Ed Bellis posted... I'm with CaS in that Snape's grandiose motivations don't excuse everything he does, and I feel like Rowling wants them to.
Actually, in interviews Rowling tends to be completely baffled that people like Snape. She tends to say stuff like "You're not supposed to like him; he's a jerk; you're supposed to like the nice guy!"
GenesisSaga posted... Fact: Snape is written better than Sirius.
However, Snape also has four more books to be written better than Sirius in, and in Book 4, Sirius plays an extremly minor role. So of course a character with essentially quadruple the screen time is going to get far more moments to shine.
Um, amount of screen time has very little correlation with "better written". I can name quite a few characters from the Twilight novels with tons of screen-time. Doesn't mean they're well-written.
On the other hand, know who I would consider well-written?
Lily Evans -- yet she has maybe a chapter's worth of screen time at most. Alberforth -- again, he's got about a chapter all told. Helena Ravenclaw -- she literally has one chapter; one dynamite chapter, but one chapter.
I don't see anything that prevents a character with low screen-time from being "well written".
Maybe you meant "has depth/character development", and sure, this is an area where you need some space. But at the same time, Harry Potter isn't exactly the strongest series in this field--Lily Evans manages to have more character development than an embarrassing number of characters who have much more screen time (like lots of students in Harry's year who have a decent number of scenes, but don't do much in any of them).
--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision
Maybe, but if you get more chances to shine, chances are you're going to shine more. I wasn't implying there was a direct correlation between them, but yeah as x approaches a certain amount of spotlight, y is probably going to seem less significant.
It's true, Rowling didn't develop Sirius' character nearly as much as she could have, but in my opinion she developed him enough. He's a compelling character, though of course not everyone will feel the same way.
--
Courtesy of fr0q - http://img.imgcake.com/gensagajpgqe.jpg Punny worked hard on this! - http://img.imgcake.com/Punny/Gennypngas.png
Ed, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks Harry naming his son after Snape is absurd. Sure, he was against Voldemort and in love with your mum. Yay. It's still a big step from there to forgiving him for treating you (and your friends) like crap for six years... and another huge step from that to naming you child after him. It's not like there weren't other people who died fighting Voldemort more worthy of having Harry and Ginny's son named after them... how about Remus or Fred?
-- I made a living on time trial blowing myself off to cross the finish line at ludicrous speed. -transience
Yes, Harry is WAY too forgiving of Snape. I mean not only does he name his son after him, but he also makes sure Snape's portrait goes up at Hogwarts. And he tells his son "He was one of the bravest men I ever knew"
Part of It I guess? Is to show Harry gets over grudges a LOT LOT easier than Snape (who never really gets over his grudge with James, to the point he carries it on with his son)
Which kind of bothers me, because Harry's personality... it's a LOT closer to his mother's. MOst people say this. Yet, Snape (who loved Lily) never saw her personality in her own son, because he looked like his father (which again, is pretty shallow)
--
See You In Another Life, Brother. New York Giants - The Patriot Slayers