Rowling wrote Harry’s story, not Snape’s. That’s why Harry is less of a mystery than Snape – you see things from Harry’s point of view. If the first chapter of the first book introduced Severus Snape and laid out in a chapter or two everything you know about him by the end of book 7, and then slowly revealed this kid Harry Potter who you see only from Snape’s point of view – then Harry would have been the mystery and Snape much less of one. That’s not a fault of the author – it’s just a function of who the central character is. The series is among other things, a bildungsroman, with Harry as the protagonist: “Bildungsroman (IPA: [ˈbɪldʊŋs.roˌmaːn]/, German: “novel of personal development”) is a novelistic form which concentrates on the spiritual, moral, psychological, or social development and growth of the protagonist usually from childhood to maturity.”

I disagree with the idea that Snape is the only character with struggles. We learn in book 7 that Dumbledore was much less of a 2 dimensional character ethically and emotionally than we had been led to believe, for example. And more importantly, the entire 7 book series is a bildungsroman about Harry’s struggle to grow up, his dealing with normal adolescent struggles along with the weight of his abusive past and the burden of his prophesied future. The fact that he makes better choices on the whole in dealing with these struggles than most would, doesn’t mean they are easy choices nor that the struggles leave him unaffected.

Dumbledore may have said Harry emerged remarkably unscathed from the Dursleys’, but Rowling shows throughout the series that the experience of those early years marked Harry greatly, for both good and ill. Harry’s choices in response to an abusive childhood (and perhaps a better genetic predisposition – the whole nature/nurture debate) enable him to emerge from abuse and loneliness a much better person than did Snape. Unlike Snape, Harry has made the choice of love in spite of an abusive past. Not just the narrow, obsessive love of one other person but the choice of a life marked by a genral, though not perfect, outlook of love. He is thus able to allow those experiences to expand, rather than narrow, his character. He is able to have empathy for Snape and even Voldemort when he (who understands abuse and the loneliness of being unloved) sees what their childhoods were like. But he’s not perfect. He is human, and a teenager, and can be sulky, selfish or snarky at times. As for Harry’s wholeness being “an impossibility in the real world” anyone who has worked with abused or foster kids knows that while all of them are marked by their experiences, different kids react very differently to similar circumstances. There are kids, even siblings, who experience very similar things but whose eventual life paths and choices look very different from one another. Some become criminals or sociopaths like Voldemort. Others become cramped and bitter like Snape. A few defy the odds and in spite of their wounds make choices for love and life, like Harry in these books. The “success stories” of kids who transcend early abuse and turn out to be loving and whole people are the minority – but they do exist.

Mutual apologies? Harry may owe Snape an apology for having a snarky attitude but the great weight of wrong in that relationship lies on Snape’s side, IMO. The lonely 11 year old arrives at school and is greeted by an adult who for no apparent reason hates him, treats him with nasty unfairness, and the child is supposed to be “the bigger guy” and treat Snape with kindness, understanding and respect? There is plenty of evidence that by the end Harry’s character has grown to the point where, if Snape had levelled with him, Harry would gladly be reconciled to him. Albus Severus IS Harry’s “apology” to Snape. If one wants, one can read the giving of Snape’s memories as Snape’s “apology” to Harry – although I think that is better understood as Snape’s final act of love for Lily. But a real face to face reconciliation is implausible, in light of the type of person Snape had chosen to become. Harry would have been willing and able to have such a reconciliation, with the knowledge gained from the penseive. There’s no evidence that Snape could have endured such a conversation, or would have even been interested in it. In fact there is substantial evidence to the contrary.

Snape is in some ways the anti-Harry. In this bildungsroman, he is often the example of how NOT to allow one’s character to be shaped by events and the choices that follow in the wake of those events. Yes, he is intriguing and complex, and he is brave and noble in one narrow, all-consuming area of his life. His love for Lilly and sacrifice for her (for Lilly I would argue, not for Harry – he would gladly see Harry and James dead if he could have Lilly back and for himself) redeem him in the end because in Snape and to a lesser extent the Malfoys Rowling wants to say that the ability to love, even a little, gives us hope for someone. But that narrow, cramped and consuming secret love, while making him an interesting character, does not make him the moral center of the books. He is an essential, intriguing, complex and deep character who add immeasurably to the richness of the story. He’s not a two dimensional villian. I pity him. I admire his bravery, but deplore most of his life’s choices. But that’s where it ends for me.

The need for kinship is a timely issue for Western societies, where work groups are seldom based on kinship and people have less frequent and intense contact with their relatives. Rowling stresses the importance of maintaining the bonds of kinship, even when one’s kin may be distantly related, unappreciative, or disliked, and even if when it means breaking trust with non-kin. Rowling also recognizes the values of integrating non-relatives as kin, affirming kinship ties through naming practices, and upholding good family relations.

While many readers may see the Harry Potter Series as being about “good vs. evil” or “love vs. hate,” they would be correct insofar as these basic conflicts move the plot and provide entertainment. However, the main lesson of the series is not that Harry and his friends are good, or that Voldemort and his followers are evil. These things are presented not as lessons, but as accepted facts. Nor does the series really teach the reader that it is good to love, which is more of an observation than a lesson—something the reader already knows. The series’ lessons are revealed, rather, in the choices that the characters make. As Dumbledore explains in Book 1, “It is our choices Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.” And in “Deathly Hallows,” many significant choices center on kinship.

In the world of Harry Potter, kinship is not limited to biological relationships. Kinship is shown to embrace genealogy, consanguinity, affinity, friendship, god-parents, name-sharing, the living, and the dead. Family relationships are created when individuals choose to regard a nonkin relationship as something similar to a family link. Examples include Sirius Black being chosen as Harry’s godfather, Harry being chosen as Teddy Lupin’s godfather, and Harry naming his son Albus Severus, thereby assigning kinship status to Professors Dumbledore and Snape. Kinship ties with the deceased are also reaffirmed as Harry names two of his children after his biological parents, James and Lily. Also, friends become kin through marriage.

The Epilogue’s emphasis on family relations and naming practices is not surprising, as throughout “Deathly Hallows,” kinship is central to the choices that characters make. In particular, “Deathly Hallows” shows the importance of maintaining the bonds of kinship and concern for one’s relatives even if they are disliked or unappreciative. For example, near the beginning of the book, when Harry finally parts ways with his cousin Dudley, who has bullied Harry his whole life, they reconcile. Dudley shakes Harry’s hand and offers belated thanks for saving him from a previous attack. In turn, when Harry says goodbye to Dudley, he calls him “Big D,” suggesting the cousins are both willing to let bygones be bygones. Likewise, in “Deathly Hallows,” Neville Longbottom’s domineering, disapproving grandmother, of whom Neville has always been terrified, appears at the Battle of Hogwarts fighting for her grandson.

In “Deathly Hallows” there are several occasions where characters make difficult ethical choices in favor of kinship. Xenophilius Lovegood, who is an outspoken supporter of Harry Potter, chooses to betray Harry and his friends to their enemies, because Xenophilius believes it might free his daughter, Luna, who has been kidnapped by Death Eaters. Harry appears to hold no ill-will toward Xenophilius for the betrayal, as Harry thinks about how his mother had given her life to protect him. Likewise, even after learning that Xenophilius had betrayed her, Hermione risks her own life and limb in order to protect Xenophilius.

Also choosing to forsake her comrades in order to protect her kin, Narcissa Malfoy lies to Voldemort by telling him that Harry Potter is dead, even though she knows he is alive. She betrays her leader and her army because Harry has told her that her son, Draco, is alive in the castle, and she knows she will be able to search for her son only if the Death Eaters return to the castle “as part of the conquering army.”

Even the matronly Molly Weasley is willing to engage in otherwise unacceptable behavior when it concerns protecting her kin. When Bellatrix Lestrange tries to kill Molly’s daughter, Ginny, Molly responds with uncharacteristic profanity and an “unforgivable curse,” a Dark Arts spell that is typically used only by villains.

So if Dumbledore is correct that it is “our choices . . . that show what we truly are,” then the repeated, difficult choices that characters make in “Deathly Hallows,” and the choice of information the author chooses to reveal about the characters in the Epilogue, provide important lessons in kinship, and no cause for disappointment.

Snape the moral center of the books? I hope not. I agree with Alan Jacobs when he says “JKR wants to suggest here is that love is the one truly redeeming force. Voldemort never loved anyone, and Snape would have been just like him except that he loved one person, and that love ended up giving him courage — courage worthy of Gryffindor House — and determination. But I think we have to agree that it was a very limited kind of love, and not just because Snape never loved anyone else. After all, Snape did not love Lily enough to break with the Death Eaters — even when that caused her to turn her back on him. ”

Snape treated Harry like dirt not as a means of maintaining his cover, but because he truly loathed him. His childhood grudge turned into a blind hatred that made him unable and unwilling to listen to the truth, as seen in the ending of Prisoner of Azkaban, where we see him shout down Hermione, Ron and Harry’s attempted explanations re. Pettigrew and Black, and then “accidentally let slip” that Lupin is a werewolf. The examples of the fact that Snape is still a nasty piece of work are legion. Yet there is this other, redeeming side that we don’t see until the end. That does make him a complex character and, as Harry says, perhaps the bravest person in the series. This was my final post on the subject to Alan Jacobs:

I agree with you there Alan, that Snape’s love was of a very limited kind. I think the final judgment on Snape when he appears in the place Harry briefly met Dumbledore may remain a bit of an open question. Does Rowling believe in Purgatory? (j/k).

Leaving that kind of final judgment and what JKR might say about it aside I do agree, as I mentioned, that the rest of Snape remained a pretty nasty person. One who Dumbledore remained saddened and often disgusted by, although he eventually grew to admire and perhaps even have affection for Snape due to his 16 years-long demonstration of courage and fidelity to Lilly’s memory. Witness Dumbledore’s weary sigh when he asks if Snape wants to give Harry detention yet again. He is under no illusions about the nastiness that remains. Nor, I think, is Harry. Yet Dumbledore and Harry are both aware of less-than-desirable actions and motivations of their own, and may judge others less harshly as a result. And they know of the lonely wounded child that Snape was. Harry, once cruelly bullied by Dudley, empathizes with Snape who was bullied by James and his gang – and understands how one could have a hard time not carrying lifetime bitterness toward the bully. Objective readers can see the enormous differences between Harry and Snape. Snape was incapable of the kind of empathy toward others that Harry has toward him. As JKR has reminded us it is our choices, more than our abilities, that make us what we are, aftter all. But within the confines of story and the characters in it, Harry’s embrace of the memory of Snape and his noble sacrifice (Harry doesn’t have to live with the nasty actual person anymore, after all) makes sense to me.

Rowling didn’t seem to get it and that is a huge disappointment, but I hated the enitre book, it just shows how many plot holes she really had and it isn’t a fully realised world.

She seemed to completely forget the bullying thread and James and Sirius are still heroes? Sickening! What about all the Snapes in the world who are bullied everyday? Where was Dumbledore then? Maybe Snape wouldn’t have been tempted by his own housemates, but when your treated better, of course your going to go with the people who aren’t being rude to you. I found myself really not liking Lily very much and to me, it took a very big man to look past the fact that a childhood friend marries the boy that tormented him, and try to do right by her even when the friendship ended badly. He was a true friend and therein lies the tragedy….but then again it is still circumstancial and thrusted upon and I was not fullfilled by it. I like my Snape sarcastic!

The fact remains that, throughout the books, Severus Snape is Harry’s main antagonist. The failure to have any sort of confrontation between them is one of many things that made me dislike the conclusion of the book. I don’t really want to go into greater length here, as there is an essay nagging at me, which I need to get written down.

As to Snape being closer, in the end, to the Malfoy crowd than to the Dumbledore crowd, two things:
1. I absolutely hated the way Dumbledore (and Lily Evans) treated Snape throughout. IMHO, both of them were abusive, but Dumbledore especially so.
2. The conclusion you have reached is the one Rowling wants you to reach, but not the only one her text supports. More on that in my essay.

Basically, Rowling is very gifted, and has produced a very mixed work. Parts of it, i think, are truly inspired and inspiring, and parts are shabby, poorly written, and even (IMHO) wrong-headed. Up to DH, (even though I didn’t really like HBP) I had considered her a better and more enjoyable writer than Pullman, but I don’t any more. I do like her philosophy a little better than his – but only a little, and I think she is more muddled in expressing it. I know you don’t agree, but let’s not argue. Getting back to Snape-

Up to and including HBP, Snape was, in my eyes (and not mine alone) the moral center of the books. By this I mean that he was the sinner redeeemed, the (hidden) central character, the only character – as the “Monitor” reviewer said – who even *had* a moral arc. That was what Rowling had written. In DH, she made it quite clear that it was not what she intended. With only minor changes, (and I’ve said this elsewhere, too) she could have written Snape as one of the greatest heroes, and one of the greatest redemptive figures, in all of English literature. She chose not to do so. That is – absolutely – her right as an author, but I don’t have to like it.

You’ll be glad to know that’s really all I have to say until i get that essay written.) No offense, I hope.

“I agree that a final conversation with Snape would have been pointless. As Alan rightly points out, Snape never stopped hating the son of James Potter. Snape’s love for Lilly and continued devotion to that love was and remained “the best of him” as Dumbledore said. But the REST of him was much closer to the Malfoy/Voldemort crowd than the Dumbledore/Evans crowd. A final conversation, if true to the characters as they have been revealed, would have been awkward, unpleasant and depressing. I think Snape was as “redeemed” as he was going to get.”

Link to Russell’s blog entry and the ensuing discussion:

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7907752&postID=6546237209906268228

As to Voldemort being Harry’s main antagonist – no. It didn’t feel that way to me when I was reading the books. Again, Voldemort is merely a bogeyman. He is disgusting and cruel enough, but he’s not particularly interesting, IMO. Harry himself said, at the end of DH, that he hated Snape more than he hated Voldemort, and was eager to confront him. That confrontation seemed absolutely essential to the plot – and it never happened. I’m sure I’m not the only reader who feels cheated by that. Personally, I see the way Rowling dealt with Snape as an artistic failure, and also morally questionable. But that’s just me.

But the fascination with him as a character is not hard to understand. Snape is the Gollum of the HP series. Orson Scott Card’s essay explained this well – Snape is the character that sort of took on a life of his own, that took over the series because he became so intriguing. I do wonder if Snape got away from Rowling a little bit; but then, it’s not that hard for a character to get away from her author a bit, for him to take on more than the author planned in her outlining. There are so many of Rowling’s influences rolled into Snape, and many of them are the more fascinating characters of literature.

But it is true – Rowling seems a bit exasperated by the attraction to Snape. He is a vile, bitter, sadistic person. Even in that, there is hope – that the worst among us can do something brave and change the course of history.