On being "simplistic"

[author_by_night]

There are many things in the books that are simplistic.

The notion that all Slytherins are bad, bad bad? (Imagine me saying "bad, bad bad" in a four year old voice). That's simplistic. JKR has refuted it in a chat (but has done nothng to show in the books that Slytherins aren't all "fat ugly meanies").

It's also simplistic that not one single person was nice to Harry before Hogwarts. Well... not as simplistic as it is an angst method.

But thinking when Snape said "Avada Kedavra" , he meant "Avada Kedavra", and not "Albus I am so sorry" is not simplistic.

Do I wish JKR had not made him evil? Yes. Am I entirely convinced that he's a full DE? No.

I think Snape works for himself.

Now, others disagree. That's fine. I've seen the points, and a lot of them are good.

What ticks me off is when the others decide to brush off the opposing argument as "simplistic."

 

Comments

[abbers44.livejournal.com]

Word.

Things that others deem 'simplistic' are usually the deepest ideas out there.

[gileonnen.livejournal.com]

+grin+ Amen. I frankly don't think Snape works for either side, but instead takes what he can from either as it suits his needs.

[tipsytoe.livejournal.com]

I agree on Snape. I think there is something more to it, and I hope there will be.

[talimeeka.livejournal.com]

When it comes to Snape I don't really know anymore. I guess I'll just wait and see what Jo brings.

Also, I suspect that we'll see a nice Slytherin in book 7, and Slughorn wasn't a truly bad person either.

[starpaint.livejournal.com]

Hm, yes. But that's not all that complex writing means. It's also just being able to explore an issue realistically and deal with things from a number of angles. Sort of like... I think that Rowling's characters are fleshed out-caricatures. They're human, they're imperfect, and Rowling makes an effort to recognize that in all of them. (Or most of them. Or something.) But she can only go so far with that, because she set out pretty simple templates when writing them. It's not necessarily a bad thing, but it does place limitations on what she can do with them, and it may or may not be problematic somewhere along the line.

So with Snape, the issue's not whether there's a deeper meaning, but whether killing Dumbledore undid all his development as a character. And I don't think it did. So.

[starpaint.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I do get what you're saying. But I think we're talking about two different types of complexities, and it's useful to distinguish them, if only so the conversation makes sense.

And you're definitely right about that kind of complexity.

[starpaint.livejournal.com]

I didn't start talking about pink aliens anywhere, did I?

*furtive looks*

[linda-lupos.livejournal.com]

+grin+ Amen. I frankly don't think Snape works for either side, but instead takes what he can from either as it suits his needs.


What she said. :)

[netbyrd.livejournal.com]

OMG. your icon.

ahem, yes.

anyways, I fully believe that Snape is on his own side. And I also think that he made some sort of previous Unbreakable vow with Dumbledore we know nothing of, and that Dumbledore was going to die anyhow. So I believe the AK has some sorrow behind it, but it was duty- for the good of the many-- that sort of thing. So no evil!snape and no good!snape. Just best-for-me!Snape.

[parallactic.livejournal.com]

I don't think the books are simplistic, and that JKR is trying to tackle some issues like prejudice and making the right choices. But I'm not sure if she can quite pull it off. HBP made the Slytherins more sympathetic (conflicted Draco, Harry liking Snape via the book), but it also made Voldemort a 2D villain.

[airriphlyer.livejournal.com]

Yes, I agree with what everyone said on simplistic. Wasn't an argument for H/Hr simplistic, or am I just imagining it?

My Snape is Not-Totally-Evil!Snape. I'm hovering between Works-Only-For-Self!Snape and Dumbledore's-Man!Snape, though.

[noxasclepia.livejournal.com]

Thank you. :)

It's nice to see someone standing up to the 'Anything-other-than-Good!Snape-is-simplistic' attacks that have become quite frequent in fandom. The Good!Snapers are certainly a defensive bunch. The thing I find sad is that they largely see themselves as pro-Snapers, and that everyone else is anti-Snape; I consider myself very pro-Snape, but I'm more for OutForHimself!Snape and even DE!Snape, over Good!Snape. I just think it makes a more interesting story.

[jan-aq.livejournal.com]

you know, the thing that bothers me the most about Harry potter is the amount of deepness and amazing things the readers get out of it, and then JKR writes the next book and it's like... not serious. It's a kid book again and everything everyone really thought and tried to get out of it is like... I can't believe that it was just ignored like that. :\

[jan-aq.livejournal.com]

I don't want the books to be simplistic. :(