He Who Must Not Be Named

Michelle and I just finished reading the new Harry Potter book. Reading books out loud together is just one of our quaint and dorky habits; perhaps you saw the post about our in-depth grammar discussions. But it's fun, especially for me since I do most of the reading. It provides a harmless outlet for that part of my ego which remains convinced I would have been wildly successful as a professional actor.

Harry Potter especially is wonderful for voices. I mean, I can do my British accent when we read Jane Austen or Douglas Adams, but when else could I say words like 'Occlumency' with it while also sounding (or trying to sound) simultaneously evil and amused? Rowling's characters are so full of quirks. Many of them are rich and complex, yet remaining fanciful and otherworldly. Hagrid's thick accent and simpleton manner belie his deep love for his students. Dumbledore is infallibly kind and patient, but somewhere underneath is unmistakably a warrior. And Snape...

What Rowling has done in developing the character of Severus Snape over six books is truly unique. Understand; she writes in the genre of fantasy, of grand battles between good and evil, where every character falls neatly into one camp or the other. If you've only seen one or two of the movies, it may seem to you that Snape (played by Alan Rickman with surpassing brilliance) is merely a sort of decoy bad guy who winds up good in the end. The books, I would argue, have painted him slightly differently. In his position as a teacher at Harry's school, he is of value to both sides, and both believe him to be loyal to their cause. Essentially, he's a double agent. So who does he really work for?

The point which I think Rowling might be making (future books will tell) is that no one is really just 'good' or 'bad.' Only in fiction are we allowed to categorize so easily. In the new book, there are scenes in which both evil and good characters accuse Snape of being a traitor. He has helped the good cause enough to draw questions from the other baddies, yet many of the good guys (Harry Potter the foremost among them) are convinced he is evil. And what I wonder is, does Snape know himself? I think he knows what is right and wishes to do it, yet despises what he sees as naivety and foolishness in the good, and is drawn to the power and cunning of the evil side. So, perhaps, he relishes his role as a double agent and denies absolute loyalty to either side.

If I'm right, than in the sixth book Rowling is making a powerful statement about such a dual nature. Ultimately, the book would seem to say, someone who tries to play both sides will be forced to commit to one or the other, but they may not have a choice which it is.

Of course I don't want to give anything away, so I won't say more. I just thought it was a theory worth sharing, especially in light of the predominant conservative voice which accuses Harry Potter of being a bad (evil?) influence on young people while praising the fantasy works of Tolkien as an allegory of Christianity. This they are not, of course, though they express many truths which can also be found in the Christian religion, as well as in Islam or Hinduism. And Harry Potter books. Here's a good bit:

"But I haven't got uncommon skill and power," said Harry, before he could stop himself.

"Yes, you have," said Dumbledore firmly. "You have a power that Voldemort has never had. You can--"

"I know!" said Harry impatiently. "I can love!" It was only with difficulty that he stopped himself adding, "Big deal!"

"Yes, Harry, you can love," said Dumbledore, who looked as though he knew perfectly well what Harry had just refrained from saying. "Which, given everything that has happened to you, is a great and remarkable thing. You are still too young to understand how unusual you are, Harry."

"So, when the prophecy says that I'll have 'power the Dark Lord knows not,' it just means -- love?" asked Harry, feeling a little let down.

"Yes -- just love," said Dumbledore.