![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
He hurts so good
Aug. 17th, 2006 08:00 amOk I'm a flaming geek girl, I've admitted this more times than I can even count. But listening to one of the Lumos presentations this morning on the way into work ("Severus Snape: Past, Present and Future") and laughing my ass off at most of it started my day off on the right foot. People in the cars beside me must've thought I'd taken leave of my senses.
Basically the three presenters each took a position on the character, bad guy, good guy, in-between guy and made their case. Steve Vander Ark, Dr. Edmund Kern, and George Beahm each made their cases, Ed's and Steve's being the best. Though I have to say Ed's take on Snape as the villain of the stories was a helluva lot weaker than his presentation "Snape's Eyes" that I caught the next day. You could tell his heart wasn't totally in it, and that simplifying what is an amazingly complex and fascinating character into a cookie cutter-style baddie just wasn't his thing.
George was not a terribly good debater or presenter from what I could tell, he just sort of mumbled his way through the old arguments not bringing much of anything new to the table, which was a bit disappointing.
Steve, however, was a hoot and I could see why audiences were eating out of the palm of his hand. His talk was about the fact that if Snape were a real person he'd hate him, but that as a character the series really wouldn't exist without him. He may not be the greatest guy in the world, but he's essential to the story. And if he is a villain, he's light years ahead of Voldemort.
Indeed Steve's take on the many failings of Voldemort as a leader is one of the funniest things I've heard in ages.
I'll try to get to "Teaching Obedience: Dumbledore as Starets to Snape" tonight, but I can't drive while I listen to that one because the end makes me cry. Yeah, it was that good. If anybody's interested in a copy, just let me know.
Basically the three presenters each took a position on the character, bad guy, good guy, in-between guy and made their case. Steve Vander Ark, Dr. Edmund Kern, and George Beahm each made their cases, Ed's and Steve's being the best. Though I have to say Ed's take on Snape as the villain of the stories was a helluva lot weaker than his presentation "Snape's Eyes" that I caught the next day. You could tell his heart wasn't totally in it, and that simplifying what is an amazingly complex and fascinating character into a cookie cutter-style baddie just wasn't his thing.
George was not a terribly good debater or presenter from what I could tell, he just sort of mumbled his way through the old arguments not bringing much of anything new to the table, which was a bit disappointing.
Steve, however, was a hoot and I could see why audiences were eating out of the palm of his hand. His talk was about the fact that if Snape were a real person he'd hate him, but that as a character the series really wouldn't exist without him. He may not be the greatest guy in the world, but he's essential to the story. And if he is a villain, he's light years ahead of Voldemort.
Indeed Steve's take on the many failings of Voldemort as a leader is one of the funniest things I've heard in ages.
I'll try to get to "Teaching Obedience: Dumbledore as Starets to Snape" tonight, but I can't drive while I listen to that one because the end makes me cry. Yeah, it was that good. If anybody's interested in a copy, just let me know.
