Maeglin vs Snape

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

Of course. I'm on the same boat as you, being busy with life and school.

 

[Ent]

Well, so there it is. I've loaded up my library with a bunch of Rowling and Rowling biography I did not yet have, and registered on a Harry Potter forum to do some deeper digging on Snape (and later, other characters no doubt.)

So the fun begins... (after the underbrush of chapter 2 is removed.)

Interesting forum. 798 members logged in, when I was there a little bit ago. over 50,000 members total. I wonder what that means?

 

[Erestor Arcamen]

Well, so there it is. I've loaded up my library with a bunch of Rowling and Rowling biography I did not yet have, and registered on a Harry Potter forum to do some deeper digging on Snape (and later, other characters no doubt.)

so will your username on there be womping willow?

 

[Ent]

so will your username on there be womping willow?

Oh, I wish I would have thought of that..!

No, I am Wondering Wizard.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

Oh, I wish I would have thought of that..!

No, I am Wondering Wizard.

You can always change it~

I think I'd be Luna. At least, that's who me friends tell my I'm like.

 

[Ent]

Yeah well, I likely won’t be growing any roots there.
So far, doing a search on Snape, there’s one really terrific potential thread on whether he deserved repentance.. but only 2 people posted.

We’ve already had a better discussion on Snape here, and we’re not even a Potter Place..!

I’ll do a little more looking, but my initial impression is it’s not a very deep work.

 

[Ent]

Well, after more scouring, I have uprooted and departed said forum. For what I want from a forum, attributed value = 0.

Tried to log in to another one... registered 3 times... said it sent me a confirming email - none arrived. It appears dead, though its main page says it's fixed.

Didn't find any others to try.

So... researching the needs on my own, merrily highlighting every Snape passage and familiarizing myself with all its contents.

Will develop a behavioral analysis, and try to relate that to what is "good," and what is "bad"... a question one other thread there sought to answer. "Are all Slytherins bad." Oddly, of the very few posts, none thought to ask for a definition of "good" and "Bad" - Ent's normal 'go to' on such obtuse questions. And, no one asked the obvious... "do you REALLY mean "ALL"? which is a self-answering question to begin with.

Then I'll do the same with Maeglin.

I also must note: when I logged back in the last time, there were 740 people logged in. But only 9 of them were members. Given the site itself, and that you can't get beyond a very limited access to content until you've been a 'member' long enough to do 10 posts, this says a huge amount..!! I missed how many of the 73x logged in I mentioned before were actually members.

Anyway, the seas ahead are rough, but being made basically of wood, I float pretty well. On I go on my own.

 

[WatcherWraith]

Having some dead time at work, I used it to read the rest of this thread, and shall use whatever pauses I have to write out my personal contribution.


The question of what people are talking about when they use the terms "good" and "bad" is certainly worth asking. Some use them in terms of consequences to actions, some use them to refer to justified or unjustified motivation, etc. For myself, I will use these terms in this context to reference Rowling's or Tolkien's representation of the ideas of good and evil(which were not the same, but to my mind must be applied to each respective character to gain an understanding of how they fit in these categories).

Rowling had her "good vs evil" plot, but she also had some more complicated characters. Dumbledore and Snape are two good examples, especially since they both appear to be characters many people react to in extremes: Dumbledore was either a champion of good, striking against Voldemort with what tools he had, or a manipulative and uncompassionate man no better than his enemy in the end, while Snape was either a nasty, shriveled bully working only for his own gain or a misunderstood spy with a golden heart.

My opinion runs thus: Dumbledore was willing to use whatever means he had at his disposal to rid the world of the very obvious evil of Voldemort and his minions. This included his own suffering, since he was the one who drank from the pool containing Voldemort's cursed pendant, and he did not make Harry drink it. But he was also quite willing to use others as his weapons, as I believe he knew their value and ability. Snape was one of these, and it is my belief Dumbledore took him on partially because he chose this as Severus' punishment for his willingness to let all the Potter family but Lily die.

As for Severus, he is a mixed bag. His upbringing was, frankly, awful. He clung to Lily as his only friend and was most likely bitter about being in separate Houses. Then he was constantly bullied and picked on. He just happened to live in a time when Voldemort's rise to power was happening, and many of his schoolfellows' families were involved. They presented a more than tempting offer, but it came at the cost of Lily's friendship. I'm not surprised Severus was still willing to let James and Harry die, as he was almost thoroughly blinded by his own bitterness and hatred of the man who had(admittedly) humiliated him time and again in boyhood. But once Dumbledore demanded his services and made him into the spy he became, Severus needed a perspective change. His hatred remained, and his bitterness never really went away, but they matured and changed over time until he was genuinely against Voldemort and all he stood for. It was Severus, again and again and again, who protected Harry and tried to ensure the boy didn't get himself in worse trouble than he was destined for. He got mad when he learned of Dumbledore's plans for Harry's end. In the end, he was still touched by the darkness, and always would be(possibly symbolized by his Dark Mark), but he was not allowed to get away with what he had done and he was better for it.

Now: Tolkien. Dang, this is turning a lot longer than anticipated. But onward ho :]

As has been mentioned earlier, many if not most of Tolkien's characters are redeemable in some way or at least had a chance once upon a time. As for Maeglin, his chance came many times, both in the form of his mother and during his time in Gondolin. Someone talked about how Maeglin's perception of power was probably affected by his father, and this makes sense to me. He grew up learning results come from force of will and of hand, for he and his mother had to escape in order to get anywhere out of his father's forest(apologies, I've forgotten the names of Maeglin's parents).

How does Maeglin differ from Snape? Why does he not get a pass on what he has done? Well someone else already answered this partially. Snape repented of his deeds and though we know very little of his deeds as a Death Eater, we can almost guarantee they were of a grim nature since he was serving Voldemort directly. Maeglin did no such thing, but sank deeper into himself and into his ideas of his own entitlement. Plus...Maeglin's betrayal took down an entire city and destroyed a people. Snape's cost the life of a family and the imprisonment of one man, from what we know. Maeglin's actions had the most dire consequences. Additionally, Maeglin fought for himself to the end. Snape died in the service of what he believed to be right, and found consolation in the eyes of the woman he loved, and would always love.

There's my two cents on their differences and what kinds of characters I believe they were. I'm open to critique/questions, etc. Happy analyzing!
(Now I'm off work, so I'll be able to respond anytime after I get home again.)

 

[Ent]

A great analysis, infused with points to consider. To pondering I will go.

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

Thank you @WatcherWraith for this thorough analysis! When I started this thread, I was suddenly striken with the similarities between these two and I think I've somewhat gotten my answer. My remaining question, I think, will never be completely answered because as many have put it here, mostly depends on each individual's opinion.

 

[Alice]

Dumbledore was willing to use whatever means he had at his disposal to rid the world of the very obvious evil of Voldemort and his minions.

Also he was the one who let Voldemort do what he did. He knew from the beginning Voldemort's true nature but did nothing to stop him for years, though he could, because Tom was scared of him.

This included his own suffering, since he was the one who drank from the pool containing Voldemort's cursed pendant, and he did not make Harry drink it.

Because he needed Harry alive for one more year. And Dumbledore already was dying.

But he was also quite willing to use others as his weapons, as I believe he knew their value and ability. Snape was one of these, and it is my belief Dumbledore took him on partially because he chose this as Severus' punishment for his willingness to let all the Potter family but Lily die.

Snape DIDN'T want their family to die. Snape warned Dumbledore that ALL of them were in danger.

They presented a more than tempting offer, but it came at the cost of Lily's friendship.

No. She didn't value their friendship much from the beginning. She never cared about Snape and she wasn't his true friend (though Snape believed she was)

I'm not surprised Severus was still willing to let James and Harry die

He wasn't. I already said why

How does Maeglin differ from Snape?

They have nothing in common, that's why. Only thing they have in common is that they both were rejected

Why does he not get a pass on what he has done? Well someone else already answered this partially. Snape repented of his deeds and though we know very little of his deeds as a Death Eater, we can almost guarantee they were of a grim nature since he was serving Voldemort directly.

No. Snape didn't kill or torture people. Snape wasn't violent. He cared about his soul, after all. If he did such things, it would be damaged. But it wasn't until he killed Dumbledore in 6th book.

Maeglin did no such thing, but sank deeper into himself and into his ideas of his own entitlement.

Maeglin sold an entire Gondolin. That's much worse than what Snape ever did or even imagined.

Plus...Maeglin's betrayal took down an entire city and destroyed a people. Snape's cost the life of a family and the imprisonment of one man, from what we know.

It was Dumbledore's fault. He could protect them. But he didn't. Also was Voldemort's fault since he was the one who killed Potters. Also Peter's who sold them to Voldemort. Also Potters who didn't do much to hide and protect their child at any cost. They didn't even have wands when it happened. It was their responsibility to protect their own child.

Snape died in the service of what he believed to be right, and found consolation in the eyes of the woman he loved, and would always love.

Unfortunately. She did not deserve such love from him. He tried to protect her and then her ungrateful child. And what did he get for that? Nothing. He died a painful death, that's all

 

[Ent]

I appreciate your responses here, Alice, and your thoughts point by point.
I'll be checking them out as well as the rest, as I read through Snape's life incident by incident, step by step, event by event.

I do have certain questions I need to search out the answer to, and considerations of what constitutes assignment of 'fault'. One is not excused from 'fault' in doing something, because someone else 'had responsibiilty to do something.'

If one does something 'wrong' or 'bad' it is just 'wrong' or 'bad'. it is not excused because 'there was some other factor involved.'

This is what I need to be sure to check out carefully.

One thing is certain - Snape DID abuse his students, demean them, and intentionally put them down. This is not 'good' - nor can it be excused. It is not a good teaching method by any standard in this world, or his.

Other than that... all the rest is up for review.

"More at 11" as newscasters used to say. (don't know if they still do. there's little news worth watching or listening to any more. it's like a soap opera on 'repeat.')

 

[Alice]

I appreciate your responses here, Alice, and your thoughts point by point.
I'll be checking them out as well as the rest, as I read through Snape's life incident by incident, step by step, event by event.

I am the only one who dares to defend him. At least here

I do have certain questions I need to search out the answer to, and considerations of what constitutes assignment of 'fault'. One is not excused from 'fault' in doing something, because someone else 'had responsibiilty to do something.'

I said. He tried to save an ENTIRE family. He literally told Dumbledore he would do anything for that. He've ALREADY repented by becoming Dumbledore's slave only to save Potters

If one does something 'wrong' or 'bad' it is just 'wrong' or 'bad'. it is not excused because 'there was some other factor involved.'

This is what I need to be sure to check out carefully.

Potters are still to blame they didn't care much about their OWN child. It's not how responsible parents behave. And yes, I am going to blame them for not having wands or anything to fight Voldemort or to escape the house with their son. Yes, they are to blame too. They were warned. Their child is THEIR responsibility, not some guy's.

One thing is certain - Snape DID abuse his students, demean them, and intentionally put them down. This is not 'good' - nor can it be excused. It is not a good teaching method by any standard in this world, or his.

He doesn't need you excusing him actually. And I don't find his behavior horrible. Even when I was a kid I did not think he was a bad teacher. If I was younger I would want a him as a teacher. Actually I did have teachers like him.

 

[WatcherWraith]

I am the only one who dares to defend him. At least here

I said. He tried to save an ENTIRE family. He literally told Dumbledore he would do anything for that. He've ALREADY repented by becoming Dumbledore's slave only to save Potters

Potters are still to blame they didn't care much about their OWN child. It's not how responsible parents behave. And yes, I am going to blame them for not having wands or anything to fight Voldemort or to escape the house with their son. Yes, they are to blame too. They were warned. Their child is THEIR responsibility, not some guy's.

He doesn't need you excusing him actually. And I don't find his behavior horrible. Even when I was a kid I did not think he was a bad teacher. If I was younger I would want a him as a teacher. Actually I did have teachers like him.

Ent has responded to you very considerately, in my opinion, and so have many of the others. You have refused to adopt the same language and consideration towards any of them despite their kindness. I find myself puzzled as to why.

First of all, you are not "the only one to defend" Snape. Plenty of people, myself included, have talked about Snape's good qualities. The only difference is you refuse to see any bad qualities in him at all, thus making Snape into an unbelievable character. No one is the kind of person you are portraying Snape to be. No one can be. It's a flat view and I'm honestly sorry you have it.

Second: you are entitled to your own opinion on the characters in these books, but there are a few of your opinions which actually go against what took place. You said your opinions are based on facts. Very well, then.

In response to my statement concerning Dumbledore and the pool, you stated Dumbledore drank instead of Harry because Dumbledore needed Harry alive for one more year and Dumbledore was already dying. This is an irrelevant objection, as the pool's water did nothing but cause current suffering(according to my memory. I grant I may be mistaken, but I recollect there being nothing about any lasting effects on Dumbledore as a result of his drinking it), and Harry would have been just fine afterwards.

Additionally, when Severus warned Dumbledore of the Potter's danger, you are correct, he did tell the professor all of them were in danger. He also pleaded for only Lily's life. "Spare her." And consider, the prophesy concerning Harry's birth could also have applied to Neville Longbottom, as was revealed in the books. If Voldemort had chosen to go after Neville's family, would Snape have warned Dumbledore? I think not. He only turned from the Dark Lord because Lily was being threatened, and it is remarked upon in the books(or so I remember).

You said Lily never cared about Snape. Where are you getting this? Because she got mad when he pranked her sister? Because she rejected him when he called her a Mud blood(the worst Wizard insult)? Because she didn't approve of his friends and finally walked away from him? Given Severus' tendencies to be spiteful(he invented a spell solely for slashing a person's chest open), I'm not surprised, though I wish things had been different. These are not reasons to believe Lily never cared for Severus.

You do make a good point about Severus' care for his soul. I'm not sure if the book explicitly says he never killed anyone before when he and Dumbledore are talking about their plans for Dumbledore's death, though. Besides, one does not need to have only tortured or killed to be in the service of Voldemort. But saying Snape wasn't violent? Of course he was, just not towards the children. My earlier example of his chest-slashing spell is one piece of evidence for this, and he certainly took an aggressive stance towards those who hurt or rejected him as a child. He was ready to lead Sirius to the Dementors when he found him in the Shrieking Shack and even spoke somewhat eagerly about the "kiss" they would give Sirius. Understandable, given his past and what he believed about Sirius, but still violent.

Yes, it was Voldemort's fault the Potter's died. However, I ask you to recall exactly what the Potter's did to protect themselves from Voldemort. They cast a spell upon their whole house so any who looked at it would not be able to see it for what it was, nor could they enter it. I don't remember the exact specifics of the spell, but I do know the spell needed a Keeper. Instead of choosing the obvious, Sirius, they chose one of their friends they trusted and thought Voldemort would never go after: Peter Pettigrew. Dumbledore was the one who gave them this idea, by the way. It should have worked. If Peter had not betrayed them, it would have worked. The Potter's had no wands because they believed in their friend and did not expect Voldemort to show up out of nowhere, which he did. And Lily literally died shielding her son with her body. Where in the world are you getting the idea the Potter's didn't really care about their son? What "facts" are you drawing from?

Now, as for your very first point, about Dumbledore and Voldemort/Tom Riddle. Yes, he did see the boy's nature(who couldn't?). Yes, he took that twisted boy into the school, hoping to reform him. But Tom was clever, and Dumbledore was only a teacher at the time, not headmaster. Tom made sure he was never caught and charmed everyone he could so Dumbledore never saw the full scale of Tom's doings, and could never really do anything about him. Was Dumbledore arrogant for doing what he did, bringing a child who'd tortured people into the school? I certainly think so. But Dumbledore is much like the character Luthen from Star Wars: Andor. He is a leader, and an intelligent one, willing to do what needs to be done to win against a foe only he can truly challenge in one on one combat. But it will take much more than a duel to settle Voldemort, because Dumbledore is not fighting against just one man, but against an organization and thus must employ different methods. Yes, many of the things he did were dangerous and put people at risk. That does not, by itself, make him worse than Voldemort, who actively sought the annihilation of Muggles and wizards who stood against him. Even Muggleborn wizards were not safe from his torture.

I like Snape. I really, really like Snape. And I actually liked some of his teaching methods. But if you think his purposeful ignoring of Hermione, picking on Harry(he did. A lot.), shaming Ron and then turning around and praising almost everything Draco did is nothing wrong, you and I are going to have to just realize we have wildly different ideas of what makes a good teacher.

And in future, please, for your own sake and so you can be taken as seriously as your views deserve, please speak kindly to the others. It's been very aggravating reading your posts where you play the victim card over and over and over and call people "haters" for expressing different opinions than yours and talking as if they haven't a leg to stand on and you're the martyr here. Please take some time to consider before you respond and I honestly hope I have spoken without rudeness and only with some firmness, because that was my intent.

 

[Ent]

There is no point in.disagreeing with Alice publicly.
Unless we all agree with her, she is simply going to consider herself a ‘victim’, abused, and as though we’re saying she’s a ‘bad person.” Wherever she gets this idea, it’s deeply ingrained.

No one is saying that… but her perception tells her they are.

Responding to her posts is pointless. I’m sorry I did. I guess in her view abusing students, demeaning them, insulting them, playing favorites (also called discrimination), etc are just fine traits to have. I disagree. This does NOT mean I’m saying Snape is the most terrible person in the world. But… he just ain’t a saint.

So be it.
Such is her view.
I will forever disagree. If she feels I’m therefore calling her a bad person or I’m saying Snape is the worst ever, I just can’t help that. Sso be that too.

“Resistance is futile.’ Apparently, we should all just be assimilated.

(Not that we’re resisting… we’re just trying to discuss, and explain why we think what we think.. But that just doesn’t work. We’re supposed to agree, not have other thoughts it seems.)

 

[Ent]

P.s. - I will shortly be deleting some of these posts again, as they are also pointless. The original where thoughts and meaningful responses were shared will remain. As to the rest… they will go away.

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

Regarding Maeglin's departure from Nan Elmoth and his aspirations to rule Gondolin:

I can't make much sense of this. He was a child when he left Nan Elmoth. He did convince Aredhel to finally leave, but I doubt he has had those fantasies in mind since back then. He was a renowned smith. Perhaps he wanted more room to grow his skills, considering how most Noldor are known to be remarkable craftsmen?

He was young, but he seems to be described as full-grown in body at least. Maybe the equivalent of an older adolescent.
The text does seem to imply Maeglin made note of the fact Turgon had no male heir, when Aredhel told him about her life in Gondolin.

From the chapter 'Of Maeglin' in the Silmarillion:

As Maeglin grew to full stature, he resembled in face and form rather his kindred of the Noldor, but in mood and mind he was the son of his father. His words were few save in matters that touched him near, and then his voice had a power to move those that heard him and to overthrow those that withstood him. He was tall and black-haired; his eyes were dark, yet bright and keen as the eyes of the Noldor, and his skin was white. Often he went with Eöl to the cities of the Dwarves in the east of Ered Lindon, and there he learned eagerly what they would teach, and above all the craft of finding the ores of metals in the mountains.

Yet it is said that Maeglin loved his mother better, and if Eöl were abroad he would sit long beside her and listen to all that she could tell him of her kin and their deeds in Eldamar, and of the might and valour of the princes of the House of Fingolfin. All these things he laid to heart, but most of all that which he heard of Turgon, and that he had no heir; for Elenwë his wife perished in the crossing of the Helcaraxë, and his daughter Idril Celebrindal was his only child.

Perhaps this should be taken with a grain of salt, as the use of 'it is said' implies that all this was recorded by someone later on, who was told this story. From that perspective, it could have been someone's attempt at an explanation for Maeglin's later behaviour.
Their possible reasoning: Maeglin must have been looking for a position of power from the beginning, and he must have been a rotten egg from the start, for him to betray his city to Morgoth and not warn everyone after he was released from Angband.

He was the only Elf in history recorded to have willingly betrayed his people to Morgoth, so no doubt people later on tried to find a reason for this behaviour.

 

[Alice]

There is no point in.disagreeing with Alice publicly.

OKAAAAY, let me explain

I don't take accusations of Snape seriously. I've seen many discussions about him and I am tired of same stuff repeating over and over again.

Unless we all agree with her, she is simply going to consider herself a ‘victim’, abused, and as though we’re saying she’s a ‘bad person.” Wherever she gets this idea, it’s deeply ingrained.

I said. This is what happens to Snape fans.

No one is saying that… but her perception tells her they are.

Responding to her posts is pointless. I’m sorry I did. I guess in her view abusing students, demeaning them, insulting them, playing favorites (also called discrimination), etc are just fine traits to have. I disagree. This does NOT mean I’m saying Snape is the most terrible person in the world. But… he just ain’t a saint.

Well I've admitted he was rude. There are many reasons why I don't find it bad in this particular case. And I said - I've never found him abusive. I see him as an ordinary teacher. I've seen much worse so no, I won't see him as an abuser, and I never thought he was.

So be it.
Such is her view.
I will forever disagree. If she feels I’m therefore calling her a bad person or I’m saying Snape is the worst ever, I just can’t help that. Sso be that too.

You can disagree. Few people agree with me but they exist

“Resistance is futile.’ Apparently, we should all just be assimilated.

(Not that we’re resisting… we’re just trying to discuss, and explain why we think what we think.. But that just doesn’t work. We’re supposed to agree, not have other thoughts it seems.)

Because I consider my opinion correct and based on books

 

[Tyelkormo the Fair]

Regarding Maeglin's departure from Nan Elmoth and his aspirations to rule Gondolin:

He was young, but he seems to be described as full-grown in body at least. Maybe the equivalent of an older adolescent.
The text does seem to imply Maeglin made note of the fact Turgon had no male heir, when Aredhel told him about her life in Gondolin.

From the chapter 'Of Maeglin' in the Silmarillion:


Perhaps this should be taken with a grain of salt, as the use of 'it is said' implies that all this was recorded by someone later on, who was told this story. From that perspective, it could have been someone's attempt at an explanation for Maeglin's later behaviour.
Their possible reasoning: Maeglin must have been looking for a position of power from the beginning, and he must have been a rotten egg from the start, for him to betray his city to Morgoth and not warn everyone after he was released from Angband.

He was the only Elf in history recorded to have willingly betrayed his people to Morgoth, so no doubt people later on tried to find a reason for this behaviour.

I think I've read somewhere that he wasn't off age yet when he reached Gondolin. Thanks!(you know how forgetful I am.😁)

 

[Server Room Gremlin]

I think I've read somewhere that he wasn't off age yet when he reached Gondolin. Thanks!(you know how forgetful I am.😁)

It doesn't say he was 'of age', only that he was of 'full stature'. In human terms, you can reach your adult height as a teen, even if you're not 18 or 21 yet. I'm not entirely sure of Tolkien's timeline of events, but I do seem to recall Maeglin was not very old for an elf even when he was killed.