Snape, the DEs and the Longbottoms

[lucky_kari]

No: HPFGUIDX 33898

--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" <theennead at a...> wrote:
>
> Neither do I.  But as it happens, I do think that Snape was 
> probably moody and snappish and temperamental and prickly and 
> unpleasant from a very early age.  Less bitter, perhaps, but 
> still hardly an easy personality.  After all, what other sort 
> of person arrives at school at the tender age of eleven with 
> an unwholesome fascination for the Dark Arts and a wicked 
> repertoire of curses under his belt?

Agreed. What do y'all think of the "Snape was abused as a child" 
theory? It seems that people can't heap enough misery on his 
shoulders. 

> But he can't have been all *that* much of a loner.  Sirius 
> says that Snape "was part of a gang of Slytherins who nearly
> all turned out to be Death Eaters."  You don't get identified 
> as "part of a gang" unless you hang out with the gang's other 
> members on a fairly regular basis.  
> 
> (BTW, that "nearly all" is interesting, isn't it?  Not all of 
> them, but "nearly" all of them.  Who, one wonders, were the
> abstainers?  And how do *they* feel about all of this?)

As an aspiring member of L.O.O.N., I must point out that Sirius is 
proved wrong in his estimation of the gang. After all, he doesn't know 
Snape became a death-eater, and many of "the Slytherin gang" 
acquitted, turned out to be Death Eaters after all. That said, I hope 
you're right. I want abstainers! I would dearly love to meet them. 
Since we're going to start learning more about Lily.... did she have 
any Slytherin friends who abstained? 


> I'll go you one further and say flat-out that I consider
> killing and torturing people to be evil.  My, how morally
> daring of me! 
> 
> But you know, in the real world, people who kill and torture
> others *do* generally have friends, and loved ones, and people 
> they care very deeply about.  Life is complicated that way.    
> 
> We hear a great deal about Rowling's statement of intent to
> show how genuinely *bad* evil is in these books, and I laud 
> that sentiment.  But evil is also *complicated,* and there
> are times when I find myself wishing that Rowling would run
> a little further with that particular ball.  

Let me add that the Slytherins can also be very charming (though the 
current lot doesn't exemplify that very well), witness Tom Riddle. 
Lucius Malfoy is handsome, and if Draco gets his sense of humour and 
gift of mimicry from his father, probably a very funny person to be 
with. After all, even when you hate Draco, he does come up with some 
good lines (though not against Ron and Hermione, more in regards to 
Hagrid), and he's said to be able to do a "cruel but accurate" 
rendition of Colin Creevey. And, I'm sure Lucius throws enjoyable 
parties, at which people say, "Could you do that imitation of 
Dumbledore?" and all tee-hee-hee away, without meaning any real harm. 
/me thinks of Fudge. 

<comments cut out on Slytherin loyalty>
>But they do seem to have a strong sense of
> in-group loyalty.

I think you've proved the point very well indeed. It's funny, 
actually, since one would think that ambition might not be best served 
by loyalty. On the other hand, if you look at real-life politics 
(rather than people's conceptions of backstabbing etc.) there's a huge 
loyalty factor. People make connections, endorse each other, reward 
their followers, stick together in a very Slytherin-like fashion.


> But leaving that aside for the moment, I guess I just don't 
> have a problem imagining this.  People who do dreadful things 
> usually do have friends and associates and colleagues who 
> consider them perfectly likable, worthy of affection and
> respect.  People are more than the sum of their rap sheets.

Yes, Hitler and Stalin had endearing qualities. It's one thing to say, 
"Despite the fact his dog liked him, he's evil," and another to say, 
"Because he's evil, I don't think his dog liked him," or, "He couldn't 
have been that evil, because his dog liked him." 

> They were very young, yes.  Depressingly so.  And I strongly
> suspect that none of them really understood completely what 
> they were getting themselves into.  Not at first, at any rate.

Which could make it worse. There could have been people sent to 
Azkaban/killed by aurors, who didn't yet really understand what they 
had got into. That might weigh on Snape, especially since he was 
inner-circle. 

> Nor did I mean to imply that I think that he misses them, 
> per se.  I hardly imagine that he has fond memories of his 
> schooldays, or that he looks longingly back on those fine
> old nights spent practicing Cruciatus on the lab rabbits 
> up in the Slytherin dormitories after lights-out (or whatever 
> other unsavory nastiness he and his cronies used to get up 
> to), or that he's just dying to take Avery out to lunch so 
> that they can reminisce about old times, or anything like that.
> 
> I do think that he feels wretched about them getting 
> themselves killed and imprisoned, and that he would have
> far rather they had all escaped unharmed, promptly abandoned
> their wicked ways, and then disappeared from his life
> altogether.  (As, indeed, Avery would seem to have been
> quite obliging in doing.)  But that's not really at all 
> the same thing.

Re: Avery being so obliging. So, what if Snape feels that several 
of his friends have joined him in abandoning their wicked ways. I've 
always read the part where he starts at Malfoy's name that way, though 
I know most people disagree with me, and insist that Snape sees 
through Malfoy's "conversion" the whole time.

Eileen