playtime's over
The theme was simply Snape's portrait ❄️

❣ Chile in a Photography ❣

★
sheepfilms

#extradirty
dirt enthusiast
cherry valley forever
Sweet Seals For You, Always
trying on a metaphor
i don't do bad sauce passes

roma★

No title available
KIROKAZE
occasionally subtle
Show & Tell
we're not kids anymore.
YOU ARE THE REASON
$LAYYYTER
Game of Thrones Daily
Mike Driver
Not today Justin
seen from United States

seen from Singapore

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from South Korea

seen from Singapore

seen from United States
seen from Australia

seen from Colombia

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Malaysia

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Malaysia
@dementedlollipop
playtime's over
The theme was simply Snape's portrait ❄️
So, I read @pet-genius's post about Snape not being neurodivergent and it inspired to add my own thoughts on the topic.
To be clear right from the start: I do not think that Snape is autistic, and I dislike when he is painted as such.
One thing with coding that is often forgotten about in fandom spaces is that it needs to be intentional from the author. So anyone arguing that Snape is "autism coded" is implying that JK Rowling always thought of Snape as being autistic, and specifically wrote him with certain caracteristics to let the attentive reader know that Snape is autistic without ever explicitly saying so. I think that most people would agree that this is not the case.
So then, we are left with headcanons that label Snape as being autistic. Headcanons can range from very simple canon compliant tidbits like "Snape likes coffee in the morning", to more complex and more canon breaking ideas like "Snape is Draco's Godfather", so having the headcanon of Snape being neurodivergent (in this case, autistic) is of course not wrong, since well... headcanons can not be right or wrong.
That said, if we were to take this headcanon, and argue about whether or not it could be canon compliant... well, I don't think there's any world where it's either true or even possible.
Autism is a very large spectrum, so much so that it includes both people who are arguing on tumblr about whether or not their favorite character is a top or a bottom, and people who are incapable of speaking, reading, counting, washing themselves or using the toilets.
(Of course, no one ever argues that Snape wears diapers under his black robes because his autism made him unable to ever learn how to use the bathroom, it's not this autism that he's labelled under. This autism isn't pretty enough to give to our favorite characters.)
The main arguments for Snape being autistic are him loving the Dark Arts (and Defense) and Potions, being unpopular, being rude, missing social cues, being inspired by John Nettleship (please tell me if I missed any!).
Let's see... He loves the Dark Arts and Potions. Neurotypical people have hobbies and passions too. There's nothing to indicate that Snape struggled with other school subjects because he couldn't get away from reading a Potions book for example. We see that he's also good at flying, Charms, is knowledgeable about Dark Creatures, is a Master Occlumens but is also very good at Legilimency, etc... Clearly, he has no issues putting Potions or the Dark Arts to the side to also pursure other academic fields.
He's unpopular, particularly as a kid. So was Harry. So was Hermione. Snape is also poor, and feels like an outcast already because he's a wizard living amongst muggles.
He's rude... yes he is. And he's rude, 98% of the time, on purpose. Snape isn't rude because he says something blunt without realizing that it may hurt the other person. He's rude because he wants to be rude, because he enjoys it.
He misses social clues. Where? No he doesn't. Maybe you can squint and see some of his lines as a child as not understanding social cues, but like, yes, children do not understand everything around them, that's to be expected. As an adult? As an adult he's a fucking master of social cues. That's his job. That's how he stays alive. Just reading the Spinner's End chapter in Half-Blood Prince is enough to dismiss any idea of Snape ever being autistic. That man manipulates people and adjusts his speech to an impressive degree, it's masterful.
He's inspired by John Nettleship. That one is probably the most ridiculous claim, and I can not believe I still see it so often in the Snape fandom. I mean, come on. Rowling wrote Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone in her late twenties to early thirties. John Nettleship was a teacher she'd had roughly 15 years prior to writing that book, and Snape was loosely inspired from her recollections of him. How many of you can claim to know so much about a teacher, 15 years after, that you can accurately and perfectly describe him and his mannerisms? "Inspired by" does not stand for "exact copy", and even then, using this as a way to claim that Snape is autistic, because... what? Some people who knew John Nettleship thought that maybe possibly he was on the spectrum? This argument is so flimsy, so poor, why is it still used so much? Ugh.
In the end, everyone is free to have their headcanons, and everyone is free to project their fear of spiders on to Snape just because they want to feel closer to him. Just, for the sake or argumentation, there is no way that Severus Snape is autistic in the books.
Thank you for the shout-out! Honestly the more I think about it, the more I just don't see it. But it doesn't mean he isn't different, and suffered because of it. Like many kids do, sometimes because they have ASD. He's different because he's a wizard, and then he's different because he was raised in muggle society. I'm sure people with ASD can relate to "I want to talk about my Thing but it's literally illegal and I'll just look weird agggaghjhg" or "why are they eating with weird forks why is everyone acting like it's normal that the food just materializes in front of them ajfbouboktdfs". That's valid AF. Absolutely I think it was harder for Severus and it's harder for people with ASD, in ways that just don't apply to, say, me, period. I'm not magical, and I don't have ASD.
And I'm sure I have a ton to learn about this from people with ASD. It doesn't change canon, but it is important to be able to share that.
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand I understand people who read Snape as autistic, and I think that reading the text with a particular perspective doesn't have to be overtly supported by canon in order for it to be reasonable. The variety of different interpretations is what makes fandom - and any kind of lit crit - interesting and enjoyable. (This is also why I loved reading @pet-genius 's post arguing that Snape isn't autistic coded - because there should be room for all perspectives and as long as they're presented respectfully and well argued, it just broadens the landscape of ideas. They didn't invalidate anyone whose interpretation was different, and made good, thoughtful, informed points.)
On the other hand, I feel it's important to maintain a Doylist perspective on ASD or any kind of neurodiverse interpretation in Harry Potter, because I'm almost certain there was no authorial intent involved. But let's keep this to the subject of Snape for the sake of this post - Rowling (boo, hiss) has never, to my knowledge, spoken of writing him with any intention of illustrating autism or neurodiversity of any kind. Given that her writing indicates minimal research, if any, on a wide array of subjects, it's doubtful she did any on autism even if she had written it into his character intentionally - but again, it seems clear she didn't. Therefore any autistic representation is unintentional and shoddily done.
While I understand the importance of feeling represented and I think it's important to support the parts of the fandom who see themselves in a character like Snape, I also don't feel it's right to let the poorly executed unintentional representation go without naming it as such. I would argue, though, that John Nettleship, who Snape was based on, had more to do with Snape than OP stated. He wasn't just a teacher who taught her for a year a long time before she wrote the books, he had a years-long complex relationship with Rowling's mother before she died, which is directly represented in Snape's friendship with Harry's dead mother and Harry's bad relationship with Snape. He clearly left a mark on her. Although Rowling hasn't confirmed he was the inspiration as far as I know, countless people who knew him well from Nettleship's wife to his students to those who lived in the same village as him have stated that the comparison is obvious to them. Many of his friends also suspected he was autistic and Nettleship is reported to have identified as having Aspergers himself (a now outdated term that is still used by many British psychologists and was the common term for high functioning ASD during Nettleship's life). As many psychologists who work with people on the spectrum can tell you, there's value in both self-diagnosis and the ability to identify ASD traits in loved ones, as long as it's done with an informed and unbiased perspective.
While I think that the same traits Nettleship's loved ones picked up on show up in Snape, I'm not sure "autistic coded" is the right way to describe the character. Whitehound uses a phrase I think is better suited: "a kind of shadow of mild autism in Snape's behaviour". I like this way of putting it, because that's what it feels like in the text - it's not concrete, it's not quite representative, it's the shadow of something that isn't fully formed or clear. Some people have identified traits of RSD in Snape, a neurodiverse trait that has a comorbidity with numerous conditions, but shows up in a high percentage of autistic people in particular. Others have flagged traits they read as representing exceptional intellect in specific areas, hyperfocusing, difficulty fitting in socially and being bullied for it as well as a refusal to change in order to do so, few friends in adulthood, meticulous organization, and others. If you take these traits at face value, I don't think Snape clears the bar for an autistic interpretation without it feeling like a stretch, because none of these traits are followed through to a fully autistic potential. If, however, you take these traits as "a kind of shadow of mild autism" or even just view them through the lens of the author writing about a person with autistic traits she doesn't understand and interprets on the page with an ableist slant, then the idea of autistic Snape begins to make more sense.
For example, we do see Snape struggle socially in canon and have few friends in adulthood, as well as prioritize pragmatism over emotional expression. This feels representation adjacent: a lot of autistic people struggle socially and have limited social circles in order to feel safe in an often ableist world, and there's something meaningful in the way Snape closes off his emotional expressiveness but nevertheless feels profoundly and passionately. He's not unemotional, he's merely inexpressive, as many autistic people are. These examples feel less like representation and more like a metaphor, perhaps. At the same time, as OP pointed out, we also see Snape rely on a keen ability to read people and microexpressions in order to not only survive but thrive in his role as a spy. These skills require a kind of neural processing that most people on the spectrum aren't equipped with because their brains process this kind of information in a different way. So within the same sets of examples, Snape is both a metaphor for autism and doesn't fit the requirements.
Both can simultaneously be true, because Snape is the fictional creation of a flawed author. If that author doesn't understand autism but is both writing a character based on a person she knew in real life and maybe processing some of her issues with that person simultaneously, it makes sense that some ASD traits would be expressed in the character but done so inaccurately, and without an understanding of their larger implications. Therefore she can create a character who echoes the autistic traits of John Nettleship without understanding how they manifest in him, and imbue that character with qualities that suit her narrative but not the neurodiverse coding she unintentionally also wrote him with. She can use examples from her experiences with Nettleship in characterizing Snape while also not realizing their larger implications in the context of a specific neurodiversity, thereby creating flawed and incomplete representation that is more a shadow than something concrete.
In short, there's some validity and some questionability to both interpretations of whether or not Snape is autistic coded. The vestiges of representation are there, but they weren't put there intentionally, they were pilfered from the real life traits of a person who was likely on the spectrum and presented with the bias and ableism of an author who has shown no interest in or grace for neurodiversity and has spoken publicly about both disliking the character and the man she based him on. Nevertheless, it's clear that many people in the fandom see themselves represented, and that has an importance and value I feel warrants appreciation. I just think it's equally as important to remember that it's not full or informed representation, and that autistic people deserve better.
(I'm tagging this with the snetafest tag because I think it fits the brief and because a prompt to discuss the relevance of neurodiversity doesn't necessarily mean you can't argue against it.)
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.
I remain... Unmoved. It might be a case of "pet thinks her interpretation of canon is the only correct one", and as more time goes by since I actually sat down and read the books, I only grow more attached to the Snape in my head and less so to the Snape in the books.
And yet. If the representation is not intended and poorly done, then is it representation at all? If I said "I'm going to make tea" and then give you some tea, is it sensible on your part to say this is coffee-like in any way because tea and coffee both contain caffeine? I know this question straw-mans the argument, sideprince, but the logical framework is the same. Remus is a dreadful analogue to a man with HIV in my opinion, but he was conceived as such, so there's merit in having the conversation for sure. He is also a very good analogue, if imperfect, for people with intermittent psychosis imo, albeit an unintentional one, so I'll happily discuss him as such.
But he's not an intended or a successful analogue for a guy with some other thing, even if people with some other thing see themselves in him. It doesn't make these people less valuable, or their commentary less valuable.
For fiction, I avidly ascribe to "beauty is truth". If something doesn't work, whether it was supposed to or not, it's not true. If something does work, in the sense of making the work more beautiful, then it is. Beauty is subjective, but it's not that subjective. Snape is beautiful to me because he's morally flawed, as expressed in his deliberately hurtful remarks. It's less beautiful to me if he sincerely doesn't get it. Not because people with ASD aren't as beautiful in real life! It's just not the same metric. Snape is beautiful to me because his bullying reflects themes of class, gender nonconformity vs toxic masculinity, and trauma. It is less beautiful to me to imagine that he actually was a kid who couldn't shut up about his special interest in Dark magic, say, which James and Sirius found suspicious because no one bothered to explain to them that Snape doesn't mean harm by it. Not because people with ASD deserve to be bullied, but because they deserve extra-protection from authority figures and extra patience from their peers, and the failure with Snape wasn't a failure to provide extra protection and extra patience, but a failure to meet the bare minimum.
As I tried to explain in the comments, many people have a limp. Some people have a limp because they have mild cerebral palsy. A character might have a limp, and the reason might be mild CP, but if it's then revealed that the character limps because they were in a car accident, it would be strange to still argue that they might have CP.
Every "autistic" attribute Snape has is down to something else, canonically. He lacks some very fundamental and defining attributes of the condition, in my limited (but not that limited) understanding.
Does that mean that people with CP can't relate especially to my hypothetical limping character? No. Does it mean they have no valuable insight as people who have similar struggles? No. Does it mean their feelings about this are less important? No. But if that character can do some very impressive things with the other leg and in general lacks the defining features of CP, then insisting that they might - even if they're based on someone with CP - is questionable to me. I spent ungodly amounts of time arguing that Snape isn't "obsessive" or creepy, a child abuser, a racist, etc; sure, ASD is morally neutral so it's less grating than the Snater interpretations, but the same interpretation rules and heuristics still apply, and the emotional resonance of the question doesn't make a difference to the answer's truthfulness.
This isn't meant to exclude anyone. I also don't think that it does, in the least.
This is NOT an entry for the Sneta fest!
The Snetafest inspired me to think some more about neurodivergent headcanons/readings, and.... I still subscribe to two apparently unpopular ideas, 1) that the term "neurodivergent" outlived any usefulness it might have had, on top of being quite unclear; 2) Snape isn't neurodivergent (depending on the conditions lumped under there, I guess?), and specifically he isn't ASD-coded, even if the teacher who inspired him was. I don't know, maybe I don't understand ASD so well, or what coding is supposed to mean, but I don't understand how someone who successfully played an exquisitely complex social game that involved mastery of social cues, strategic ambiguity, theory of mind, and prolonged eye contact could be ASD-coded in the least. I might be wrong - but I'll never learn if I don't put it out there. I don't think I am, but hey. But another thing that occurred to me is that Filch is the perfect example of the social model of disability. Because... he isn't disabled. He would be able-bodied in muggle society. But he isn't in that society, so his options are extremely limited, and instead of thriving, he's reduced to the bitter sadist we know and love. I don't know. I find it very strange that the "neurodivergent" framing is only ever applied to characters we like, and never to characters we dislike. If this whole thing is supposed to be about open-minded and compassion, shouldn't it work both ways? P.S. I have several conditions that would make me neurodivergent if I chose to use this term.
The term "coded" is primarily a literary & media analysis term and exists at least in part due to the (now defunct) Hayes Code for depiction of certain things in media. "Coding" in response to the Hayes Code developed as a way to convey information to an audience (eg. character X is gay) without saying it outright. Initially, this version of it was certainly done deliberately but as time went on, writers would make use of it unintentionally as they had absorbed the patterns as part of the cultural background in which they were telling new stories.
However, the phenomenon itself is far older in written literature and is an important tool in literary analysis and understanding a story. Coding is essentially a shorthand method of conveying something about a character without stating it outright, depending on a past history of stories that use the same shorthand. In the hands of a self-aware author, coding is a very useful tool. In the hands of a not so self-aware author, coding is frequently how they end up with Unfortunate Implications. One important point to consider is that coding does not get negated by explicit alternate explanations. In fact, having the text offer an explicit explanation is a frequent tactic to challenge reader assumptions, create deniability, create red herrings and so on. If you present someone with a mug shaped object and then tell them its actually a notepad... you are not changing that it was mug shaped and people still had an initial reaction based on thinking it was a mug and that initial reaction will continue to affect their ongoing perception of the object.
HP has several widely accepted examples of coding, not all of which seem to have been intentional. Jkr certainly used the technique (its pretty universal in stories really) and arguably did so unintentionally in more than one case. So is Snape autistic-coded?
Well.
Maybe.
Compared to (for example), villain coding, there is no consensus of what "autistic coded" entails. There is no accepted literary pattern repeated over many years of stories from a variety of authors which we can call an "autistic coded" pattern. So there is no pattern we can do a straightforward comparison to for a straightforward and widely accepted answer.
Do many autistic individuals see something of themselves in him? Yes. This says there is the possibility that Snape could match a pattern for "autistic coded" should one with sufficient weight, history & acceptance emerge. However, whether or not that ever comes to pass, we still have many (tho never all, people vary too much) autistic individuals feeling that he is autistic and having headcanons that include it.
I don't see a problem with people doing that. It's a headcanon. People headcanon far weirder things with far less evidence. I do note that people sometimes attempt to justify a headcanon by using the "coded" terminology. I generally see that as stemming from a different understanding (I would say wrong but hey, language is always evolving) of what "coded" means. Early fandom talk used coded to talk about thing like queer-coded which is something that does have a long history and imo, as new people saw parts of the discussion, they adopted the language to mean something more like "collection of traits I think equals X" rather than "collection of characterisation choices that draws on cultural/literary history to convey something that isn't made explicit".
I also note that a headcanon doesn't carry the weight of "coded" as "coded" holds an implication of being objective so people will sometimes be trying to be "right" (or win a disagreement) by saying something is coded rather than just their headcanon.
Anyway! This wasn't meant to argue about either of your ideas but to expand on the concept of "coded".
Thank you for the explanation!
I need to lock in and finish a book this week for my local bookstore's reading challenge but I promise I am actually writing new stuff for Mr. Always Wins!
It's such a unique premise for a fic! Keep it up!
this tiktok trend immediately made me think of them
not necessarily a ship art but the canon situationship is definitely there
im sure i could’ve done some more work on it BUT i really dont want to and OH WELL
God damn
I wanna try a thing. For every post I make that highlights how victimized and hard done by Snape was, I'll make one about how he was also very resilient and had agency and initiative oozing out of every pore.
Imagine a boy with no friends. From the wrong part of town. Whose family appears to have a reputation. Who has very little in common with anyone because in a couple of years, he'll be off to Hogwarts. It could have been so easy to daydream until his real life could begin. But then he thought he saw a witch. Lest he accidentally expose his secret to a muggle, he made sure. And that witch was from the better part. And yet he wanted to know her, wanted her to know him, and he put himself on the line to make that happen, risking rejection and mockery. By that age he probably knew very well it wouldn't necessarily work out in his favor. And when that risk materialized... He tried again!
Happy birthday, you maladapted angel. We are not abandoning our experiment to see if sheer gratitude can bring a man back from the dead.
Excerpt from a SSHG fic that mostly exists in my head
A while ago I wrote, and then abandoned, a SSHG fic called "Soulsavers". I still think about it a lot, and so today I wrote a scene that could fit in it. The premise of the fic is that Hermione travels in time to try to talk young!Snape out of becoming a Death Eater, and they gradually develop feelings for each other. In this scene, the Slytherins at the breakfast table debate an editorial on the Daily Prophet:
Hermione would have been almost perfect, if she had not been so fucking clueless, Severus thought. He shoved aside her inexplicable strokes of near-omniscience, along with the knowledge that, had she been at this school since the start, she'd probably want nothing to do with him, like all the other girls. “Oh, can you believe this utter bollocks,” she said, slamming the Daily Prophet on her half-eaten toast.
"Finally, she's getting some sense into that head of hers,” Black remarked. “It's absurd to think our society isn't under threat, even if most of them are just shaved monkeys.” But Severus suspected that Black was merely projecting. Hermione gave Black a cold look and mumbled something about “see how you talk in five months”. Regulus was too busy admiring his own voice to hear her, and Severus already knew he wouldn’t get a straight answer. Hermione turned to him, and asked, “Are people really dumb enough to believe atomic bombs are because Muggles steal magic?! And this is how they justify all this idiotic purity stuff?!”
Severus asked himself again, for the thousandth time, what were they teaching them in Australia, and stared into his tea. He knew Muggles, and as far as he could tell, wanton destruction is exactly what they would do with magic.
“Well?!” She demanded.
“Doesn’t it make sense, though? Suddenly, they can do this, and even they don’t fully understand how it works, innit?”
“You can’t expect me to explain how atomic bombs work! They’re the ones claiming Muggles stole magic, they can prove it! How were they even supposed to do it?!”
Severus shrugged. However the Muggles had come by atomic weapons, they still had, so wasn't it only right for them to be contained?
“And look at what this… this… Oh, the writer of this editorial is a Malfoy, of course! So how does suggest enforcing his ideas? You kill all the Muggle-borns, new ones will keep turning up!”
Severus glanced at Lily, who was giving Potter the cow eyes as he read out of the same editorial. “Dumbledore wants us to learn from them. He wants us to let their children mix with ours with nary a thought for preserving our identity,” James orated, exaggerating even his own pomposity.
Preserving our identity… Funny, that. There seemed to be nothing left of the Lily he loved so much, who could see her sister and his father for what they were: resentful, obsessed with their own weakness, believing it entitled them to treat their magical kin like the dirt on their shoes.
“Our secrets and our powers corrupted in their unworthy hands, whilst the Ministry wrestles with the minutiae of the Dark Artifacts Regulation Act,” the older Black continued, and still Lily looked at Potter with naked admiration. Such courage, such chivalry, mocking Dumbledore’s critics in Dumbledore’s own school.
“That's easy, Granger,” Regulus interjected. “You know it was Godric Gryffindor who insisted that the admissions book include every magical child. We could, you know, just have someone alert us when a new name turns up, if they're not born to a proper family. That's what the Trace was originally for, you know.”
“Not according to Hogwarts: A History,” Hermione rebutted. Another issue of hers, she could never help correcting people. Sadly, Black had deep roots in their society, and he reminded her in no uncertain terms that he had a headmaster's portrait in his living room and that she would do well not to correct her betters.
What an ass, he could hear her think, and quietly assented. Even an ass, though, was better than an inveterate criminal.
“Not everyone are as psychotic about it as the Blacks, mate,” Avery said. “Don’t scare our half-blood friend here, you know we want him to join. We don't need to kill their babies, we don't have to stoop to their level.
Severus could feel Hermione tense up, but he could not understand why. Nothing Avery’d just said was false. “We could just... have a separate school for them, to teach them respect for our ways. Then if they prove themselves, their children could study here.”
“Or we do nothing and let them blow themselves up,” a more practical minded younger Slytherin suggested. “Or take their babies and raise them like useful servants, without access to wands, of course,” Matilda chimed in.
The conversation turned to the many ways the Muggle-born question could be dealt with, and Hermione grew pale beside him.
“You can't possibly want to join them, Severus! Listen to them!”
Didn't he? He was wiser, now, than he was at 11. His desperate attempt to cling to Lily had failed long ago, not before costing him years of isolation from the other Slytherins. Of course he would have wanted for it all to be different, for the world to be simple. But it couldn't be. And Severus loved magic too much, and knew the muggles too well, to be that much of an idealist.
“It's rule or be ruled, Hermione,” he said with a shrug. “What makes you think the muggles or their children would rush to help you?”
Hermione had a peculiar (and aggravating) tendency to be very certain of herself, as regards what was right or wrong, and what Severus could or could not possibly want, and then crumble at the first sign of resistance. For all her fiery opposition, he expected her to have a better counter-argument than “But if you believe that, how is the world ever going to change?”
Who said he wanted to change the world? What if he had just–finally–understood it, and how he could thrive in it? And why did Hermione seem so convinced it was down to him how the world would turn out?
There was no use denying it, though. He liked that she made him feel important. He buttered his own toast and smiled at her, and she smiled wanly back. She was almost perfect, and it was far more than he had hoped for not so long ago.
aaand now Standing Together is denying it was a pogrom & saying calling it that is just “feeding off our emotions” 🙃
the problem is it wasn’t just “two violent groups of hooligans and rioters clashing”
Maccabi Tel Aviv fans who had nothing to do with the chant were attacked. Jewish businesses were attacked. people were specifically targeted for violence for being Jewish. non-Jews were spared. attackers hurled antisemitic racial slurs while beating and stomping on Jews—and you don’t mob someone and try to stomp on their head if you aren’t trying to murder them.
that’s a pogrom.
if a Christian child is found dead and a bunch of people start attacking Jews & Jewish businesses, that’s a pogrom. even if it turns out the perpetrator was Jewish, that’s still a pogrom. “some Jews did something awful, & that’s why we inflicted violence on any Jews we could get our hands on” is Pogrom Logic 101. the fact that you can find an example of a Jew doing something bad changes nothing; a violent riot collectively punishing Jews for it is a pogrom.
Standing Together is now as authentic as Jewish Voice for Peace to me
and NO I said what I said
@tributary
I've seen people argue that hunting people down into the night is normal football culture but that gross chants are highly inflammatory provocations that incite... Err, normal football culture.
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, was planned well in advance of the supposed cause like a, um, duck- it's a pogrom incited by a hate movement.
The Fine Print.
Inspired by Archimèdes by Simon-Louis Boquet.
All I’m trying to say is that you don’t even have to be a pinnacle of morality, goodness, and intelligence to challenge bias, even when it’s posed to you in education.
They’re taught how to identify and kill werewolves by Snape, who clearly went out of his way to curate and deliver this particular lecture.
Ah yes... how unreasonable for Severus to teach the class the textbook curriculum for their subject. Which they are behind in - partially due to having shitty teachers, Remus falling behind on his work due to his illness and/or being a new teacher (he is disorganized too, and gets some facts wrong) - and perhaps partially due to him intentionally avoiding the topic.
After all: he didn't shorten the essay they were given on werewolves, or give them more time to do it - or do anything to make Severus' lesson with them worthwhile for their education. He instantly cancelled it - and was pleased everyone was so upset.
And I don't really blame Remus for that. He was scared. Students had worked him out twice in the past. But I don't blame Severus for focusing on it, either.
On Wolfsbane Remus seems to only takes 2 or so days off a month. The likelihood of it landing on their class twice in a year is slim. Severus has one chance to really drill this werewolf lesson home. Teaching them how to defend themselves against a werewolf is a HIGH priority, especially for Potters class:
Because he believes Remus is working with Sirius Black - the man who got Lily killed. And for good reason: all year Remus has been antagonizing and gaslighting him, spending time with Potter and blatantly lying about things he didn't need to lie about.
Severus believes Remus to be a dangerous man, beyond even a dangerous werewolf. Him doing all that he can to educate students to potentially defend themselves from someone working alongside a murderer, a known betrayer of his friends, is responsible.
You say you 'don't need to be a pinnacle of morality, goodness, and intelligence to challenge bias' - that's true. But typically you need at least something to prove what you have been taught from infancy to be true is actually false. What has Remus ever done that might make Severus consider he might be more than what society says werewovles are? Bully him? Gaslight him? Intentionally antagonize him? Bystand with a position of power? Sneak around? Lie? Undermine him? The BEST thing on Remus' record, as far as Severus is concerned, is that he doesn't seem to have killed or bitten anyone yet. YET.
+ Severus keeps his secret for 18 years. + He makes his Wolfsbane potion (highly difficult) PERFECTLY every month so, as Remus says, he 'didn't suffer as much'. Severus could have damaged him or exposed him if he tampered with the potion, but he didn't. He kept him healthy. Remus is thankful. + When confronted Remus and Sirius TOGETHER in the shack - he didn't hurt or kill Remus. He tied him up to have him face justice. Same with Sirius: he treats Sirius' unconscious body gently, carrying it up to the castle in a stretcher, when neither Remus or Sirius has EVER been gentle with him.
Very few Wizards would treat a werewolf with this much faith, care and justice. He tentatively trusts Remus despite his bias and fears, which are well reasoned but without solid evidence. I'd say that's challenging bias - and being rather moral, good and intelligent.
I just don't get the werewolf defense discourse. Lupin was clearly established as an outlier - most werewolves in the HP world live on the fringes of society because they choose not to try to live non-violently, not just because there's unfounded bias against them. The line between prejudice and self-preservation on the part of wizards is blurry at best.
Which is also why werewolves are a horrible metaphor for Rowling to have used. And don't get me wrong, I absolutely support the idea of challenging bias, but this is a terrible parallel for it.
"They are blood thirsty inhuman monsters who will eat your children" is literal antisemitic and anti-black rhetoric that stretches back centuries (white Christians are good at recycling like that).
"They will gleefully infect you and spread their deadly disease for fun" is literal anti-AIDS homophobic propaganda from the 90s.
What makes Rowling's metaphor problematic is that the marginalized group she establishes through Lupin actually DOES do these things. It's not that there's unfounded bias because a group is "other" because the bias is based in repeatedly perpetuated violence that's inherent to the nature of this mythical, fictional creature. Lupin is an outlier in that he isolates himself during the full moon; it's made clear that most werewolves in this world don't take precautions. Greyback deliberately positions himself near populated areas, but it's canon that he has a following and werewolves rally around him, and that Lupin has an almost impossibly difficult time preaching his own approach to them:
‘I’ve been living among my fellows, my equals,’ said Lupin. ‘Werewolves,’ he added, at Harry’s look of incomprehension. ‘Nearly all of them are on Voldemort’s side. Dumbledore wanted a spy and here I was … ready-made.’ He sounded a little bitter, and perhaps realised it, for he smiled more warmly as he went on, ‘I am not complaining; it is necessary work and who can do it better than I? However, it has been difficult gaining their trust. I bear the unmistakeable signs of having tried to live among wizards, you see, whereas they have shunned normal society and live on the margins, stealing - and sometimes killing - to eat.’ ‘How come they like Voldemort?’ ‘They think that, under his rule, they will have a better life,’ said Lupin. ‘And it is hard to argue with Greyback out there …’
Half-Blood Prince, Ch. 16
It's a terrible metaphor for marginalized people because what anon calls "bias" most people would call "common sense, being informed, and taking protective measures against a legitimate threat to safety." In other words, the marginalized group Rowling creates proves that the prejudice against them is valid - and she wrote Lupin as an allegory for an AIDS patient in this context, which is incredibly harmful, unethical, and laced with its own biases. This isn't a metaphor for bias, marginalization, or othering, and trying to claim it is can give you blinders for how you approach these issues in real life, so I would encourage people to think about the text critically and consider whether they genuinely think it's good metaphorical representation, or if they're just twisting themselves in knots to justify their blorbo. Again, I'm very on board with examining and calling out and undoing biases, I just don't think werewolves in Harry Potter are a well thought-through and informed metaphor for this.
But hey if this is the hill you want to die on, that's your choice, go off. As for Snape teaching the werewolf curriculum, it's clearly an act of protection and of empowering the students with knowledge and skills in the face of a legitimate threat, as far as he's concerned. You know what's funny, though, that I never see asked whenever people bring this up (because it's not an original question, there are posts on this hellsite going back years and years with people thinking they're the first one to ask this "got ya" about Snape):
Was Lupin going to teach werewolves at all? It's on the third year curriculum, but the trio end up in the Shrieking Shack at the end of the year, after final exams, and only Hermione knows about werewolves. He doesn't just scrap Snape's essay. It seems like where Lupin had the opportunity to teach about werewolves in a more progressive, inclusive way, he instead didn't teach it at all - even though he fully knows he's an outlier and that after third year no one will teach these students about werewolves, leaving them vulnerable to all the others who aren't like Lupin and do enjoy targeting people deliberately.
Being that a werewolf ruined Lupin's life, I would have expected him to welcome an opportunity to educate vulnerable children how to avoid the same fate. But I understand, also, why he doesn't. That bit in HBP where he talks about Fenrir and his body language changes into something very subdued and distant, and the description of Harry's own encounter with Fenrir later in the book (maybe DH), that very much sounds like being sexually assaulted - it's all heartbreaking. I have very little sympathy for Lupin most of the time, but in this bit, I feel a lot of pain for him. And then, like many victims, he doesn't actually see his trauma as an unalloyed Bad Thing. He says he enjoyed his full moon adventures with his friends. It's all very complicated and difficult, and there aren't easy answers out there. I think it's all much more akin to having some form of episodic mental illness (even though us people with episodic mental illness and the people who love them would have loved for it to be very predictable and easy to schedule around, complete with a side-effect free symptomatic treatment, but I digress). It's not their fault, they might be functional most of the time, they might mean well, and they might view it as part of themselves and think of rejecting the illness as rejecting them. All of it is understandable, all of it is sympathetic. It's also a lot of baggage to walk into a classroom with. So... at the very least, he should have thanked Snape for taking it off his hands, on top of brewing the potion that allowed him to teach at all. But yeah, his not doing that? His choosing, moreover, to undermine a colleague (again) for his own popularity with the students or whatever it was? That's all on him. Being a werewolf, or mentally ill, or traumatized, or chronically ill, or however you want to frame his condition, doesn't mean you can do whatever you want and then, when criticized, whine about stigma and discrimination. In Lupin's defense tho, he doesn't whine. When called out by Dumbledore, he leaves (though not without a last-ditch Snape bash for good measure). It's his fans taking up this annoying ass behavior. Lupin might take responsibility too little and too late, but he always does.
It’s your local punk boy mr Snape, causing mayhem on every Cokeworth street corner - request for anon
Oh YES
Forget-me-not
Being that this is a Snape-stan account after all, I want to write something in honor of a seemingly minor form of courage, also typified by Snape. That of admitting to a mistake. Of changing your mind. Of taking responsibility. Even if he had done nothing else, he would have still been brave. Research shows that cognitive dissonance can cause something akin to physical pain. Research shows also that it is very rare for people to change their mind, even in the face of conflicting evidence, and I'm sure every Snape fan is quite aware of this. Imagine that he did it while going against his friends, while forcing himself to fight for his enemies, while having everything to gain from staying the same. And this form of courage is available to all of us. On a more personal note, [Politics below the cut]
today I honor the Palestinians (Mosab Hassan Yousef (real-life Snape, fittingly dubbed the Green Prince) and Bassam Eid, and others); the people of Iran (my friend, I am still thinking of you); and Muslims world over (Mo, you are so special); who prove that peace with Israel is possible. And I will strive to make Israel worthy of your faith and courage, despite our own Death-Eater-esque leaders.
Группа в вк - https://vk.com/inyan_art
Little Sev received a handmade scarf from Lily when they were nine.
Art request for Severus’ birthday: Severus and Lily together when they were younger, Lily gave him a present and Sev being shocked and flattered that she did
😴💘😴