Truly horrible, but not bad (WAS: Why do readers love Snape?)

[pigwidgeon37]

No: HPFGUIDX 33389

judyserenity wrote

<My answer is that JKR may have *intended* Snape to be a horrible 
person, but what she has actually written (so far) is a character who 
has a very unfriendly, sarcastic manner, but loads of positive 
qualities.>

I think that this might be the key to the question (and thanks to 
everybody who brought it up and is discussing it right now, because I 
simply love to discuss Snape): It's the very clear distinction 
between a BAD person and a HORRIBLE person. Now, if JKR states that 
Snape is "truly horrible", OTOH she never says that he is "a bad 
person", which by exclusion means that he is, if not a second 
Dumbledore, at least a fundamentally good person. Throughout the 
books, we come across a lot of "good people": Dumbledore, McGonagall, 
Sprout, Flitwick, Lupin, Hagrid, (supposedly) Real!Moody, Madam 
Pomfrey and a lot of others. We know that they are on the side of 
Good, because Dumbledore trusts them and, more importantly, because 
they act like good people. Good persons behaving like good persons 
may be nice, they may even be fascinating, like Dumbledore, but there 
is no inherent conflict between their character and their behaviour.
With Snape, things are quite different: Here we have a character whom 
the author does her best to present as a bad guy, but who in the end 
turns out to be quite the contrary. He obviously fulfils the 
requirement of "having chosen the right way instead of the easy one" 
and, as Dumbledore rightly observes, it is our choices to tell who we 
are, not the fact of being a Slytherin or an ex-Death Eater. A 
repentant sinner might be preferable to somebody who never in his 
life has been exposed to temptation and therefore has never been in a 
position to sin. Thus, we've got this strong contradiction between a 
person who has obviously chosen the right path, maybe even paying a 
very high price for this decision, but who is acting in a horrible 
way- bullying students, favouring his own house over Gryffindor (for 
we don't know anything about his treatment of other houses), being 
unjust in every possible way, making cutting remarks whenever 
possible. 
Then, let's not forget his appearance: In a world where too large 
front teeth can be shrunk to a reasonable size and bones re-grown 
within 24 hours, it is simply suspicious that a man who is probably 
able to brew every imaginable potion under the sun has to run around 
with greasy hair, yellow teeth and sallow skin. If he really wanted 
to alter his appearance, not turning himself into another Lockhart, 
but simply eliminating the aforementioned flaws, he sure as hell 
could do so. But he doesn't, which leaves a wide range of 
possibilities and guesses as to WHY he doesn't and certainly makes it 
seem logical that his slimeball appearance IS an act which makes some 
of us (including myself) believe that his exaggerated nastiness might 
be, at least partly, an act as well. And wishful thinking has a field 
day
 More so as his positive qualities, eloquently listed by 
judyserenity, are:

1) brilliant mind
2) powerful wizard
3) accomplished Potions Master + head of house
4) braveness
Add a rather weird, but appealing sense of humour (if his "I can't 
see a difference" were not directed against Hermione, but Draco, I 
bet we'd all find it hilarious) and you've got excellent crush 
material.


Susanna/pigwidgeon37