In defense of Snape (not really)

[Horst or Rebecca J. Bohner]

No: HPFGUIDX 19349

> At the risk of incurring the wrath of those open-minded enough to see
beyond
> the characters as they occur to our protagonist, I must admit that I abhor
> Snape. Loathe him. Despise him. Detest him. To me, he occurs as an
insecure,
> petty and vindictive man who takes out his own frustrations on those
weaker
> than he is.

That's certainly the way he often appears, and I'm not going to try and
contradict you.  It's certainly one valid interpretation of his actions in
the canon, and the most direct one.

Liking Snape -- well, perhaps I shouldn't say liking, as he's really not
very likeable.  Let's say, having high hopes for Snape -- as a character
does not necessitate approving of, explaining away, or ignoring his bad
qualities and cruel actions.  I think there may be *reasons* for the way he
treats Neville and for what he says to Hermione, but they are not *excuses*.

Imagine a situation where you go into work and one of your coworkers, who
has always seemed like a depressed and bitter kind of individual to begin
with, is particularly nasty that day.  He says a lot of things that really
hurt people's feelings and he comes down hard on anyone who makes a mistake
in his presence.  Now, his behaviour is wrong no matter what the
circumstances; there's no explanation that can make his cruelty to others
justifiable.  But would it or would it not change your view of the matter
somewhat if you knew that his mother had just died?

That's what I think about Snape.  I think there are a lot of things
happening behind the scenes that Harry (and therefore we) don't know
anything about.  They don't excuse Snape's behaviour, but they give a
different angle on it.  Yes, Snape is not a nice individual.  You wouldn't
want to invite him to dinner.  You wouldn't want him to babysit your kids.
But he isn't entirely inhuman, either, and I think we're going to get to
know and understand him a lot better in the next three books.

> Finally, has this question ever been debated and resolved:  yes, Snape
> prevented Quirrell from killing Harry in SS. But why didn't he run to
> Dumbledore as soon as he realized what Quirrell was up to?

Possibly for the same reason Dumbledore didn't have Snape tried and punished
as a Death Eater?  Snape didn't know that Quirrell was completely under the
control of Voldemort, for one thing; nor did he know that Quirrell would be
able to get past all the Stone's defenses.  He knew -- or strongly
suspected -- that Q was after the Stone, but he gave him a chance to decide
which side he was on (which was what that little interview in the forest was
all about).

And we don't *know* that Snape never went to Dumbledore, either.  It might
even be that Dumbledore told Snape to do exactly what he did -- warn
Quirrell, and watch him, and wait to see what he would do.
--
Rebecca J. Bohner
rebeccaj at pobox.com
http://home.golden.net/~rebeccaj