moody views

 The Asbury Park Public Library's Bruce Springsteen Special Collection invited me to write a new essay to celebrate the 30th anniversary of "Darkness on the Edge of Town" (the album's original release date was June 2, 1978).   Since this is my favorite Springsteen album, I was happy to oblige. The Special Collection has amassed a wealth of material on its native son (and newly minted New Jersey State Hall of Fame member). The collection is available for in-library use by Springsteen scholars and writers. Check out my essay, and the Friends of the Special Collection's site, here.

It's a sad day on E Street. My appreciation of the Phantom, from Obit magazine here.

Read the Boss's endorsement here .   Say amen, somebody!

Oh, man. It's been a looooooooooooong time since I posted. Sorry!  Life and stuff has gotten in the way. And I'm not the best journaller in the world. I'm a slug. What can I say?  

What brings me back here today is the shocking and very sad passing of the great film director Anthony Minghella, at a ridiculously young age (54).  Minghella wrote and directed my favorite movie, "Truly, Madly, Deeply,"  which I saw in 1991 on the recommendation of my then-colleague, film critic Michael Sragow (who called it "The thinking person's 'Ghost'").   There was nothing about this movie I didn't love:  Juliet Stevenson's quirky grace and raw emotional honesty; the sweet but not saccharine message that life goes on, even after wrenching loss; the not-dorky use of two of the greatest songs ever written, Joni Mitchell's "A Case of You" and the Walker Brothers' "The Sun Ain't Gonna Shine Anymore" ; Alan Rickman, Alan Rickman, Alan Rickman.  

Anyway, I wrote an appreciation of Minghella and "Truly Madly Deeply" (still, his finest film, period) yesterday for a new-ish online magazine called Obit. Obit has some fine writing on a subject not usually discussed in polite company -- death. It's not as downbeat as it sounds. Please take a look at Obit, sift through the archives, enjoy. 

Other recent writing:  another piece for Obit, this one on everyone's favorite hunky, bisexual, immortal sci-fi hero, Captain Jack Harkness

I got a little carried away playing with this  ...

... so, here's what Snape would look like on "The Simpsons".   I wish I could have given him a wand.

Late night TV legend Tom Snyder has died of leukemia at age 71.  If you've never heard of him, or have only a dim memory of him, get hold of some of his shows, which are now on DVD.  In 1994, I wrote about Snyder's David Letterman-sponsored TV comeback, in a piece in the San Francisco Examiner (which is not archived, or I'd link).  Here's a bit:

"Snyder is cool again. Not that he was ever uncool. Not that he would know cool if it hit him over the head. Snyder is a timeless treasure. He inhabits a world unto himself, a world that is pre-rap, pre-rock, pre-TV, pre-nonsmoking, a Sinatra kind of world where men are men and women are dames ...

"During the run of "Tomorrow" (1973-1982), Synder was unwittingly campy, the last angry Midwesterner. With sideburns down to there, Snyder ranted into the wee hours on a dark, bare-bones set fogged by the smoke of his ever-present cigarette. A curmudgeon and a square, but a fierce defender of civil liberties, Snyder whizzed off on tangents about the day's issues, interrupted his guests (some real heavyweights like John Lennon and President Jimmy Carter), engaged in private jokes with the crew and erupted into startling, manic, teeth-baring laughter ('Ha-ha, ha-ha, ha-ha!'). A veteran of radio, Snyder often seemed to forget that he had a camera on him. If you ever saw Dan Aykroyd imitating Snyder on 'Saturday Night Live,' well, you saw Snyder.

"' 'Tomorrow," which aired after "The Tonight Show," was awesome talk TV, unpredictable, combustible, weird. ... During the '70s. Snyder waged a one-man war against punk rock, which he apparently regarded as proof that we're going to hell in a handbasket. He'd have some of the biggest names in punk on the show -- Johnny Rotten, the Clash, Elvis Costello -- and then pick fights with them. You might've been pissed off at Snyder, but you had to admire his nerve. ..."

The day after that article ran in the paper, my phone rang and the voice at the other end said, "Tom Snyder here. Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!"  Yes, it was really him, and I have no idea how he got my home phone number. But he thanked me for the article, which he found amusing, and he told me that the next time he was in town, he wanted to buy me a martini.  

I wish I had taken him up on it.

Well, JKR was on Dateline NBC last night, in an expanded version of the Today Show interview. She clarifies her position on Snape, which now makes more sense. She does admit that she set out to create an anti-hero (or "tragic hero") who was in need of redemption, and whom Harry would have to forgive in order to complete his journey.  JKR's words follow. SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER!!!!!!

"I knew from the beginning what Snape was. Do I think he's a hero? To a point I do, but he's not an unequiveably good character. Snape is a complicated man. He's bitter, he's spiteful, he's a bully. All these things are still true of Snape even at the end of this book. But, was he brave? Yes, immensely. Was he capable of love? Very definitely. So, he's--he's a very--he was a flawed human being like all of us. Harry forgives him. As we know from the epilogue, Harry--Harry sees the good in Snape ultimately. I wanted there to be redemption and I wanted there to be forgiveness and Harry forgives even knowing that until the end Snape loathed him unjustifiably. It's totally totally unfair that he loathed him so much, but there you are."

OK, this is good. But it still doesn't fix the structural problems with the book.

THIS JUST IN -  JKR answered fans' questions today in an Internet chat. She talks more about Snape, and reveals some much-needed info about the career choices of the adult Harry, Ginny, Ron and Hermione. Transcript is here,  courtesy of Mugglenet.

Work and life got in the way of my plans to keep this journal current or at least semi-regular. So, in a fit of embarrassment, I deleted it. But I had to come back to say a few things about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and , especially, He Who Must Never Be Appreciated or Properly Understood By His Creator. 

Yes, the Great Snape Debate still rages ... in J.K. Rowling's mind.

IF YOU HAVE NOT READ BOOK 7 YET, STOP READING THIS RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

First of all, I was not at all surprised to see that I was right about many of the things I talked about in my essay "In Defense of Snape's Innocence" in The Great Snape Debate.  Briefly,  these were:   Snape=friend, Snape and Dumbledore in cahoots re: Dumbledore's death,  argument in the forest between Snape and Dumbledore was indeed the "smoking wand" clue that proved Snape killed DD on DD's orders, Snape's love for Lily was his motivation in turning to the side of good, Snape felt genuine remorse over her death, Snape would be redeemed through death in Harry's eyes.  Oh, and Snape's Patronus had something to do with Lily. 

I was wrong about many other things. The one I really want to smack myself for is not realizing that Snape's worst memory was his worst memory not because of the underpants thing, but because he called Lily, the girl he loved, a "Mudblood".  C'est la vie.

I was fortunate enough to have been assigned to review Deathly Hallows for the Boston Phoenix.  I'm contented in general with my review -- which was one of those "read the book straight through in 10 hours and write a piece that doesn't give anything away for those who haven't read it" reviews.  But having had time to digest the book now, and assuming that anybody who cares has read the book already, I have the nagging feeling of a job half done. 

In my review, I said the book was a "satisfying" resolution to JKR's main themes. Overall, yeah, I think it is. Where it's unsatisfying, however, is in her resolution of Snape's story.  In Half-Blood Prince, JKR set up a seemingly inevitable final confrontation between Snape and Harry, in which Harry would learn first-hand that, as usual, he was a blind, prejudiced little snot where Snape was concerned. Harry desperately needed to learn the lesson that looks can be deceiving, in order to truly grow up and assume his place as an adult and the hero of the tale. Snape was the means by which Harry would learn that lesson.  The flipside of the coin:  Snape had to atone for his flirtation with the dark side, and, as a classic anti-hero and shapeshifter, he had to pay for his redemption with his life.
The dramatic momentum of the story demanded all of this.

JKR had other ideas, however. Unfortunately, not one of them was as interesting and right  as the ideas many Potter theorists and writers of Snapecentric fan fiction have already had.  Let's look at the main points.

1. Snily. OK, I know I said it myself, that feelings for Lily had to be the key to Snape's turn in loyalties from Voldemort to Dumbledore, and the reason he protected Harry even though he obviously didn't like him.  But ... jeez. I sorta expected JKR to come up with something a little more intense and original and creative than simply, "Snape had an unrequited love for Lily and the guy moped around like a sad sack for the rest of his life over it."   I really could have done without the two fangirly scenes of our dark, conflicted, sarcastic Snape weeping (weeping!) over memories of Lily. And I really, really, really could have done without Snape's Patronus being a ... doe. Yes, that's right. A frilly-girly doe. When I read that, I almost fell over laughing.  A doe. Why didn't JKR just cut off Snape's testicles while she was at it?

2. No confrontation.  Harry learns about Snape's true allegiances in the most static, boring way possible -- the pensieve.  Aw, come on!

3.  Snape's death by snake.  While I admire the irony (well, JKR had been comparing Snape to a snake throughout the whole series),  I feel cheated. The development of Snape as an ambiguous anti-hero in need of cleansing redemption demanded a more visually decisive death, one that left an unambiguous picture in our minds -- and Harry's -- of Snape's loyalty, courage and heroism. Snape needed to go down fighting, dammit!  

In my Phoenix piece, I admitted to feeling an "odd sense of anti-climax" at the ending. But I couldn't say more (we had to be careful of spoilers).  I put down that feeling to my past immersion in Snape world;  analyzing him in minute detail for The Great Snape Debate, and reading other fan theories and fan fiction, as I had for previous Potter articles, might have left me incapable of being surprised by anything JKR could come up with.  I still think there is truth to this, and I still think it applies to other fans as well. I think that it was amazingly good fun, all that Snape theorizing, but maybe it led us to a place where we couldn't objectively view the Harry Potter saga anymore. This was, after all, Harry's story. He was the hero. 

Having said that ... the idea of Snape as having noble or heroic qualities was not all in our imagination. As I discuss in my literary analysis of the choices JKR made regarding Snape (from The Great Snape Debate),   Snape's anti-hero's journey paralleled Harry's hero's journey. At times, their stories even intersected. Harry and Snape were more alike than either of them wanted to admit. Why can't JKR admit  that her saga was as much about Harry's journey as it was about Snape's?  Why did she give Snape such a nerveless, unimaginative send-off?    

Snape fans are still seething about the interview JKR gave to the Today Show last week, in which she seemed surprised and puzzled when it was suggested that Snape was a hero.  It's been no secret over the years how much JKR disapproved of Snape, telling fans that she didn't understand how they could be attracted to the "bad boys",  taking any opportunity to point out that Snape is a "bully".  I always thought JKR was play-acting there to preserve the story's big mysteries and twists. But she used the word "bully" again on the Today Show.  Apparently, being a bully is an unforgivable sin in JKR-world.  

To give her the benefit of the doubt for a moment, she was writing a children's saga;  bullying is a terrible thing in children's lives, especially if one turns to bullying (as Snape did) because he himself had been bullied. But, then, if JKR hated Snape so much, why did she make him so much more enigmatically attractive, so much more complex and deep than any of the other characters in her story?  Is she herself attracted to "the bad boys"?   I don't think that anyone could create a magnificent anti-hero like Snape by accident. (JKR did say that he was "a gift to write").  Snape stands alongside some of the greatest anti-heroes in literature:  Rochester (Jane Eyre),  Darcy (Pride and Prejudice), Heathcliff (Wuthering Heights), Sydney Carton (A Tale of Two Cities).  Can everyone see that except JKR?

Harry is not the only one whose perception is obscured. 

As a writer, I can understand if JKR feels possessive toward her characters, and is not all that thrilled by theorists and fan fiction writers (especially adult ones)  who think they understand her characters better than she does. But in this case, I think the fans are right. Ironically, JKR's mishandling of Snape's story will only further serve to threaten her ownership of his character. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of fan fic writers typing away at this very moment, rewriting Deathly Hallows. And some day, a long time from now, when Potter passes into the public domain and authors and filmmakers start taking liberties with its characters (like all of those Peter Pan, Jane Eyre and Pride and Prejudice  knock-offs),  the story of Snape will be re-told, for and from an adult perspective. And Snape will be vindicated at last.

So, now that you've had a chance to (hopefully) read The Great Snape Debate,  what do you think?  Convinced he's good? Bad?  Neither --acting completely in his own self-interest?  

I wonder if there's any possibility of JKR leaving Snape's loyalty unresolved in Book 7?  I would hope not, and, based on the structure of the books so far, I don't think she'll go that route.  But, still ... it could happen.

I had a little thought while writing my essay in defense of Snape,  which I couldn't explore because it fit in the opposing viewpoint.  In "Spinner's End"  (HBP),  Snape basically agrees to treason against Voldemort when he agrees to help Narcissa. He had to know that interfering with the Dark Lord's plans for Draco was not something that Voldy would forgive. I argue in my essay that this proves Snape is loyal to Harry and Dumbledore -- perhaps Snape doesn't give a damn about being caught out as a traitor to Voldy because he has no plans to carry out the deed against DD (he and DD have a plan), and Snape knows he will never return to Voldy's ranks afterwards if all goes well.  But ... maybe Snape agrees to Narcissa's demand for the Unbreakable Vow for another reason:  Maybe he doesn't give a damn about being caught out as a traitor to Voldy because he already is a traitor.  What if Snape is only in it for himself?  We know he is ambitious. What if he is secretly aiming to oust Voldy from power, and take over his position as chairman of the board of dark magic?  Oh, oh ... wait!   What if Snape is helping, or, more accurately, using Harry to get rid of Voldy, and then -- surprise! -- Snape becomes the new evil sheriff in town?

Any thoughts?

Here's the first bit of press on The Great Snape Debate. It's a piece that ran in USA Today  on April 16, comparing all of the recent "How will Harry Potter end?" books.  The two quotes used from The Great Snape Debate on the USA Today comparison chart come from the opening paragraph of  "In Defense of Snape," which I wrote.  

Well, The Great Snape Debate has not apparated into my local Borders yet, but it should be in stores ASAP. If anyone has seen a copy in their Borders, please let me know! 

Here are the chapters that I wrote in the book:  "In Defense of Snape," "Snape the Hero," "Snape the Villain," and the features "The Top 10 Reasons We Love Snape," "The Top 10 Reasons We Love to Hate Snape," "What's on Snape's iPod?," "Why Was Snape Wearing Graying Underpants?," "Why Is Snape's Hair So Greasy?," "Has Snape Ever Loved Anyone?," "What Do Snape's Boggart and Patronus Look Like?," "What Is Snape's Secret Vice?" and "A Perverseness for Soups: Fun with Anagrams."

Finally, you can read excerpts from my "Case for Innocence," as well as the "Case for Snape's Guilt,"  here.  And you can see the book's two covers here.

The Great Snape Debate, which I co-authored, is in print, and winging (floo-ing?) its way to Borders stores. It should be available in the coming week (if not sooner).  To see if your local Borders has received its copies yet, you can check the Borders store inventory locator.   

I wrote the chapters  "In Defense of Snape,"  "Snape the Hero," "Snape the Villain", and all the funky little between-chapter speculations and funny (I hope) stuff.  

Comments/questions are very much welcome!   How close (or far off the mark) do you think the book's theories are about the Potions Master? 

Here's the publication info on the book: 

Bibliographic Data: Quality Paper, Benbella Books, April 2007

Author: Card, Orson Scott / Millman, Joyce / Berner, Amy

List Price: $14.95
In-store prices may vary. See your local store for the most up-to-date pricing.

Status: In Print

BINC: 8876600

ISBN: 0979233119

Shelf Location: Kids  > Independent Reader  > Independent Reader-Science Fiction/Fantasy H

Description: The Harry Potter books are supposed to be about Harry Potter. So why can't we stop talking about Severus Snape?

Love him or love to hate him, Snape has become the pivotal character in the Harry Potter series. There are plenty of reasons to believe he killed Dumbledore at the end of Half-Blood Prince at Dumbledore's behest -- but plenty of reasons not to, too. So is Snape on Harry's side, or is he on Voldemort's? Is he bad to the bone, or just a little misunderstood?

Only after Deathly Hallows will we know for sure . . . but we can make some educated guesses now.

Designed as a flip book, half the book provides the case for Snape's innocence and when flipped over, the other half provides the case for Snape's Guilt. In The Great Snape Debate, you'll get all the facts on our favorite Potions Master so you can decide for yourself.

This book has not been authorized by J.K. Rowling, Warner Bros., or anyone associated with the Harry Potter books or films. 

OK, here's what I know about publication of The Great Snape Debate (of which I am co-author blah blah blah) so far.  The book is in the final stages of production as I type this, due back from the printer at the end of this month.  It should be on Borders' shelves sometime in April. I will post the release date when I hear it. 

Some people have asked me about the Amazon.com listing for the book, which has it available for pre-order with a publication date of September 1.  Isn't that a little late, considering that Book 7 comes out in July?  Uh ... yeah.  Well, I'm told that the reason you won't be able to buy the book through Amazon until September is because it will be a Borders "exclusive"  until then, meaning, in-store sales only. 

I have also been asked if the Great Snape Debate has anything to do with the "Severus Snape: Friend or Foe?" posters and cardboard stand-ups that are in Borders stores now, and the answer is, yes, it's one element of the hoopla (I love that word, don't you?) surrounding the coming of Deathly Hallows.  But it is a real, live book, not an ad.  Trust me, I have the carpal tunnel syndrome to prove it, having written 35,000 or so words of it on a very daring deadline of a little over five weeks. 

More as it develops ...  Now back to bed with miserable cold.

There are early adopters and then there is ... me.  

Ah, jeez. I apologize for being so late with this newfangled blog-writing thingamajingy.  I was too busy chasing the kids off my lawn to have much time to send my VERY BIG THOUGHTS out into the ether every day.  But now I have succumbed  enthusiastically dived into the blogging pool with what promises to be a half-assed  perceptive and entertaining daily weekly monthly  occasional conversation about whatever old crap is on my mind  TV, movies, music, news, gender issues, life, love and lunch. 

Maybe some of you (one of you?) have read my TV commentary in the Boston Phoenix or on Salon.com, where I used to toil, or maybe you're familiar with my scintillating essayistic ramblings from fan-books like Mapping the World of Harry Potter or Getting Lost.  If not, check out my web archive, where you will find links and so much more that, frankly, you will just keel over from the excitement.  

And if that isn't terrifying enough, I am the co-author of an upcoming book called The Great Snape Debate. This is a Borders and Waldenbooks exclusive, part of the booksellers' run-up to the release of J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. The Great Snape Debate puts the enigmatic Potions Master 's loyalties under the microscope and presents arguments for both his innocence and guilt. I wrote the essay in defense of Snape's innocence (because you all know he's really a good guy), as well as examinations of Severus Snape as both a classic hero and a classic villain and a bunch of funny filler stuff that would even bring a smile to the sallow git's face (right before he turned me into a teakettle).  Anyway, watch this space, or maybe a space several spaces down from this one, over the next month for release information for The Great Snape Debate.