Transcript of parts concerning Snape
My comments
JK Rowling: Malfoy is a made-up name but you could say it was old French for bad faith. It really suits him.
You
all know I'm somewhat interested in the Malfoy family because they
are so intimately related to Snape. I never took the time to speak
about it, but Malfoy meaning bad faith (In
French: mal:
noun meaning that something is bad or evil; foy: (old spelling,
now spelled foi) is faith) should indicate a little
bit more about what is to be expected from them towards Snape or
anybody else. Therefore, whatever their relationship is as of now,
it's surely all (and not surprisingly) based on bad faith and untrue
feelings. Lucius will always save his skin! That's for sure.
Draco... well you have to think about his admiration for Snape.
But as Rowling said earlier in her interview, she's worried that
more and more people start disguising as Draco. I reckon she
won't "save" him or make him purge his wrong doings like
Snape as so many fans would like to, which is bad I think because
it would really render her characters more simplistic, almost Disney-like! Everybody
does that: if you're evil once, you are evil for the rest of your
life! Well, it's true for lots of people, but there are exceptions.
An exception that I at least expect in Snape. However, if
you read further down this page, you'll notice Rowling may have "evil"
plans for Snape. I would be sooooo sad to see a chance at
redemption wasted away because "Snape is suppose to be a bad
guy so it means he also "has to stay that way". That would be so cliché
and simplistic. I know those are children-indented books,
but still. Why waste a good literary opportunity as this for
the sake of having children understand the story the first time
around? They'll grow up one day and understand what she meant,
that's all. Oh well! That's just my opinion of course!
JK Rowling: That’s because it’s about human nature and people with less pure motives have wands too. A lot of time is trying to legislate for them.
Stephen Fry: Exactly, politicians and journalists. It’s also true in the real world. People say we haven’t got a magic wand to cure all ills of the world but what you show is that even if you have got a magic wand it doesn’t cure all the ills.
Here
we are: Rowling wants to talk about corruption. Alright, but
the question is, will she take it all out on Snape? (read the next extract
and you'll see what I mean) Is Snape really going to turn up bad
again? Like I just mentioned, it would be soooo simplistic;
a white and black world. I totally agree with the principle
that humans are bad, unlike animals. We all have a bad side,
be it hidden or not, and some people exploit it more than others.
Humans are all about excesses: if we do something, we tend
to do it excessively, be it bad or good. I really like Rowling for trying to teach the
children that everyone of us is subject to evilness.
HOWEVER, I hope she will not take it all out on Snape. Not
because I'm biased, but because it would be too simple. In real
life, rarely do we see absolutely bad people. People have
flaws, but they are not all vicious and bad like Lucius Malfoy. Take Draco for example: his whole education has only
been focused on prejudices. It would be very hard to break
free of such a situation in real life, but it is manageable. I
would hence feel very bad if all the pseudo-villains or raised up
as villains of Harry Potter would all turn up evil in the end. What
hope would you leave children who have bad parents? Nothing!
Just that you will end up like your parents, no matter what you
do. That's what Snape stands for in Harry Potter: true redemption,
true awareness and conscience! I vehemently wish for Rowling
to keep Snape that way! He's not your charming hero, but he
is a hero nonetheless!
Video “How do you decide what the baddies would be like?”
JK Rowling: This is going to sound awful but I’ve met enough people I didn’t like in my life to have a fairly shrewd idea of what I want baddies to be like. I think from letters I get from people your age that nearly all of you here knows a Draco Malfoy and girls will almost certainly know a Pansy Parkinson. We all grow up with those sort of people and certainly as adults we’ve all have met people like Lucius Malfoy and some of the other characters.
Stephen Fry: Malfoy, Goyle and Crabbe are almost irredeemably bad – certainly there’s almost nothing attractive about about Goyle and Crabbe, repulsive – Malfoy is reasonably stylish…
JK Rowling: Malfoy is certainly stylish in the film –
Stephen Fry: Yes, and even in the books there is a certain flair. Most characters like Snape are hard to love but there is a sort of ambiguity – you can’t quite decide - something sad about him – lonely and it’s fascinating when you think he’s going to be the evil one-a-party from Voldemort obviously in the first book, then slowly you get this idea he’s not so bad after all.
JK Rowling: Yes but you shouldn’t
think him too nice. It is worth keeping an eye on old Severus
definitely!
If
some people remember, Snape's teaching style and persona were inspired
to Rowling by one of her old school teachers. Hence, that's
comment surely applies to Snape even though she doesn't mention
him directly.
Rowling
is certainly appalled by the attraction a lot of people are feeling
towards Draco, isn't she? She mentions that he is stylish
in the film, but does not say about her books. Is she against
the idea? Sure looks so to me, unless once again she's trying to
mix us up!
This
is what we've been waiting for!! What's interesting in Fry's
comment is how he explains why he doesn't hate Snape. He finds him
hard to love, but he leaves place to the ambiguity that surrounds
him, something a lot of Snape fans are attracted to!I
like what he says about him because that means even non-Snape fans
must have noticed: he seems sad and lonely. It seems Fry has
got the same view of Snape as we do without going into the details
of course. The fact that he stands for the pseudo-evil or
alibi in the books is something that makes him believe Snape is
not so bad after all. And yet... look what Rowling says...
She
says yes (which proves Fry's points!) BUT: As long as I
have seen interviews with Rowling, she has always gave us real clues
to future books. Hence, if she says we should not think he
is so nice and should therefore definitely keep an eye
on him, we surely ought to do. Which means he is not so clear as
we would like to think. And thus that the trust Dumbledore
has in him may be wasted. That's not good news is it? But,
being the critic I am, we could also interpret this statement as
a device. Rowling has always used Snape as a decoy, as the
pseudo-evil, it's like she wants to keep him that way until the
very end. Snape is very useful to her. Even in the last book, she
still implies (through the voice of her characters) that Snape must
not be trusted readily, that he may turn on them at any moment.
That's an important part of her plot, so why would she openly say
that Snape is not so bad! All the thrill would be over for
a lot of readers! Hence, this declaration is a two-sided mirror.
Bad or not? We are still lost! And yet, I'm also thinking
up of another meaning: Snape is not going to turn nice towards the
students. Frankly, that's no news! Still, there is a definite
mention of what is to be expected from Snape towards the plot, not
only about his attitude towards the students! Noticed
how she refers to him as "old Severus"? Is she referring
to him just like Ron who always calls him "old git" or "old bat" in the books?
We usually use "old" with someone we don't like, but it
doesn't mean evil, at least. However, if she uses it as an
insult as in "Old Severus is up to no good again", it
somewhat makes me feel sad. It makes me think of the Phantom of
the Opera: in popular culture, he is referred to as a genius maniac,
a crazy man, a monster while in fact it's not all so black and evil.
He is of course because he killed people, but if you analyze
the reasons why he did so, you get a whole new perspective. His
experience of the human world and nature turned him into that, and
even when he had enough reasons to kill a whole bunch of dunderheads,
he didn't. Yet, he is often seen in parodies or tv shows as an evil
maniac! I get the same feeling for Snape now that I know a
tiny part of what Rowling intends for him. I feel apprehensive
that yet another character may be sacked. The difference
is that the author of the Phantom was very sympathetic towards him
even though the other characters were not so much. Here, with Snape,
the same thing may be happening, except that the author may not be
so comprehensive towards him as Gaston Leroux was. However,
I leave the possibility open that maybe once
again that's a two-sided clue, but it looks like Snape is going
to do something bad again or be a bastard. I don't care
if he is not nice to Harry, actually, I do hope that's what she meant after all,
because she likes Harry so much. But chances are Snape will
do something worst than just hate Harry! That would be very
deceitful to me! But in the same vein, it proves my theory:
Snape-like people are never really liked and accepted. They are
rarely given a chance in books! I guess some would argue that
Rowling knew all this time and doesn't care, but still, from all the things she's put him through in the
5 books up to now, he does retain all the qualities we find in him.
Even if he makes a wrong move.
JK Rowling: I don’t want to say too much but Dumbledore is a very wise man who knows that Harry is going to have to learn a few hard lessons to prepare him for what may be coming in his life. He allows Harry to get into what he wouldn’t allow another pupil to do and he also unwillingly permits Harry to confront things he’d rather protect him from. As people who’ve read the Order of The Phoenix will know; Dumbledore has had to step back from Harry to teach him some of life’s harder lessons.
Stephen Fry: You have to push you’re beloved chickens out of the nest so they can fly
I
would say not only when we are young! Snape is pretty
sensitive to injustice and I think this applies to him very much,
on both ends: the injustice receiver and giver. (for more on this,
please read my analysis)
What
Rowling says here is wonderful: Harry has to learn a few more lessons.
And she also admits that Dumbledore has been willingly allowing
Harry some permissions others wouldn't have. Is that why he's always
been meddling between Snape's wish to punish the boy more severely?
I think so. Also, Rowling says that now, Dumbledore has to step
back and allow Harry to feel the full crush of these hardships.
I wonder if one of them is Snape. I believe so in a way.
JK Rowling: Right well, if you want to create a game like Quidditch – what you have to do is have an enormous argument with your then boyfriend, you walk out of house, you sit down in pub and you invent Quidditch. I don’t really know what the connection is between the row and Quidditch except that Quidditch is quite a violent game and maybe in my deepest, darkest soul I’d like to have seen him hit by a ‘bludger’.
There
it is: Rowling admits it. She has deadly or violent wishes,
too. Like everybody that is which is one of my argument that sustain
the fact that Snape may not turn so bad in the end after all! Rowling
seems aware, though she would maybe like to deny it, that we all
have a potential for evilness inside, and that this doesn't mean
we all are evil itself!
Jackson: “Professor Snape has always wanted to be Defence Against Dark Arts teacher. In book 5 he still hasn’t got the job. Why does Prof Dumbedore not allow him to be Defence Against The Dark Arts teacher?”
JK Rowling: That is an excellent question and the reason is that I have to be careful what I say here. To answer it fully would give a lot away about the remaining two books.
When Prof Dumbledore took Prof Snape onto the staff and Prof Snape said “I’d like to be Prof of Defence Against the Dark Arts please” and Prof Dumbledore felt it might bring out the worst in Snape so said “I think we’ll get you to teach Potions and see how you get along there”.
I
thought so!! Yeah! : ) However, Rowling doesn't
say it all does she!? On the other hand, it's quite wonderful
to know that this answer could reveal so much about the other books
that she feels it's a secret! It must have a big importance
in the plot, the fact that Snape can't get the job. At least
now we know she'll explain it eventually! Patience my friends!
What is very interesting here is how Rowling says Snape might bring the "worst in him" by doing this job. Is Albus trying to avoid another temptation? Is it like refusing a chronic sober drinker just one more beer? Did Snape already bring the "worst in him" or did he not? Is there something darker there that Albus doesn't want to encourage? Very interesting indeed!
Also, the "please" in Rowling's answer kinds of preludes the fact that Snape was actually offered a choice or that he begged for the position. We don't know which one he did yet.
Finally, "first you teach Potions and we'll see how it goes" is quite revealing too. How come then Snape is still a Potions teacher?! He is not "getting along" there it seems. Are we talking about the teaching part or the "worst of him" part? Very important difference! I would guess the "worst part" because unless Snape would have been sacked a long time ago from his teaching positions. Does it mean he never gave up his Dark Arts studies? Yet, we know that Moody searched his office for such signs, to get Snape out of his back but found nothing. Snape said he had nothing to hide as well. Hum? I want to know!! x_x Can't wait to see the real answers! For now, I will say that teaching Potions, according to Dumbledore, has not allowed Severus enough peace of mind to be trusted the Dark Arts teaching position. Not for the students' sake, but for Snape's own sake and safety! Unless, he wouldn't be teaching Potions! Snape is also a very military-like character, we have to bare this into account.
JK Rowling: Snake! I could have very easily called him, Snicket instead but it’s a funnier, kinder word so I didn’t.
Stephen Fry: Or sneeze is pleasant and of course and the Founder of the House (at Hogwarts) was Salazar Slytherin - another snaky thing. Snakes feature a lot – is a Parselmouth a real thing or did you make that up?
JK Rowling: Parselmouth is an old word for someone who has a problem with the mouth, like a hare lip.
snicket ['snikit]
noun
(Northern English) (dialect)
a passageway or alleyway between walls or
fences
[ETYMOLOGY: of obscure origin]
The goal
then? Give Severus Snape a family name reminding us of a snake.
Therefore, "snicket" would have fitted too... had Snape
been Lupin or Albus that is! Haha!! Severus Snicket?!
Please! It does look cute, funny and silly. Not only
in its meaning but also its sound! Notice how Rowling says
she didn't use it because it sounded not only funnier but also kinder,
which is something she didn't want Snape to inspire too much, right!
JK Rowling: She’s horrible isn’t she? I’m glad you hate her because I really loathe Umbridge.
Stephen Fry: She is the worst.
At
least Snape is not! Actually, I am grateful Umbridge got into
the HP series! She is helping Snape's cause. One can now easily
make the difference between her and Snape! What's more, she's
on the good guys' side, at the Ministry supposedly! How can
you fathom that if not that everyone can be bad, not only Slytherins!!
Everywhere danger lurks! Snape is not a sadist to the
point Umbridge was and that is good!
JK Rowling: I knew I was going to get that one…that is an excellent question. And here is the truth. At the end of Goblet of Fire we sent Harry home more depressed than he had ever been leaving Howarts. I knew that Thestrals were coming, and I can prove that because they’re in the book I’d produced for Comic Relief (UK) “Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them”.
These are lucky Black Winged Horses. However, if Harry had seen them and it had not been explained then it would cheat the reader. So, to explain that to myself, I decided you had to have seen the death and allowed it to sink in a bit… slowly…these creatures became solid in front of you. So that’s how I’m going to sneak past that one.
I
don't care about Harry at all here. I care about Draco Malfoy. Did
you notice that he couldn't see them?! Yes indeed! He
couldn't. That's a seemingly stupid but important clue as to Draco's
upbringing! Surely his father killed a lot of people.
Yet, Draco never saw one! So even Lucius doesn't trust his
own son with this or less Rowling doesn't want to mention that fact
to children! Lucius is a sadist too, he must not have stopped
killing people out of the blue one day. He must have found other
ways, right?! On muggles I would say. However, be it or not,
Draco never saw any of this.