Softly Simmering

Dumbledore: over my dead body

liking a character ≠ condoning their actions

understanding a character ≠ condoning their actions

relating to a character ≠ condoning their actions

I apologise if you feel that I was dismissive of racism.  Having gone back and read your ask again, I hold my hands up - you stated that Snape has privilege based upon his ethnicity and sex, and not (as I read) that he was privileged because of this.  The difference is subtle, but it’s there - and I apologise because your point is fair.

I do know that she, like so many white authors, may have intended to do something good and I suspect that the extent of the Death Eaters and Lord Voldemort symbolising racism, prejudice, anti-Semitism, etc. has also been built up more over the years by fandom, the media, and on Pottermore as the insistence on the parallels have caught on but I fear it is more a cautionary tale for aspiring authors (and Harry Potter fans engaging in “discourse” really). If you want to write about discrimination and you come from a place of privilege you need to be informed and do a bit of research or even the best intentions can be unintentionally harmful.

Living in the UK my experiences all intersected based on my race, my class, my gender, and my queer identity in such a way that is rather complicated. I try not to be too frustrated with American readers that write meta in the fandom specific to matters of privilege when they exclude or downplay the issue of classism because as I understand American social and cultural politics things are very different there.

Still, I do wish more consideration was shown as so many social media sites can feel like they have an American-centric point-of-view that excludes other cultures or treats American culture as the default. In matters of fandom it can be challenging enough but when it crosses over to social justice you end up feeling shut out or given less of a space to have a voice.

Going back to Harry Potter, I find that the problem is that Jo did very well at writing about an issue she had personally experienced (so well anyone reading from the UK could likely catch onto the subtle and not-so-subtle indicators of it and find it all very familiar and meaningful) and that was the devastating effects that classism can have here. Where she fell short was writing about forms of oppression that she, as a white and cis-het identifying woman could not have had first-hand experience with.

We see the extremes of what racism or prejudice can lead to with her nod to internment camps in Cursed Child or the Death Eaters’ blood purity but when fans (primarily Jewish black and poc fans) of the series are critical or uncomfortable with seeing other fans (anti-Snape fans or otherwise) draw comparisons between blood purity rhetoric and racism or anti-Semitism we do have a good reason for it. Many of which @deathdaydungeon and @raptured-night do detail brilliantly in this discussion here so I won’t go into all of the reasons myself (although the issue of former oppressors become targets of oppression bears repeating and I would urge any fan to read the post I have linked for it does distinguish a key fault in comparing blood prejudice to real forms of prejudice or racism).

Instead, I’ll just say that the absence of any demonstration of systemic prejudice and discrimination; that there are no real examples of Muggle-borns like Hermione or Lily struggling for fair or equal representation at Hogwarts or Wizarding Britain overall (be it working twice as hard for fair grades compared to their pureblood peers or struggling to find gainful employment equal to pureblood’s on the merits of skill post graduation) or even against micro-aggressions (e.g. having their accomplishments taken as an exception to the general rule that Muggle-borns are somehow less innately talented with magic would have been a good start; for instance, McGonagall or Slughorn praising Hermione or Lily as extraordinary not for the merits of their work but the marvel they can do anything so well being Muggle-born) actually makes Jo’s intentions more harmful than helpful for those of us who have real experience with racism or other forms of discrimination as an institution within our society.

What Jo’s prejudice in Harry Potter does is draw a very clear line: “us vs them,” “good vs evil,” “right vs wrong.” The problem is that real discrimination is not so neat and tidy and this is a very privileged way of looking at it. The idea that so long as you avoid the extremes, like slurs (e.g. Mudblood in Harry Potter) or the hate crimes (e.g. internment camps or supporting genocide or segregation), etc. then you’re one of the “good ones” with clean hands and it isn’t your problem is not what we need to perpetuate. That vision of prejudice, racism, etc., eliminates the issue of privilege and discrimination as a systemic issue. It absolves those who benefit from oppression from responsibility by telling them that so long as they don’t do the extreme, obvious “bad thing” then they’re fine and don’t need to worry about it, which leaves those of us who are affected by oppression where we’ve always been fighting for our rights without much support. Jo’s prejudice is very black and white, with the exception of Snape.

We also see this in her best efforts to represent the lgbt community. I not only agree with @deathdaydungeon that Dumbledore was not written as a queer character in a way that represents those of us in the lgbt community but I find the interpretation of Lycanthropy as a possible symbol of the AIDs epidemic within the lgbt community during the 80s to be very disconcerting as well. Not the least because there has long been a stigma in the lgbt community that being lgbt is a stepping off point for paedophilia or bestiality or “sexual deviancy/perversion.”

So, of the two werewolf characters in her book that are meant to serve as symbols of the treatment of lgbt people during the AIDs crisis of the 80s, they either happen to be unquestionably evil and deviant (even something of a paedophile/child predator given the way Greyback stalked a young Lupin to “infect” him and years later in Malfoy Manor made those disturbing remarks about Hermione that hint to sexual assault) and the other, if we’re to go with the AIDs symbolism properly, “forgot to take his potion” (i.e. use protection) at a school and almost attacked underage students. Then there is the addendum of a majority of werewolves supporting Voldemort in the war. Under scrutiny, the lgbt representation for Harry Potter falls very short of what may have been the intended mark and Jo’s own cis-het limited understanding of complex issues do show up.

Again, I would argue that the exception to this might be Snape. There is some fascinating discourse already about the way that Snape’s character subverts gender and you also see a bit of gender specific prejudice connected to his character, including but not limited to examples of transphobia, sexism, and the enforcement of toxic masculinity tropes. The matter of male privilege is, as with most aspect of his character, complicated and blurred in Jo’s narrative in such a way I am not surprised that you’ll find a large portion of Snape fans that are fascinated by his character may identify as lgbt (classism also complicates a black-and-white conclusion of male privilege as well because of the impact of classism in the UK so you have to factor that in the way you would account for the way race, sexual orientation, etc. intersect with male privilege). The catching on of trans!Snape within fandom is a good example (there’s even been a trans!Snape week on his behalf).

This is honestly where I feel much of the anti-Snape discourse where the matter of privilege is broached not only tends to fall a bit short because it tends to oversimplify issues that are far more complex but it can even become problematic because the narrative is being dominated by people who often seem to me to be either white, American, cis-het, (WASPs even) or just generally very young and only beginning to dip their toe into social justice and not yet at a point where they have begun to unpack all the complicated nuances of it (not least the matter of intersectionality). This does trouble me because it can lead to a great deal of misinformation, not just about Harry Potter canon vs fanon but social issues that affect many of us in a very personal sense.

Social justice isn’t a game where you collect good person points for applying the terminology where applicable and it shouldn’t be treated as such (and I am not accusing your anonymous contributor of this just to be clear, so at any point where I use “you” just assume I am addressing a more general audience and not the anonymous person above specifically). The privileged “black and white,” “good and bad,” “right and wrong” outlook that some social justice advocates espouse is not only psychologically damaging in that it inhibits or does not allow for personal growth and enlightenment but it is harmful to those of us who are often sadly being marginalised within social justice discourse because those with privilege are using (unintentionally or not) allyship and black-and-white narratives to disavow from responsibility for systemic issues far more complicated than right/wrong thinking allows.

The most my mum can say of her ancestry is that she knows her family were once slaves that came to the Caribbeans and were entangled in the complex political web there between the Caribbean and the UK. Just as my mum’s blackness informed her daily life, it has mine, and it will my daughter’s (as much as that reality breaks my heart and I try to equip her with the wisdom and knowledge she needs to stand against it). My queer identity also informs my daily life and it intersects with my blackness and my gender. However, so does my class status here, in that I’ve been more privileged than some and less than others on a class specific basis.

So, when I or other bloggers write about the significance of class in Harry Potter or complain about American readers or younger UK readers overlooking the impact of class it isn’t downplaying or dismissing other forms of privilege for discrimination, which often seems to be the general assumption when these discourses come up. Other forms of privilege and discrimination do exist here, very much so (just read up on the xenophobic underpinnings of Brexit or the way race factored in the Grenfell Tower burning and you’ll see it does), but I think many American readers and younger readers in the UK who are still learning about these issues (and wouldn’t be as familiar with the era that Jo is writing about and the extremes of classism especially in the 60s-70s when Snape was a boy) could benefit by deferring a bit to the voices of those of us who are speaking from experience because class really really is a game changer here.

Please, to non-UK readers and younger readers still learning about these issues in our society, don’t be quick to marginalise those of us insisting upon the inclusion of classicism in your discourse by unintentionally engaging in what I tend to think of as the discrimination Olympics. Because intersectionality in social justice is more complicated than one privilege over-throwing another or one earning a person more oppression points than the other. Understanding the way these issues intersect is key, and you can’t do that if you ignore the way different forms of oppression are affected by culture or world region or race or gender or sexual orientation etc.

I’ll go on to say that for every anti-Snape blogger that I see who writes up condemning meta or hate posts comparing Snape and anyone who enjoys his character to Nazi sympathisers, misogynists, or racists (especially the ones tagging pro-Snape it so his fans will see or posting it on fan’s pages) are also engaging in problematic behaviours (they’re neglecting to consider the black, Jewish, queer, etc. fans who all have valid reasons for liking his character and undermining their own anti-bullying stance by engaging in bullying and triggering activities). There are valid reasons to like, dislike, or hate a character but have a care when it comes to making extreme comparisons to prove that your feelings about that character are somehow indicative of superior moral sensibilities. In the very least, if you are going to assign social justice objections to a character be certain you have a firm grasp of it and ask yourself if you’re not overshadowing the voices of people who may have more authority via personal experiences with the subject matter you’re discussing than you to be speaking on it, or who may have experiences different from your own that are just as valid.

I see a great deal of discourse surrounding blood prejudice as a symbolic form of racism and how Snape’s youth paints him as a racist in turn, yet I see very little of that discourse going a step further and exploring how Snape being a half-blood himself doesn’t stand as a commentary on the issue of internalised racism within black communities and the communities of other people of colour and how factors like imperialism, colonialism, and systemic discrimination contribute to that. There is also the very old trope in literature, specifically British literature, of assigning positive characteristics to “lightness” as an indication of goodness or desirability/beauty and “blackness or darkness” as indicators of savagery, barbarism, inferiority, ignorance, or even innate evil.

Shouldn’t we examine the way Snape, described with all his “dark” imagery, serves to subvert this trope in the way his character has been coded? I do think it at least merits some consideration, strictly speaking as a black woman who had to grow up reading about the the uncultured, barbarism or evil of anyone with a dark complexion or blackness to them (see Tolkien’s Orcs, Easterlings, or Southrons or Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes’ The Sign of the Four or Bronte’s Heathcliff, etc, etc.). Perhaps one disagrees, but then, I would assert that in the very least the readings of Snape as distinctly Jewish or Romani merit some discourse and we should explore how his being a Death Eater in his youth then a reformed Death Eater the remainder of his life influences this reading.

I see a great deal of discourse comparing Snape to the “nice guy trope” or accusing him of misogyny, yet as a queer person I fail to see where much of that discourse goes much further beyond those black and white comparisons to explore the issue of gender politics as it applies to Snape. In particular, the matter of toxic masculinity (his class may also intersect with this as would the regional culture of where he grew up in the UK slums) and how it may have been reinforced by characters who disparaged or questioned his masculinity (i.e. the Marauders or Petunia in canon), which also ties into the issue of Snape’s own gender non-conforming characterisation and the speculations it opens to instances of potential transphobia and misogyny on the part of other characters, not to mention the lgbt readings of Snape as ace/aro, queer, demi-sexual, bisexual, etc.

As a black woman I connected with Snape almost as much as I did Hermione, for all that her vague descriptions allowed me to eek out some sense of greater representation within Jo’s world (and I can’t tell you how chuffed I was when the casting for Cursed Child was announced and I saw who would be playing Hermione), and as a queer identifying person I connected with Snape far more than I ever did Dumbledore. My heart broke as a UK reader when I recognised the effects of classicism on his life and as a person who was bullied relentlessly for factors beyond my control I connected with Snape and found a kind of solace in the fact we were given an example of abuse and bullying that didn’t fall into the “noble victim” fallacy. The one where the victim is raised to a status of sainthood, and who serves as a source of inspiration porn for everyone to point to as an example of the ideal sufferer of trauma (often to play pain Olympics with so that other victims are made to feel less adequate if they don’t fall into a one-size fits all idea of recovery).

Trauma and mental illnesses can be messy and complicated and, speaking as a professional, there are no neat resolutions, no quick fixes, or permanent solutions. Trauma and mental illnesses are managed through time and with a positive support system that aims to replace maladaptive coping mechanisms with more healthy ones. People need to see more characters like Snape; ones who are messy and flawed and unable to cope with aspects of their past well into adulthood; ones who are more easily triggered (indeed ones who do in fact have triggers); whose trauma or mental illness has affected their personal lives and how they interact with the world around them right down to lack of self-care; ones who don’t have the support or understanding all of the time of the people around them; who find themselves in unhealthy environments or can’t get away from those environments for whatever reason; who are themselves a source of unhealthy or maladaptive behaviour without being inherently portrayed as evil; and, importantly, ones who are not so willing and able to just forgive those who have hurt them.

Say what you will, but there was something painfully realistic in Snape’s trauma and while I can understand why some readers would be triggered by it and even hate him because he serves as both a painful example of the complexity of abuse and mental illness (in that he stands as a character who does not allow for abuse or mental illness to be glamorised or softened and forces us all to face the sides of it, a reality to it, that we all often tend to prefer to avoid) and as someone one could project their own experiences with trauma and abuse onto I think there is something dangerous and damaging to antis shutting down discourse on Snape by accusing his fans of being abuse apologists as well. So, many may gravitate to him because of their own unique experiences with abuse or mental illness and as Snape’s class also factors into his own situation we have a very poignant message with Snape on the way classism in UK society can contribute to people, even brilliant people with so much potential as children, falling through the cracks.

Forgive the sudden tangent into psychology (I can’t ever seem to leave my work in the office) but all of this is simply to say that there are valid character criticisms where Snape is concerned, just as there are valid criticisms of Jo’s work as a whole, especially in her portrayal of prejudice. I personally feel that it’s possible to explore these things thoughtfully and with due consideration of the diverse experiences and opinions each reader may bring to the series. Unfortunately, specifically where Snape is concerned, the discourse on this site has devolved quite a bit into a toxic territory of what I often feel are very privileged black-and-white narratives that seek to enforce readings that fall into harmful pseudo social justice stances that fail to apply intersectional scrutiny or consider complexities that might make right/wrong thinking more damaging to marginalised communities than not.

I wonder what Snape’s patronus was before the doe. I like to imagine some kind of snake or a bat.

I feel as if my posts aren’t coming across properly - that my tone is being read differently to my intent.

You are honestly one of the bloggers that I respect the most, out of any fandom. I’ve always deeply admired your writing, both for it’s depth and for it’s clarity. Your arguments and opinions are so well argued and presented, and you have such a refreshing and admirable humility to your analyses. I’ve always felt that you keep an open mind and welcome other people’s ideas, and actually listen to what others have to say. Rare qualities on a site like this.

Harry Potter rolled over inside his blankets without waking up. One small hand closed on the letter beside him and he slept on, not knowing he was special, not knowing he was famous, not knowing he would be woken in a few hours’ time by Mrs. Dursley’s scream as she opened the front door to put out the milk bottles, nor that he would spend the next few weeks being prodded and pinched by his cousin Dudley… He couldn’t know that at this very moment, people meeting in secret all over the country were holding up their glasses and saying in hushed voices: “To Harry Potter - the boy who lived!”

I might be wrong, but I always perceive Dumbledore as being somewhat ambivalent towards them all - not because he’s a horrible person, but because they’re just silly teenage boys and he’s got a whole school full of such dramas.  I always read Dumbledore as being a relatively hands-off Headmaster, full of the concerns of the Ministry and the Wizengamot - and whilst he’s involved in the broader scope of Hogwarts, he leaves the teacher-pupil interactions to his Heads of House.

So up until he has to step in with the Marauders and Severus, I don’t think any of them are actively on his radar, positively or negatively - and I think his apparent favouring of the Marauders has more to do with preserving Remus’ education than Dumbledore actively siding with Sirius or Severus.  Unfortunately, I fear it would appear that way to both parties, bolstering Sirius and James to the level that they’re quite happy to continue bullying Severus in a very vicious manner only a short time later…and inadvertently propelling Severus towards those who are anti-Dumbledore.

I genuinely believe that Dumbledore didn’t realise that these boys would be the cornerstone of the next war, and had no idea of the impact of his decision.  It’s even possible that from a strategic perspective, Dumbledore felt that currying favour with Sirius was more important - for whilst Sirius is outwardly despising of his family, Dumbledore might assume there’s an avenue for future infiltration; a useful ally, perhaps.  

Severus, on the other hand, I think might’ve been seen as a lost cause - already too deeply in with the Slytherin rhetoric, unpleasant in both looks and demeanour, and having no real currency with either side.  Given how quiet Lily and Severus’ friendship appeared to be, and the fact that nobody (not even Lily, I’d wager) realised how strongly Severus felt for Lily, it’s reasonable for Dumbledore to assume that Severus had no draw at all towards the Order.

But in all honesty, I am unconvinced it’s as deep as that.

By the time we fast-forward to their next interactions, it’s all a little more complicated.  On the surface, Dumbledore does seem to favour Severus over Sirius - but again, I don’t think this is particularly legitimate.  I think this is to do with the roles that both men are playing.

Sirius is a very dangerous man in Dumbledore’s eyes, as he has Harry’s affection, whilst he’s proven himself to be reckless and inconsiderate of the greater war effort.  It’s not that he doesn’t want Harry to fight, but that he’ll gladly put Harry in danger because he hasn’t thought through the consequences.  It’s entirely likely that left unchecked, Sirius will convince Harry to leave the protections so carefully constructed at the Dursleys, risking Harry’s wellbeing - and it’s a real risk that Harry will listen to Sirius and give as much credence to his word as he does Dumbledore’s.  It’s imperative, for the war effort, that Harry remains certain that Dumbledore is the man with the answers.

And then, Severus.  I think Dumbledore’s relationship with Severus is very complicated, but for the most part, Severus does an awful lot of what Dumbledore requests - despite his apparent disdain for the boy, he continually protects him and he generally acquiesces to Dumbledore’s wishes.

Goblet of Fire is particularly intriguing because after a really rocky year for the pair in Prisoner of Azkaban, Severus is back on board - and Dumbledore must’ve been incredibly relieved.  Up until this point, it’s all been relatively easy with mere promises of future commitment, but I think once Dumbledore is assured by Severus at the ball that he definitely intends to return to Voldemort, his respect for his Potions Master balloons.

And that moment of concern?  Well, Dumbledore’s just heard Harry’s testimony, and he knows what sort of mood a thwarted Voldemort will be in - and Severus is willingly walking into the fire.  I think that no matter Dumbledore’s overall feelings, he would have to be made of stone not to have cared about Severus in that moment.

…and even if you do think that he’s not interested in Severus per se, well, you could always attribute it to him having spent just under 15 years grooming Severus to be the perfect spy for the duration of the next war, and he might be about to be slaughtered in the first five minutes…  

So, to answer your question, I think the boys were predominantly on a ‘usefulness’ scale for Dumbledore.  James was merely a lost soldier, Sirius was a boy with potential who rapidly lost all currency.  And Severus?  Well, I think the popular perception of Severus and Dumbledore as being akin to Harry and Dumbledore is flawed.  

I was probably slightly more intrigued by @lazarusquince‘s forum style discussion.  Else a community blog, a bit like @snapeloveposts might be the way forward.

On Discord, you create what they call a server (i.e. “Snape Reread 2017″), which people can then join (there can be restrictions on who can join to avoid trolls). This is basically like joining an overall forum. Within that server, you can create multiple text channels, which are like individual chatrooms. There could for example be channels for each chapter discussed, or for ‘clusters’ of chapters (if there is little to discuss in each). There could also be a channel specifically for NSFW discussions (with a restriction on who can join, i.e. 18+), or a channel for each of the more overall themes/topics (i.e. “Snape as a spy”, “Snape as a teacher”). There’s also a nice search function in Discord that allows you to search the content of the channels. The primary “advantage” of Discord is for me how it allows for quick back-and-forth discussions with many inputs. I think this is great for asking questions, for sharing quick observations, for sharing ideas that you’re still brooding on, and for getting feedback on ideas that you’re thinking about writing more formally about. On Tumblr, such discussions easily take up a lot of space on a blog due to the format of Tumblr, and those discussions can get shared pretty far and wide without the posters having any control over it. On Discord, it stays contained within a channel, which I feel puts a lot less pressure on the posters, and encourages more people to join more casually.