Oh, I totally feel bad for Draco in book 6, especially. Is that different than being a sympathetic character?

I always liked Harry's realization that his father, of blessed memory, really could be as shitty as any other teenaged boy. And I liked Snape for the realization that someone who despises you is not necessarily your enemy. It's a very useful shades-of-grey lesson for young readers.

He's not supposed to be screaming at his students, or taking out his own childhood traumas on them.

Seems to me that Snape would have fit in well among the faculty at the College in Kipling's Stalky & Co.

I don't see how Snape's morality trumps Krycek's, though.

Oh, I don't think it's a question of morality, when you're talking about fannish appeal. Or not entirely. Krycek has the advantage of being embodied by Nick Lea, and of being consistently ambiguous in his loyalties. He does bad shit but he also does good shit, and that shows up pretty early in the canon. Also, there's the kiss.

Whereas Snape--again, only three books in--hasn't really done anything good, and his portrayal is uniformly negative. There is no attempt at this point in the narrative to make him sympathetic to the reader, or even understandable.

Which is why I find it so fascinating that he was apparently very popular even then, before we knew about his tragic backstory.

People are also convinced that Draco is a sympathetic character.

When Emmett was young he felt Draco was terribly misunderstood. But he felt that way about The Joker and Darth Vader too.

Which is why I find it so fascinating that he was apparently very popular even then, before we knew about his tragic backstory.

JKR would comment about this in interviews, saying basically (with a smile) "I don't know why people like him. He does terrible things." But, of course, she knew his arc and does expand it. Whereas early on people thought Draco would have a similar redemptive arc and he does not. He does become a more sympathetic character but he does nothing to redeem himself.

Yeah, I'm surprised by that, that Draco never gets redeemed. Because ordinarily, in a children's work, you would get the moral that even horrible people can come around. You know, the Eustace Scrubb story. But Draco never does.

I think Draco was essentially an emotionally abused and yet also incredibly spoiled child. I cut him some slack simply because we see his parents in action, and he's so young when the books begin.

I never disliked Snape as much as Consuela does, but I'm realizing how hard it is (for me) to separate the books' characterization from Rickman's portrayal, and the fact that I would watch Rickman stand around doing nothing, most of the time.

I never liked how hard it was to keep track of whether he was good or bad, though, and it would take a lot to convince me Rowling had his characterization all mapped out neatly.

and it would take a lot to convince me Rowling had his characterization all mapped out neatly.

But she did! From the beginning. She had the entire arc of the seven books laid out before she wrote the first one.

I like Snape, because I think he's probably the most interesting character in the books. He is flawed, but is also, in a twisted way, a parental figure for Harry and a representative of Lily's love for Harry. (I love the symmetry between him and Sirius). And in the later books, a lot of his anger towards Harry actually concerns what he feels to be Harry's mental laziness - which sort of stems from him being afraid Harry won't be able to defend himself.

I also find him sad because he lets his own bullshit stop himself from being happy. He never moves on from hating James Potter and then stupidly transfers that hate to Harry.