledges Snape’s manhood, calling him, “the bravest man [he] ever knew.”

However, I disagree with the idea that Severus being re-coded as masculine is part of his redemption.  The only solid evidence for his re-coding given here are his memories being symbolism of male orgasm, which is weak symbolism at best and more likely false symbolism all together.  Memories are mentioned several times throughout the novels, and at no other point are they symbolism of male ejaculation or even symbolism at all.  In order for something to be symbolism, it must be prominently and frequently brought up as such throughout a work.  Memories, no matter how much their description might fit male ejaculate if you squint hard enough, are neither.

The “sexual and romantic life” they reveal is the same life used previously in this piece as evidence of his feminine coding.  Their revelation is simply the only way Snape would ever reveal that life to Harry, and serves as characterization rather than any symbolism—they are revealed only in his death, after all, and hardly comprise a resumption of romantic or sexual selfishness on his part.

Unless you believe that bravery is solely the purview of masculinity, Harry acknowledges Snape’s heroism to his son rather than Snape’s masculinity, a heroism which—as is the point of this piece—for Snape has been feminine throughout the books.

Aside from all that, the manner of Snape’s death is feminine.  He dies due to a snake bite, a penetrative act (here is the sexual symbolism in that scene), and again evoking the Genesis narrative, casting Snape as Eve murdered (in this case literally as well as spiritually) by the devil.

I’ve said elsewhere that the reveal of his love for Lily, to me, has no (necessary) significance of romanticism or sexuality*. I don’t deny that reading: I just find it really important that love can be a driving force without having to be romantic, possessive and blinding. After all, look at other important relationships/love dynamics in the series - Harry and Ginny put aside romance in favor of war, Ron and Hermione don’t fall in love in a stereotypical way nor suddenly change for each other because ~romance, sacrifice-deaths are not played as grand gestures but acts of selflessness (James, Dumbledore). Also, the Malfoys not giving a shrivelfig about Voldemort when husband/mom/son is in danger. 

On that note, yes! to heroism =/= bravery =/= masculinity. There are some undoubtedly brave traitors that are still not heroic in the structure of their tale, other than Snape: Narcissa, Regulus, but also Andromeda; going against the current silently, for the people they love. Snape is also subtle in the way he helps (and keeps silent about it): not only because of the spying, but, for instance, when Harry needs him to convey that Padfoot’s at the Ministry in front of Umbridge. 

Regarding the Patronus… the shippers (all shippers) have said a lot about it. But I subscribe to the reading that it mirrors his taking on the role of mother for Harry, in a way. Actually, Harry comes across a lot of surrogate parental figures: Petunia and Vernon as the controlling but cold kind (each with their own tropes), Molly as the smothering but loving kind, Sirius as the stuck-in-the-past father, Dumbledore as the quintessential definition of patriarch (making decisions without Harry’s input or consent and also I’m not angry, just disappointed) …Snape is definitely an important figure in Harry’s life, but he doesn’t really fit a stereotypically fatherly role (neither positive or negative). He’s not really a mentor. Symbolically, boys grow up to replace their fathers; the father prepares them for it, while the mother has a different role and weight in their lives, having a lot to do with managing emotions and seeing things from another perspective. Harry and Snape’s relationship reminds me more of the interactions between a teenage girl and her mom, where both have anger management issues because they literally reflect it from each other (Harry’s interactions with Snape are shaped by his initial treatment of him, Snape’s impatience with Harry grows with the latter’s insolence). Snape embodies the “tough love” approach: he openly criticizes because he thinks you need to realize your flaws so you can change them, and clearly believes that if you’re weak, you deserve to be stricken down so you’ll learn. I don’t think he even realizes that constructive criticism or positive reinforcement are a thing. He doesn’t lead by example, his attacks are personal and emotional.

I don’t think Snape really needs a reaffirmation of masculinity (nor does he get it). He operates outside normal dynamics and roles - he places himself constantly on the outside of everything, but although he can never actually escape his situations, he doesn’t want (or want to want) anyone’s help or reassurance that he’s doing okay.

Also, this got longer than expected and I should go to bed.

-

*: But then again (according to sources close to the blogger) I’m on a quest to destroy romanticism. At least, the idea of romantic love as the most powerful, durable, reliable and worthy-of-note thing on Earth. Not saying it cannot be. Just that in 90% of the cases its representation is misguided, codependent, borderline abusive, and incredibly idealized.

I agree completely that he is a mother figure, in multiple ways–as a teacher, and for both Draco and Harry–but he is a reluctant mother figure.  Teaching is not his first choice, but a role Dumbledore chooses for him as a way to keep his newest spy handy.  He protects Draco in Narcissa’s stead, but under threat of an Unbreakable Vow, and he protects Harry in Lily’s stead, but makes no secret of his distaste for Harry and for the demands Dumbledore makes of him.  He takes on Lily’s patronus and not James’ because he is symbolically taking Lily’s place in Harry’s life–the mother role and not the father–but it is more clearly seen as being because he loved Lily and hated James, indicating that he would have preferred to take James’ place.

He resents James in part because of everything he claims to scorn–James is an obvious Gryffindor, popular, wealthy, loved from the moment he was born by attentive parents, and makes friends easily with everyone–but his scorn for these things is born at least in some capacity from jealousy.  He wants to be good at Quidditch; he is bookish and quiet while James is athletic and hugely popular as a result, and though Remus’ and Sirius’ comments that the rivalry between James and Snape was due to James’ Quidditch prowess should obviously be taken with several grains of salt, there is probably some truth there.  He is best at potions, with all its feminine symbolism, but he wants to be best at Defense Against the Dark Arts, a field which requires exactly the sort of “foolish wand-waving” he derides in his opening monologue in the first book.  (Speaking of Freudian symbolic analysis…)  James represents all of the things Severus wanted (or thought he wanted) but never got, including that perfect traditional gender role dichotomy of James and Lily as the stag and the doe.

A great deal of Snape’s vitriol stems from a sort of preemptive derision; he was mocked and outcast all of his life for his inability to fit a traditionally masculine, popular role, and so as he grew older he mocked that sort of role and the people who fit it in retaliation.  I don’t mean to say that I think he would have been happy fitting into a traditional role, but he certainly envied the results of doing so, particularly as a child.  No matter how comfortable with himself he might have been had he been supported and loved from childhood, constant and unrelenting social pressure, psychological torment, and loneliness are powerful tools for shaping hatred.

Some more thoughts - the concept of courtly love is one that goes very nicely with the rest of the Arthurian elements, and fits Snape very well, from the actual relationship between the knight and the lady he chooses to champion (Lancelot and Guinevere and Tristan and Isolde were an exception, rather than a rule in Mediaeval romances; courtly love can be seen as celebration of platonic adultery) to the strong element of almost religious worship of said lady (courtly love as a mediavel literary concept arose out of two things - Troubadour poetry and cult of the Virgin Mary). 

Stains that never come off also echo Lady Macbeth, another gender-bending character who’s also often associated with witchcraft (Shakespearean scholarship often casts her narratively and structurally alongside the three ‘witches’ of the Scottish play - who also straddle the line between male and female, who dance round a cauldron when we first see them, and who are actually connected to the pagan belief in Fate over god - thus the name Weird - aka Wyrd in Old English - aka Fate in contemporary English - Sisters). 

So logically, if a more old-fashioned culture allowed these gestures to take place they naturally didn’t associate them with same-sex couples. That was just normal Guys Being Bros friendly gestures. They also allowed breastfeeding in public spaces because boobs weren’t for sexual, they were for FEEDING YOUR INFANT CHILD (apparently there are people who think breastfeeding is ‘obscene’ which…the heck? that’s literally what they’re for?).

Every person who reblogs this will have a Pokémon egg in their submissions and a few days later a Pokémon will hatch from the egg.

*clonk*

“two hops this time”

Daryl: Here, have my jacket

Rick: Hey, I’m cold too

Negan: What? *takes off leather jacket* I fucking told you to bring more fucking layers but of course you didn’t listen and now *puts his scraft on Rick’s neck* I fucking have to make sure you don’t fucking FREEZE to death but you’re fucking allergic to shirts so what the fuck did I expect and *takes somebody else’s hat* how fucking long have you been cold you piece of shit you should’ve said something sooner

The truth of the matter is that expecting mothers who find out that their baby will be born with fatal defects will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early, in order to allow for organ donation.  Note this this is simply an option, and there is no incentive or penalty for either choice.

I don’t think a single other person read that headline and thought they were “encouraging women to somehow disable their fetuses in order to use them for organs.” That’s not why people find it incredibly disturbing and I’m astounded those were the conclusions you drew and thought it needed to be corrected. No seriously where did you get the idea that it was being claimed that mothers were being told to disable unborn children so they could be harvested? That makes no sense, that’s like the logic of Ricky from Trailer Park Boys who thinks that as long as you drag stolen goods down to the curb it becomes garbage and it’s not illegal to steal garbage. The very idea of a baby needing to be disabled in order to justify harvesting it’s organs should be offensive, it implies disabled people have less right to be alive and have their organs inside their own fucking bodies. The article title wasn’t misleading your terribly needless strawman explanation of the title was misleading. This is the exact reason I hate “fact checkers” you need fact checkers for the fact checkers they can be so bogged down in spin and semantics and dumb bullshit like this. The problem is with the harvesting of organs from disabled babies full stop. I didn’t think this needed to be explained but here goes.

First of all it turns human life into a commodity, and not just a commodity but a commodity that would be controlled by the medical system of an increasingly fascist socialist government. What could go wrong?

Like for example it hasn’t even happened yet and already there seems to be confusion about what exactly constitutes fatal defects. A system that always is going to want more organs is going to determine for themselves what is disabled enough? And what level of disabled is enough that you should be determined as scrap parts instead of a person? How do you know the baby will die? Doctors tell people their kids will be born dead or will die soon all the time that live full lives. One of my best friends parents were told he wouldn’t make it past a few weeks and he’s in his late twenties now. Really glad this wasn’t the policy back then.

“will be given the option to carry out the birth, rather than terminate early” No, carrying out the pregnancy has always been an option it’s the harvesting of organs that would be the new factor here. If it’s as you said that they are being given the option to carry out the pregnancy does that mean that right now women are being forced to have abortions? No giving birth is and always has been the default option. I find it gross that you think the only thing people do when they find out a baby will have serious defects is just abort it. These fatal defects represent a percentage chance of survival not a guarantee, so while yes a lot of people just say fuck it and abort at any sign of a problem there are also lots of people that take the risk give birth because worst case scenario the baby dies naturally best case scenario it survives. Medium case scenario it survives but raising it is costly and they have a lower quality of life…but it’s still a life and it should be up to a person to decide if their quality of life is low enough that they would rather not have it at all. 

The horrifying part is they are not talking about stillborns, they’re not talking about babies that died in the womb. They’re talking about babies they believe will die eventually after being born. Who makes that determination? You trust the NHS… a system so shitty they amputate the wrong limbs on people to decide what babies are basically done for before they’re even born. Especially when they will benefit from every single baby a parent decides to allow be harvested. If there is room for corruption there will be corruption.

 So what happens once those babies are born and they’re alive? Do they start up a daycare center thats whole purpose is to wait for babies to die so they can be harvested? I’m sure the care there would be super humane and hospitable. What do they do with the ones that survive? By that point they would have become property of the NHS because they’re not babies they’re just living organ donations that haven’t had the courtesy to die naturally yet. Do they call up the mother and say hey so remember when you told us we could harvest your dead baby…well can you come by and pick up your two year old… that fucker is being really stubborn about not dying like we promised. Or much more likely they’ll just kill the babies immediately to avoid that burden and complication and not give them the chance to survive. I’ve already heard the term post birth abortion or as someone with a soul left would call it baby murder. 

They try to get around this by claiming the harvesting wont be an option until they are told the mother wants to have an abortion. What a great failsafe right? Well except that they can tell the mother whatever they want to get her to say she wants an abortion. They can tell her that her baby will definitely die when it might have a good chance of living. Which happens already without the added incentive of wanting to harvest the organs.