Pardon, but your tie is not symmetrical.

The Abandoned Boy And His Problematic Fathers: Snape with Voldemort & Dumbledore

"He and Voldemort and Snape, the abandoned boys, all found home here..” - Forest Again, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows

This comparison line of Harry, Snape and Voldemort being abandoned boys is not an accident. There is an intentional parallel being made between three of them - not only in terms of their parallels with the Hallows (as Tumblr has astutely pointed out), but also the commonalities in their upbringing. And given that Harry empathises so deeply with both of them, I am going to argue one of Harry’s attributes was present in all of them. We know that as an abandoned boy with lack of male authority figures to model after, Harry strongly craved a father. Here is a meta by u/metametatron4 that tracks Harry’s feelings about James (and Snape) through the series.

In Voldemort’s case, Tom believes his father to be the magical one and keeps his father’s name until he could no longer prove that it was his father who gave him his “special” lineage. He goes as far as searching Hogwarts records for his father because in his mind, his mother was “weak” to die. Once he is forced to concede that his mother is the magical one, he chooses to emphasise her ancestry in a paternal sense - “Salazar Slytherin, greatest of Hogwarts four”, tying himself up in grandeur. He also killed his father and his own paternal side of family, his source of rage and shame. He sheds his father's name and becomes someone else, only known by his "special" magical lineage - cutting off that undesirable part of himself. Voldemort’s reaction to both his parent’s abandonment is to be special in every way, and choosing to discard love and seek power and control - a place where he is not rejected at all.

Snape is different from both Harry and Voldemort is that he specifically rejects his abusive father, having known him. As a child, he is seen wearing his mother’s clothes, only with an overlong coat that might belong to his father on a hot sunny day. As per Pottermore, he occasionally got whipped - so one can assume the coat is to hide that. Harry identifies strongly to Snape wearing overlong clothes that don’t quite fit him - a clear sign of neglect, if anything else. The fact that he wears his mother’s smock (and is willing to comfortably wear it in private with Lily in the scene before Hogwarts express) is an interesting detail to me. It feels like a rejection of his father and a sense of identification with his mother. With a person who he is comfortable with, he cuts an "impressive figure" with his smock. We see this detail pop up again in his textbook - where he is proud of being “Half A Prince”, emphasizing his magical lineage, his refuge in a violent, neglectful home.

Snape rejects his father (implied to be a violent man) by also rejecting hypermasculinity - as he tells sneeringly to James Potter: “If you’d rather be brawny, rather than brainy-” and by mocking “foolish wand waving” and how Potions is much more complex than that ("bewitching the mind, ensnaring the senses" - thanks for some sensual imagery, Snape :D). His skillset, with the exception of Sectumsempra, is further testament to his rejection of hypermasculinity: Potions (a witches’ brew), spying (again, noted to be something women were famous for in war), branches of mind magic such as Occlumency. He is also strongly associated with mother figures - Eileen Prince (by his own admission), Lily Potter, Narcissa Malfoy. He has a feminine Patronus, in memory of his love and devotion to Lily. The insults also thrown his way are also emasculating: “Snivellus” “a lapdog”, and Dumbeldore’s own “a basket dangling on the arm of Lord Voldemort”. So if he rejects his own father, who does he look to as a male figure to model himself after? After all, he does discard the smock quite eagerly when he gets on Hogwarts Express - so he is keen to perform masculinity.

But we see that teenage Snape and Adult Snape are entirely two different personas. Teenage Snape is anxious, twitchy and walks around like a spider. He swears, he is barely in control of his emotions, is often rendered incoherent when he is emotional and lashes out. And he lashes out in ways that is reflective of a power dynamic he models from home: he feels small, so he will look for someone else to make feel small.

Adult Snape, save for being around Harry where he regresses, is the opposite. He glides when he walks or "swoops like a bat" and if you see him in scenes apart from Harry’s, he is very in control of himself and his jabs are intended to discomfit rather than lashing out. (See the Bellatrix scene in Spinner’s End).

We don’t know too much about this phase of life - we can only speculate. Adult Snape has choice words to say when he witnesses Harry's lack of control over his emotions. He may have been speaking of himself: "Fools who wear their heart proudly on their sleeves, who cannot control their emotions, who wallow in sad memories and allow themselves to be provoked so easily - weak people, in other words - they stand no chance against his powers!"

Speculation aside, what we do know is that teenage Snape shows signs of unstable identity, insecurity - all prime for grooming into a cult. He also shows a disorganised attachment style. His caregiver, his mother is too preoccupied by her own abuse to be there for her son - we see this in glimpses Harry sees in OOTP: " woman cowering" where a man shouts at her, and a young, neglected Snape cries in the corner. Children born in homes like this have trouble regulating their emotions, simultaneously displaying tendencies to aggressively lash out or show disassociative symptoms. Both of which Snape displays. Statistically, this is also seen more in low income households where economic instability and resulting domestic instability creates an unsafe environment for the kids to safely form ideas of their identity, or express emotions in healthy ways, modelling instead out of behaviour seen at home.

I believe Voldemort, as the man who has experimented with boundaries of magic in ways no one else has, is an attractive father figure for someone like Snape (hello Barry Jr as well). After all, Snape spends his spare time inventing hexes, making great shortcuts to Potions. He has genuine thirst for learning and is inventive and original. In SWM, we see that he has written far more longer answers than anyone else, he is poring over his paper after exams. Voldemort, as man who pushed boundaries, is an attractive mentor who shows him a new path. Joining a cult not only gives you power and protection (one he desperately needs because of his social inferiority and as someone who is relentlessly bullied), but it also gives you an identity.

Cults usually instills a homogenous, stable identity centered around charismatic leader. Cults turns your unbearable feelings (sense of rejection, social inferiority), and externalise it and manage to a higher purpose. A cult acts as a safe container for people who cannot understand their trauma or overpowering feelings. As a boy with unstable identity, it is easier for him to project on Voldemort and re-enact an attachment that he has rejected in early childhood: the one with his father. Voldemort also reinforces a world view that the system had taught a half blood working class boy with nowhere to go arrives at: "There is no good or evil. There is only power and those to weak to seek it".

And then, Voldemort does something he doesnt expect a father figure to do, something he cannot conform to or abide by - he threatens the only relationship in his life that he puts on a pedestal. To ensure Lily Potter’s survival beyond asking Voldemort (who he no longer trusts to keep his word), he goes to Dumbledore. Why doesn't he trust Voldemort to keep his word? We don't really know, but given the dynamics we see at play in the first chapter of DH, where Voldemort employs Legliemency to confirm the information from Snape, the trusted spy who at that point had killed Dumbledore - it is safe to say ruling through absolute control can only take you so far. Contrast this with his later scenes with Dumbledore, where Dumbledore trusts him with magic he does not trust himself with: "I am very fortunate that I have you, Severus" .

But before we get there, we see their first scene. In his very first scene with Dumbledore, there is a power dynamic established. He visibly shrinks from Dumbledore’s judgement: “you disgust me”. He is also "stricken" when Dumbledore says "perhaps we sort too soon" - indicating a need for Dumbledore’s approval and validation. (Dumbledore’s own reaction to Snape is interesting - he doesn’t express this kind of strong disgust with Fenrir Greyback in HBP, for example. Perhaps he sees something of himself in this man who lost his way?)

Their next scene together is a grief stricken Snape, who has turned his misery and self loathing inwards and wishes to die. Dumbledore is cold, harsh: “What use will that be to anyone? If you truly loved Lily Evans, your way forward is clear”. Once Snape accepts the path of atonement Dumbledore lays out for him, Dumbledore is demonstrably gentler with him and is even exasperated that Snape asks him to keep “the very best of him” between them.

Once Dumbledore becomes his new father figure, Snape’s loyalty to him is absolute. He will back up and defend Dumbledore where it is not even required - when people accuse Dumbledore in GOF of being unfair, Snape is quick to say: "Don't blame Dumbledore for Potter's lack of respect for school rules. Potter has been crossing lines ever since he first came" (Defending Dumbledore and insulting Harry, he has a talent lol). And at the end of GOF, he shows his Dark Mark to Cornelius Fudge, essentially outing himself as a former Death Eater, to back up Dumbledore's claims because Fudge was insulting him. Even in front of Bellatrix, he emphasises: "Dumbledore is a great wizard, yes he has - the Dark Lord acknowledges it".

He is also resentful of Dumbledore's trust in Harry with secrets that he is not privy to. He enjoys being Dumbledore's closest confidant..("why may I not have the same secrets?" "You trust him, you do not trust me"). It's a less intense version of Harry's "This isn't love, this mess he has left me in. He shared a damn sight of what he was thinking with Grindelwald than with me”. He angrily tells Fake Moody that Dumbledore happens to trust him and he "refuses to believe" he gave permission to search his office. Similarly, he tells Umbridge "jerkily" to ask Dumbledore why he doesn't have the DADA job. Snape is offended at any suggestions of Dumbledore's lack of trust in him.

He also has a similar disillusionment like Harry's with Dumbledore - "you have used me. I have spied for you, lied for you, all intended to keep Lily Potter's son safe and now you are telling me he is being raised like a pig for slaughter". All of this and yet, just like Harry, he chooses to do what Dumbledore would have wanted of him. He goes as far as committing a sort of patricide, just like his former father figure (who did it for different reasons) on the wishes of his current father figure.

And ultimately, he chose Dumbledore's plan of Greater Good rather than Lily's fierce intention of keeping her son alive. It’s also interesting that Dumbledore, a queer, non conforming man is what Snape ultimately chooses as a father /mentor to his path of atonement.

There is a cyclical projection of father among all three boys: Harry inadvertently projects a desire for a father figure on Snape when he wishes that the Half-Blood Prince was his dad. (Read more about Harry’s relationship with Prince in wonderful meta by @thedreamermusing here) Snape projects a wish for a father figure by projecting on to Voldemort. Ultimately, both of them project this desire onto Dumbledore, and it is Dumbledore who ends up being the ultimate guide and father figure for both of them, guiding them through their respective roles in the war.

Thank you to @thedreamermusing for the inputs for this post 🌻

I must say - I've always been disturbed by the whole 'Snape and Trevor scene' discourse from both the Snaters' and Snapedom's POV. Snaters use this scene as a proof of Snape torturing and abusing students (on a daily basis, often). I often see readings of this scene by the Snapedom that are very clever and rational - no, this is not torture. No, he would not have killed him.

But yes, it is abuse. The thing is, from Snape's POV, sure: he had reasons to do that, it was not done out of cruelty, it was an almost desperate attempt - perhaps even a clumsy one - to have Neville face the dangerous consequences of his carelessness and inattentive behaviour.

However, saying that Snape threatened to poison Trevor is a perfectly valid affirmation, because this is the exact message he sends to Neville. The important factor here, not often taken into account, is rationality - it often seems to me like the Snapedom explains and minimises the impact this had, or could have had on Neville by demonstrating there was rationally nothing to be afraid of - which is the case - so we should not make it 'such a big deal.' It is important to remember, however valid your explanation of this scene is, that it does not take into account Neville's feelings and knowledge - more precisely, lack of insight and knowledge - of Snape's intentions and capacities. What Snape instills in Neville in this very moment is pure fear. Yes, to Neville, Trevor's life is in danger, and, if you follow Snape's logic - in what he wants Neville to feel - it is Neville's own fault.

Snape threatens, that is the word, his pet, friend, family member, every day companion. You see why I am particularly sensitive to this subject. It does not matter what things look like from our point of view.

So yes, we have to acknowledge Snape did not torture his students, and was not nearly as bad with them as he is depicted by Snaters. That the word torture and bullying should, in his instance, not be used, or, for bullying, used cautiously, is right. But do not minimise this behaviour. This was abuse - animal abuse of course, but in the real world just like in the magical world, it does not matter - this was emotional abuse toward Neville. Text analysis is important, but perspectives and consideration of reasonless (for all sort of causes), non rational feelings is too. Snape did not intend to kill Trevor - valid affirmation. Snape made it look like he would - valid affirmation. No matter what Snape really meant to do, what he did was abuse - valid affirmation.

Overall I sometimes feel the same when I see explanations offered to Snaters about Neville's Boggart. What is relevant is to put Snape's actions into perspective, correct fanon ideas of him being a bully and crual teacher - but Neville's case is peculiar and he clearly was abusive toward him. Is it relevant to explain why JK Rowling chose to make Snape his boggart? Sure. To explain why a boggart is not the personification of your actual deepest darkest fear? Of course. Is it right to use this as a way to minimise Snape's impact on Neville's mental health? Textual analysis does not change his feelings. He was not traumatised, that is a fact. But his fear of Snape, and Snape's behaviour, are concerning. I feel sometimes, just sometimes, we almost fall into a... nihilistic, if I may put it like this, vision of things.

Snape's behaviour toward Neville and Trevor was cruel, terrifying to a child, and could have been traumatising, no matter what the intent was. I just felt like this needed to be reminded. What Snaters try to do with this fact, however, when they do get a fact right - which is to paint a simple, uninformed, black and white portait of his character based on fanon or a single behaviour, is wrong. But what Snape did was terribly, terribly wrong as well, abusive and brutal, and it's right to acknowledge it, no matter if it was a mild inconvenience up to Hogwarts' standards. Text analysis does not erase the momentary or long term consequences of an action within the work of fiction.

Diminishing the emotional impact of an action using text analysis is mixing two separate and mutually exclusive perspectives.

I don’t disagree with the premise of this at all; I talk a lot about reading a scene from Snape’s perspective to glean new information, and it is equally fair to read scenes from the perspectives of other characters.  

If you interrogate that scene from Neville’s perspective then yes, it’s clear that Snape’s actions cause anxiety to Neville.  There’s an interesting question as to whether Neville’s experiences to that point at Hogwarts would have taught him that Trevor should escape unscathed, or whether Neville truly believed that Snape despised him so much that he would harm his familiar if he failed.  (There’s also perhaps a raft of interesting questions about why Snape approaches it in this manner but I won’t digress.)

The problem is, as I was discussing with friends the other night, there’s little room for nuance in fandom.  These are exactly the sorts of discussions I enjoy having, but when you post meta, instead of having such a discussion, all you get is your post hijacked by haters who just trot out the same few complaints:  Neville’s Boggart, Hermione’s teeth, Trevor the toad, irredeemable Death Eater, wanted James and Harry to die etc.

Importantly, it’s rare that the person posting the complaint elaborates - it’s always, “still a wizard N*zi though” or, “What about Neville’s Boggart?”

So if you’re answering a poster, are you really going to write 10 paragraphs explaining that yeah, you think Neville was anxious in the scene?  I mean, they’ve clearly already understood that part for them to raise it - so the whole point, to me, of fandom is to discuss ideas that people might not have come across before.

If someone genuinely hasn’t seen any meta on Neville’s Boggart, and the last thing they remember is that Snape was Neville’s Boggart because he was mean, then that sort of meta might be genuinely interesting.  

The real shame is that if people were raising these points because they were keen to have a discussion which explored various angles, then it’s absolutely correct that there are a multitude of possible readings available from the text - whether that’s from the viewpoint of the reader, or various characters, or using certain frameworks (authorial intent, Death of the Author, in-universe, Doylist etc).

Unfortunately, that’s not my experience.  (Irritatingly, it was years ago - but not now.)  Instead, someone makes a meta post about Snape, and they receive a line of hate in response.  When it happens on every other post you make, it becomes tiring.

Of course, the saddest thing is that we all have different experiences and we bring those to the text.  Something which is obvious to me might not be clear to someone else with different life experiences.  Equally, something that I completely miss will be spotted by someone else.  To me, the joy of fandom is sharing those thoughts - and usually, through discussion, we’ll spot something new together.

I have never had an issue - and never will have an issue - with someone arguing in good faith about Neville’s perspective in those scenes.  But these people are never arguing from Neville’s perspective, they’re never arguing in defence of Neville - they’re using Neville as a tool to attack Snape.  And y’know, if you want to hate on Snape and use Neville to do that, that’s fine within itself - but it is irritating when it keeps happening on existing posts (usually about a completely different topic) written to discuss Snape as a character.  The haters could make their own posts and tag them appropriately, and they choose not to.

I am the first to say that we should all be polite and fair in fandom - and at the end of the day, that’s what this comes back to:  courtesy.  Rather than us all being adults and genuinely discussing a topic we’re all interested in, it seems as if it’s a polarised fight where you’ve got to aggressively back the winner.  Everything these days seems to be fight, and it’s pathetic. 

The second best solution to having productive discussions together is for everyone to keep to their own part of fandom.  It costs nothing for haters to make their own posts and keep away from Snapedom, and it costs nothing for Snapedom to make their own posts and keep away from the haters - and yet, night after night, what do we see?  Hate in the tags.  Hate on character posts.  It’s tedious.

Frustratingly, I think it’s important to consider Snape’s negative behaviour - but the problem is, the hate is so loud, it’s difficult to find any joy in reflecting and discussing his worst behaviour; I’m tired of reading about how irredeemable and awful he is.  I post about incidents from Snape’s perspective precisely because most people making hate posts about him have failed to grasp the wider context, and my posts are usually about offering a viewpoint they have not already considered.

I can only speak for myself, but I am much less inclined to discuss Snape’s darker elements - despite these being the things that fascinate me the most - because I am not prepared to equip the haters with commentary to then use against fandom for the next five years.  

After all, you’ve already seen how much mileage they’ve got out of a toad.

The thing with Snape, is that he has a different moral code than most. Rather than doing things based on "What's the right thing", he does things based on "How can this help me survive".

This self preservation, I assume, comes from years of torment and hurt. He needed to survive his life, from his childhood to the day he died. Only caring about his own survival probably saved him, but I think somewhere around the time he began to believe in Harry's cause, he also began to believe in the lives of others.

People think of his self preservation, and they label him 'evil' because it doesn't hit in with their morality, and they can't look beyond that enough to realize that it is perfectly understandable for him to be that way. Snater's cannot look far enough past their morality to think of anyone elses situations.

I think the utter irony of this is that the moment Lily is threatened, all of that self-preservation flies out the window. 

When Snape defects:

The moment he defected, he made himself the enemy of Voldemort. He defected to someone equal to Voldemort in power, who could have easily killed him on the spot and had every reason to suspect his motivations. 

This is what just fascinates me about Snape, because from here on out everything starts to change. 

When Lily dies:

After Lily dies, he starts to change. He keeps Harry alive, though surely that doesn’t endear him to Voldemort. He protects students from physical harm on so many occasions in the books. When Karkaroff flees as his mark burns, indicating Voldemort’s return, Snape scoffs at his cowardice and brazenly returns to be a double agent. He continues to follow Dumbledore, even when Dumbledore reveals that the goal that gave him some piece of mind—protecting Lily’s son—is flawed and Harry must die. He works to keep students safe from harm at Hogwarts, even in plain sight of two death eaters with no qualms about torturing students (and reporting to Voldemort, I’m sure). Ultimately, he dies trying to get Harry the information he needs to defeat Voldemort. 

That change is so fascinating. Because being a double agent is far from pragmatic. It’s incredibly dangerous. Yet he does it, and we have only the barest explanation for why. 

Exactly!!!!

Was Severus obsessed with Lily? 

(x) (x) (x) (x)

Was Lily’s and Severus’ relationship toxic?

(x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) 

Was Severus Snape a bully/child abuser?

(x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x)

Did James and Lily Potter have a healthy relationship?

(x) (x) (x) (x)

Did Severus Snape bully Neville more?/Why was he Neville’s boggart?

(x)

When did James sexually assault Severus? That didn’t happen!

(x) (x) (x)

When did Sirius Black try to murder Severus Snape?

(x)

How did Severus Snape’s childhood affect him?

(x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x) (x)

But Severus Snape’s a dick!

(x)

I don’t understand why this has so few notes, so I’m reblogging it. This was one of the first, and most well written meta I read on tumblr. It’s a good introduction to pro-Snape views. I do not agree with all of it but I think it is definitely worth reading, it’s beautiful and contains so much.

I remember this from when I first got on tumblr, too! Reblogging because I agree, worth reading even if you don’t agree with everything.

I havent even looked at this so I can’t say if I agree with all. But I need to reblog for reference

Honestly, one of the most frustrating aspects of being a black reader (never mind being black and queer) of the Harry Potter series is unpacking all the ways that Jo’s portrayal of issues like racism and prejudice are so woefully inadequate.

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.

Not to mention, the rampant bullying and purity politics are concerning to me and I worry how this lack of consideration for the diversity of Snape’s fans and their respective reasons for relating to his character could do real harm to people. There’s nothing noble, good, or heroic to me about a lot of people bullying and harassing fans of a character in the name of anti-bullying sentiments or anti racism, anti-sexism, etc. when those sentiments are ill-thought or clearly transparent excuses to engage in what is truly just your standard fandom-related nastiness.