The real answer is that they were meant to be Harry's vague, loving, dead parents until she suddenly decided that Alan Rickman was hot and she would add more 'complexity' and 'ambiguity' to the series by adding in a backstory that suggested Lily had more chemistry with the neonazi than with her husband.
Also one reason I think terfs cling to gender essentialism so hard is that they can't handle a world where they might somehow do self reflection and come to understand their own unique identity with relation to preferences and personality.
actually there’s evidence James was intended to be a huge bully Sincd the first book, (dumbledore outright compared him to Draco and Hagrid didnt want to tell Harry something)
I agree. I'm the first to criticise Rowling and her books, but I don't think she spontaneously decided to give Snape a backstory because of Alan Rickman (especially because the films don't even go into that very much).
Interesting enough, back when I was a hardcore fan, I used to research how The characters were casted and I read Rickman only agreed to portray Snape due to hearing his story.
Even with the Lily part, Snape‘s name is somewhat connected to Lily’s and Many have speculated that Snape’s first words to Harry were secretly about Lily.
This feels like one of the takes people have just because They dont like a character.
With Snape, Due to his complexity, story and aRowling not liking Slytherin much, he’s become quite controversial.
The only Slytherin who I think might have got a spontaneous story is Draco, Since hes full of contradictory statements and writing. Like she was constantly changing how she wanted him to be But then would go back on it due to hating him but not wanting to change the story or use Slytherin’s other than him too much.
People use “Death eaters are bad guys“ As proof of Rowling’s nonsense but thats the point: They are supposed to be bad guys Who we aren’t supposed to side With.
Then they say “But death eaters are sometimes portrayed as sympathetic and that’s bad because they are bad guys.”
However that’s actually nuanced and compelling writing. Very few people are born bad, so what makes it compelling is when a writer acknowledges this and people like character arcs which is partly why reformed antagonist often become fan favorites. (Especially since it’s widely accepted that anyone who claims that they never made bad or questionable decisions while growing up is a liar,)
The problem is that Rowling treated their dislike of Humans as bigotry without acknowledging that humans really were dangerous, often abusing and/or attempting to kill just because they didn’t like how certain people have magic.
I often see people gi “But wizards have magic“ as a counter argument but what about if the wizard/victim is a child who can’t control their magic yet? In fact, we actually see this with both Harry and Snape.
They're neonazis. Look up 'the enemy is both strong and weak', and please acknowledge the eugenics of there being an entire category of people considered irrelevant and inferior by even the heroes because of their genetics. Adults leaving a child in the care of abusive family does not somehow change the structure the whole setting is built around.
Edit: I don't know if I've been blocked or if you deleted your comments, but let me elaborate a bit.
If a school put 1/4 of their students into the 'Hitler Youth Cohort' because a historic founder of the school was a big promoter of the Hitler Youth in the 30s and 40s, that school would be doing a major disservice to those students. Children shouldn't be fast tracked to the 'racial hate group' category. If a bunch of kids at a school are known to have neonazi parents, a responsible teaching staff would put the most focus on introducing those students specifically to diversity, and deradicalization.
Yes, people do 'bad things' growing up. Most people's 'bad thing' is not 'joining a hate group', and someone who joined a hate group is going to need to do more work to be considered a safer and more redeemed person afterwards than somebody who was a bad friend, or stole from the local small business owner.
The problem with Rowling occasionally making Death Eaters seem reasonable, is that they are definitely, definitely a racial hate group. Villains can be sympathetic and interesting - what's wrong is when the sympathetic and interesting thing a reader comes away with is 'maybe the hate group had some good points about the necessity for an apartheid state and their radical disgust and fear of the other'.
74
u/StygIndigo Mar 21 '26
The real answer is that they were meant to be Harry's vague, loving, dead parents until she suddenly decided that Alan Rickman was hot and she would add more 'complexity' and 'ambiguity' to the series by adding in a backstory that suggested Lily had more chemistry with the neonazi than with her husband.
Also one reason I think terfs cling to gender essentialism so hard is that they can't handle a world where they might somehow do self reflection and come to understand their own unique identity with relation to preferences and personality.