Apology - Sirius/Snape again...

[Zarleycat at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 22653

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Susan Hall" <shall at s...> wrote:
> 
> >Or how about Sirius as an adult telling Ron, Hermione, and Harry 
that
> >Snape was a *slimy, oily, greasy-haired kid*.  That was a nice way
> >for Sirius to talk about *Professor Snape* in front of the kids.  
My
> >point is that Sirius does have a cruel streak in him.

snip
 
  After all, the last time the
> two had met, in front of the kids to whom the remark is made, Snape 
had
> attempted to get Sirius judicially murdered in a way which 
endangered
> Harry's life and soul.  Furthermore, he is doing it in the context 
of Harry
> reporting to him about the Snape/Karkaroff conversation.  Now, 
Sirius knows
> that Karkaroff is an ex DE, and must suspect that Snape has been 
one too, so
> referring to him as a "slimy kid" is rather restrained, in context.
> 
> Next, speaking of hypocrisy, Snape tells Dumbledore "Sirius showed 
himself
> capable of pre-meditated murder at the age of sixteen.  He nearly 
murdered
> me".  Now, unless I've missed something here, Death Eaters did not 
go round
> simply making impolite remarks about people's mothers.  They killed 
people.
> For fun.  For what one might call, loosely speaking, racist 
reasons.  For
> being on the wrong side.  Whatever.  If Snape was a Death Eater 
before he
> switched sides (and he was) he pretty definitely has not only been 
capable
> of pre-meditated murder, but has actually done it.  Which, as a 
matter of
> fact, Sirius hasn't.  It may be a technical difference between the 
two of
> them, but it is a difference.
> 
> Susan


I've been thinking a lot about our two favorite "S" guys, especially 
with regards to the recent thread about Sirius always being excused 
for his actions because he's portrayed as the good guy and Snape 
being misunderstood or looked down upon because he fits some 
stereotypes of the bad guy.  

I think JKR did this deliberately to set Snape up as a character who 
is seen as antagonistic to Harry.  If we didn't have Snape, the only 
two enemies for Harry would be Voldemort and Draco.  The Harry/Draco 
rivalry is fine, as far as it goes, but, to my mind, Draco is still 
too much a product of his upbringing and seems to be content to 
parrot whatever Daddy has told him, rather than thinking for 
himself.  And Voldemort has to remain off-screen, so that his 
appearances have more impact, and also as the continued shadow or 
menace that threatens everyone.  So, having someone like Snape as an 
irritant to Harry gives us another person for Harry to match wits 
against. I am sure their relationship will change, as we are slowly 
being given more information about Snape that shows he is not a 
standard bad guy.

Which leads me to my next thought regarding Sirius/Snape.  We have 
much more canon on Sirius' post Hogwarts life than we do Snape's. Or 
maybe I should say we have a better picture of the timeline of his 
life.  What we know about Snape still has a lot of gaps.  When did he 
become a DE? Did he join because he wanted to, or because this was 
his deep cover as a spy?  When did he start working for Dumbledore 
against V.?  How long has he been teaching?  

And, finally, our evidence regarding the Snape/Sirius antagonism or 
the Snape/MWPP antagonism comes almost entirely from Severus or 
Sirius. Sure, it's inappropriate for Sirius to call Snape a "slimy, 
oily, greasy-haired kid" in front of the kids.  It's also 
inappropriate for Snape to tell Harry that his father 
was "arrogant...strutting...with a swollen head..." 
Neither one, in my mind, can be considered unbiased with regards to 
the other.  I hope that JKR will fill in some of these blanks in 
later books.  I'd also like to see if and how she will get these two 
to put aside their antipathy for each other and work for the same 
goals.  

Marianne