[HPforGrownups] Re: Snape & the DEs

[Porphyria]

No: HPFGUIDX 35320

On Thursday, February 14, 2002, at 12:13 AM, Elkins wrote:

> Snape Snape Snape Snape Snape.

If any of you ever find a cure for this obsession in pill form, let me 
know.

Elkins and I were discussing our varying interpretations of Snape's 
character in relation to various other past and future DEs. In the end, 
of course, the interpretation that appeals to a given person is entirely 
subjective, and I can only hope that I've sort of answered her original 
question as to why a given speculation appeals, if not in general, at 
least to me.

In this post I'm tieing up a few loose interpretive ends, starting with 
some speculation as to Snape's intellectual vs. instinctual motives, 
then moving on to his relationship with Slytherin House, Draco and 
Lucius.

> A while back, Eloise wrote, on one of the many George threads:
>
> > Of course, I also happen to believe he comes from a family of dark
> > wizards, explaining all those curses he knew, and that though he's
> > intellectually a *good* guy, many of his instincts lead him toward
> > the dark side leading to a lot of tension.
>
> And I think that that tension, that contrast between Snape's
> instincts and his intellect, has always been central to how I've read
> the character.  I do not, for example, tend to see Snape as a person
> struggling with conflicting impulses, precisely.  Rather, I tend to
> see him as someone whose *impulses* all lead him in one unerring
> direction -- but in a direction that he has chosen to reject on
> abstract and purely philosophical grounds. 

See I tend to see intellect as the efflorescence of instinct: simply 
put, people actually do tend to use their intellect to justify their 
impulses. And there is some evidence that Snape has protective instincts 
interspersed with his vicious ones. Not sentimental instincts, but still 
protective ones. In CoS he seems to have a split-second moment of real 
anguish when McGonagall announces that yet another student has fallen 
victim to the basilisk, and all his heavy-handed policing of Harry (most 
notably in PoA but also SS/PS) is still in the service of protecting 
him. I don't think he would get quite so upset by what he sees as 
Harry's propensity towards recklessness if he weren't emotionally 
involved in protecting the kid's life. At least that's my reading.

> The suggestion that Snape left the DEs because when it came right
> down to it, he lacked a taste for torture or murder, for example, has
> always left me a bit cold because in my reading of Snape, of *course*
> he has a taste for it.  A taste for it is *exactly* what he's got. 
> His taste for it...well, that's sort of his problem, isn't it?

Here I would have to side with Marina who phrased it so perfectly: "A 
predilection for reducing people to quivering globs of jelly through 
dark threats, deadly insults and viciously clever mind games is not the 
same as a predilection for reducing people to quivering globs of jelly 
through pulling their intestines out through their left nostril."

Snape definitely has a taste for psychological torture and he indulges 
himself in this whenever he has the chance. But I'm not convinced that 
he doesn't make a qualitative distinction between mental violence and 
physical violence. He's almost never the latter (except in one duel 
which was at the other guy's invitation), and I can't help but think if 
JKR had intended the reader to see him as having a propensity for 
physical violence she would have found a way to depict that by now. I 
mean, when Snape finally encounters his nemesis passed out at his feet, 
why doesn't he take the opportunity to give 'ol Sirius a kick in the 
head before he turns him in? Snape is surprisingly restrained, even 
respectful, when he doesn't think he has an audience.

Which granted, doesn't mean that he doesn't have violent impulses, and 
it certainly doesn't mean he's squeamish, but if he does have a taste 
for it he seems to have sublimated it quite effectively into it's 
psychological equivalent.

Is Snape portrayed as sympathetic by the text?

> > (yes, I really feel he's written as sympathetic).
>
> Well, of course he is!  Part of it, admittedly, *is* that Clever
> Villain/Sympathy For the Devil appeal.  You know, there's a Type
> here: the snarling drama queen in the black cape who gets all of the
> really funny cruel dry lines.  Everyone *always* likes that guy, and
> Snape shares a lot of his qualities.  And as a special bonus, he's
> not even really a villain, you don't have to feel the slightest bit
> guilty for liking him so much.

See, in your post that I was replying to you stated that JKR "seems, 
overall, to like the character far less than many of her readers do" and 
here I feel like you're chiding me for stating the obvious. :-) Granted, 
maybe the Snape-hysteria of legions of female fans has taken JKR by 
surprise (erm, *maybe*), but I still feel that she wants to plant little 
seeds of sympathy in the reader's head *beyond* the obvious 'Snidely 
Whiplash is fun' type of sympathy. I mean real sympathy, the sympathy 
you'd feel for a guy who tries in his own weird way to do the *right* 
thing and nearly always winds up being construed as the bad guy on 
account of it. The particular scene that I find wrenching is the 
staircase encounter in GoF where, as we come to find, Snape is being 
quite viciously tormented by someone who really is a bad guy who is 
plunging for the one raw nerve he knows Snape has. Snape's breakdown at 
the end of PoA is quite similar in that he *thought* he was bringing a 
psycho-killer to justice, and somehow that whole situation just didn't 
work out for him. You mention this scene yourself...

> I mean, really.  What sort of heartless monster *wouldn't* sympathize
> with Snape at the end of PoA, when he disintegrates utterly into his
> raving "Curses, Foiled Again, and Damn You, You Meddling Kids"
> hysteria?  You'd just have to be made of *stone,* wouldn't you?

...but I'm afraid I'm not quite sure if you're being facetious here or 
not. :-) I'm arguing that one actually *can* read this scene with a 
sympathetic eye to Snape without construing it as an iteration of a 
Scooby Doo episode. Well, maybe it's just me.

Regarding Snape's loyalty to muggle House, I wrote:

> > It just seems to me that his loyalty to Dumbledore probably
> > outweighs his loyalty to his house, and this is significant when
> > the two are at odds.
>
> Loyalty to Dumbledore in no way precludes loyalty to House Slytherin.
> <...>
> I think we may have some very serious disagreement here, though, over 
> the issue of to what extent House Slytherin is separable from Voldemort 
> and his agenda, or for that matter, from Dark Wizardry in general. 

I need to restate my argument here because I failed to emphasize the 
precise point of disloyalty that I was getting at. I totally agree that 
Snape in all likelihood feels perfectly loyal to the Slytherin tradition 
of ambition, cunning, etc. and that normally he might be inclined to 
just politely ignore the pureblood part without having it affect his 
overall loyalty in the slightest. I also agree that Dumbledore also 
respects the bulk of the characteristic Slytherin traits and that this 
is reflected in his conversation with Harry about the Sorting Hat which 
you mention. Dumbledore would have to respect those traits; otherwise 
he'd never employ Snape as a spy.

But I'm also construing Slytherin House as not simply a tradition or 
institution, but as a collection of individual students who identify 
with it for their own reasons. Like Draco, for instance, who clearly 
sees his allegiance to Slytherin House as being part and parcel of 
Salazar's anti-muggle stance. So while Snape might be capable of viewing 
the pureblood part as only a detail in the whole, his current house has 
some vocal students who see it as a vital part, and their parents are 
influential and potentially dangerous. Snape has to deal with this issue 
within his group of students. And how does he do it? He seems to mislead 
them. At least that's my reading of the exchange between Snape and Draco 
on the subject of Dumbledore's suspension from Hogwarts in CoS. Draco 
seems perfectly convinced that Snape is on the same side as his family 
on the issue of anti-muggle sentiment. Snape of course never says 
anything disloyal to Dumbledore, but he lets Draco go on believing that 
he is exactly the person Draco thinks he is. Which is cunning and 
politic, by all means. But what if Snape's clever non-committal 
appearance eventually leads to a crisis of loyalty?

Here's what I'm getting at when I say that loyalty to Dumbledore and to 
the house can potentially be at odds: consider the following 
hypothetical example. Let's say Draco, who really can't keep a secret, 
one day gushes to Snape some evil anti-muggle plot that his father and 
Messrs. Crabbe and Goyle are hatching. Maybe they're planning on 
firebombing the Granger home over the holidays, thus ridding wizardry of 
one more mudblood and the muggles that spawned her. Or whatever. Lets 
just say they're plotting something bad. The point here is that Draco 
would imagine Snape would approve of this, or at the very least know not 
to leak it to Dumbledore. But isn't that exactly what Snape would do? 
Isn't that sort of his job as far as Dumbledore is concerned? Which to 
me would constitute a breach of loyalty to his house, inasmuch as his 
house consists of a group of students who trust him to be on their side, 
who expect his support, and who have no idea that his allegiance to 
Dumbledore goes as deep as it does.

Does this make sense? I'm saying that under normal circumstances Snape's 
loyalty would not be an issue at all, but these are far from normal 
circumstances and he'll have to make some kind of ethical decision 
somewhere on down the line regarding his students. And I don't think his 
choice will work to their advantage. This interpretation of mine ties in 
directly with what I think of his attitude towards Draco in particular; 
however much he 'likes' Draco, this liking is rendered perverse by the 
extenuating circumstances. More on that in a few paragraphs...

Regarding Draco:

 > As for Draco, I do think that Snape genuinely likes him -- or at the
 > very least strongly identifies with him.

I replied:

 > > Given that Draco is a whiny, privileged kid, I think Snape's habit
 > > of letting him get away with everything is really a little fishy.

 > It's very difficult for us to have any idea what Snape lets Draco get
 > away with, really.

Well, just the part about how he can hex a student in front of numerous 
witnesses and not get punished. I think this is 'letting him get away 
with' a lot already.

 > Has he cracked down
 > on Draco's bullying within House Slytherin (assuming, that is, that
 > Draco does bully the younger Slyth kids, which I'm sure that he does,
 > if he's allowed to get away with it)? Is he as unjust in his
 > administration of discipline on his own students when House
 > Gryffindor *isn't* involved? There's just no way to know. That
 > issue's a black box.

Hey, I thought you were the one arguing that there was a lot of in-group 
loyalty among the Slytherin? ;-) I actually don't see Draco picking on 
the Slytherin first years when he has Gryffindors to pick on instead. I 
can't imagine Snape 'disciplining' Draco beyond offering him some advice 
as to the shrewdest way to handle a given situation. I don't think Draco 
would smirk at him as often as he does if Snape were hard on him, even 
in private.

On Draco's malingering:

 > Draco's malingering was to the benefit of the House in their efforts
 > to win the Quiddich cup, and I suspect that Snape approved
 > wholeheartedly of it. And while Draco does try to coast on his
 > family name whenever he thinks he can get away with it, we've never
 > seen evidence that he slacks off in Snape's Potions class.

 > I quite agree with you that Snape would not take kindly to anyone
 > slacking off in his Potions class.

	"Sir," Malfoy called, "sir, I'll need help cutting up these daisy 
roots, because of my arm --"

	"Weasley, cut up Malfoy's roots for him," said Snape without 
looking up.

Here's the deal. The Buckbeak-scratching incident took place on the 
first day of Hagrid's class. This was September 2nd. "Malfoy didn't 
reappear in classes until late on Thursday morning..." which was when he 
arrived in Potions, so lets say that was within a week. The Quidditch 
match which the Slytherin swapped out of was scheduled a few days after 
the Halloween feast, so early November. Snape would have to have been 
thinking 'hmmm, on the off chance that it happens to be raining *around 
eight weeks from now* it would be a good idea for Draco to use that arm 
of his as an excuse to swap the match order, because the Slytherin don't 
perform well in the rain.' Yes, it's possible, but I still feel that 
Snape lets Draco get away with his performance in class because it's 
*Draco* and Snape isn't going to contradict him whether he'd secretly 
like to or not. 

 > > Snape appears to be giving Hermione better marks. If he really
 > > liked Draco as much as he seems to, why wouldn't he find some slimy
 > > reason to deduct points from Hermione's exam and add a few special
 > > bonus points to Draco's?

 > Snape does favor the Slyths, but I mean, *really,* Porphyria! There
 > are *limits!*

Um, yes thanks. This is exactly my point. He doesn't do it when it 
really counts.

 > > Or better yet, if he really really cares about Draco, why aren't
 > > there signs that he's mentoring him in some really useful way? Does
 > > he even teach him better techniques for chopping ginger root?

 > Well, for starters, I think that the man that you're tilting at here
 > gets more bursting with straw with each new paragraph. ;-)

Ahem. That was a series of rhetorical questions -- I'm not being daft as 
you suggest, I'm making a point, which is that whatever affection Snape 
might have for Draco is not anything terribly practical. Which is 
important because not only is it not useful for Draco, it's more 
dangerous than helpful, because it's misleading. Now if, as some people 
have suggested, Snape really has Draco's best interests at heart and 
intends to lead him out of the Dark Side when the time is right, the I 
think we'd see something more substantial coming from Snape than mere 
favoritism, something more like a mentoring. Rather, I think Draco is 
being snowed by Snape, and this is leading him into a false sense of 
security. Which is potentially really bad for Draco, and one would 
imagine Snape realizes this.

So "Snape genuinely likes him -- or at the very least strongly 
identifies with him" does not equal Snape "really liked Draco as much as 
he seems to" or "really really cares about Draco." This distinction is 
clearer to you than it is to me. No really, I think I understand that 
you were saying that Snape appreciates Draco's sense of humor, disgust 
at Harry, etc., but perhaps not much more than that, but I think 
whatever affection he genuinely feels is eclipsed by the complex set of 
loyalties and deceptions he's caught up in. It's at best a complicated 
and at worst a deceitful sort of liking going on here.

 > But really, if Snape *had* been, say, teaching Draco better techniques
 > for chopping ginger root, then what sort of signs would you really
 > expect to see of that in the text?

I was thinking of whatever Harry might see in Potions class, which is 
why I used this example.
 
 > And Snape's prompting of Draco's Serpensortia spell in the duelling
 > club scene of CoS can be read as evidence that he *has* given the boy
 > a bit of tutoring on the side -- although in curses, rather than in
 > Potions.

Is serpensortia a curse? I thought it was a conjuring of some sort. I 
agree that it's unlikely Draco could have busted this one out on his own 
without coaching. I figured either, a) Slytherin love practicing this 
one in the common room because it's their mascot animal or b) Snape did 
indeed teach it to him -- to smoke out Harry's parseltongue abilities. 
Cause really, it's all about Harry. ;-)

On to something we agree on; Snape's history with Lucius, etc.:

 > > So that set me to wondering where [the poisons under Malfoy's 
drawing room floor] originally came from. Hmmm.
 > > Do we know anyone who was a DE back in the day who might have had a
 > > talent for brewing particularly nasty, illegal, specialized-
 > > function poisons?

 > I like it. So do you think that "poison" might be a kind of Dark
 > Wizard euphemism for forbidden potions?

Yeah, maybe it's etymological slippage on my part, but I was considering 
poisons to be a subset of potions; basically potions that are toxic.

 > It does seem to me that the
 > nastiest and most illegal of specialized-potions would likely be ones
 > that...well, that wouldn't necessarily be designed to *kill.* Or at
 > least not *only* to kill.

 From Cos:
"Hermione opened Moste Potente Potions carefully, and the three
of them bent over the damp-spotted pages. It was clear from a glance
why it belonged in the Restricted Section. Some of the potions had
effects almost too gruesome to think about, and there were some
very unpleasant illustrations, which included a man who seemed to
have been turned inside out and a witch sprouting several extra
pairs of arms out of her head."

I like the insidey-outsidey one!

 > Say, do you think it make me a little...bent that I want to know more
 > about Dark magic? We've had the Unforgivables, but they're really
 > pretty run-of-the-mill Bad Things To Do To People, aren't they? I
 > mean, what do Seriously Bad Wizards *do?* Magically, I mean. What
 > constitutes the "Dark Arts?"

Oh, I can't tell you how much it galls me that JKR has not provided us 
with an adequate theory of the Dark Arts! I mean, what is it? Are there 
only certain spells that qualify, or does it have more to do with the 
intention of the caster? And all the DADA classes apart from "Moody's" 
seem to concern themselves with dark creatures. Sure, defending against 
grindylows is practical knowledge, but there mere condition of *being* a 
grindylow does not constitute proficiency in a Dark Art. What exactly do 
these Dark Artists do? I realize that one can glean a few ideas from 
outside sources (other fantasy novels, Wiccan philosophy), but that 
doesn't cut it for me; I want a Potter-specific theory.

 > I've always liked to imagine that Divination is *not,* in fact, an
 > impractical field of magic at all, but that the only really reliable
 > forms of Divination qualify as Dark Arts -- which is the reason that
 > Dumbledore gets stuck with poor Trelawney and her once-a-decade
 > prophecies. I like to think that at Durmstrang, say, Divination is a
 > highly challenging and intellectual -- and *effective!* -- part of
 > the curriculum.

So, instead of interpreting sheep entrails, you interpret people 
entrails? Instead of tea leaves, hemlock leaves? Oh I know, maybe it's 
like the Oracle of Delphi: you get really stoned on some powerful 
hallucinogen and just spout forth. :-)

I actually am curious to know what you mean here. Are you suggesting 
that real, effective divination would be unethical, and thus dark? Or 
something about the practice of it, like necromancy, would be the 
darkening factor?

 > Why do I like to imagine this? I'm not sure. Maybe just because
 > it would make Hermione so very *annoyed* if she knew. ;-)

She sure needs some angst in her life. Everyone else has some.

Well, there it is. And please sign me up for the Fourth Man Theory, I'll 
take the smorgasbord of options: Imperius, SHIP and remorse, with the 
full complement of perverse possibilities. I'd also like to apply for 
membership to Cupid's Snitch -- that's the most forehead-smackingly 
convincing theory I've heard in nearly two years of speculation. I 
second all the gushy posts you're getting.

~~Porphyria


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]