[HPforGrownups] Re: Snape and purity of blood

[Wendy St John]

No: HPFGUIDX 76282


oh have faith wrote:

> Besides, apart from one "mudblood" shouted in rage when he was a 
> defensive, embarassed fifteen year old, there's no evidence in the 
> books that Snape dislikes the muggle-born any more than he dislikes 
> absolutely everybody else.  The only evidence we have about his 
> current beliefs is that he works for the Order - and that suggests 
> the contrary.  He's an equal opportunities hater!  

To which T.M. Sommers replied:

"In the real world, anyone using such an epithet would be 
instantly and permanently branded a racist.  I see no reason to 
make a special case of Snape."

Now me (Wendy):

I *strongly* disagree with this statement. I personally have a hard time
branding anyone "instantly and permanently" as anything. Do you not allow
that people can change their beliefs about things? Especially when we
consider that Snape was only 15. Now, 15 is a sticky age. Nowadays, there
are lots of 15 year olds who are out there pretending to be adults in the
real world. But I know that when I was 15, I was nowhere near mature in my
outlook, and I certainly had beliefs about things (or rather, vacuums in my
knowledge) that changed as I matured. I tend to think that JKR is writing
her characters with a bit more "innocence" age-wise than we now perceive
kids in the real world, so I think we should cut the 15-year-olds a bit of
slack and allow that they still have growing-up to do. I know that I went
through a period when I said horrible things, not really understanding
their meanings. Does this mean you'll assume instantly and pernamently that
I'm a horrible person for the rest of my life? Well, you're certainly
entiled to do so, but then you'll also have to believe that James really
did force Lily to marry him using some date-rape potion or such. In that
same scene, we saw that James was an insufferably arrogant bully, and that
Lily wanted nothing to do with him. So, do you also believe we should brand
James "insantly and permanently" as being irredeemably bad? 

I don't think we should. I assume that James came to his senses at some
point, and changed his beliefs and behaviour. So why is it impossible that
Snape could have done the same? I'm not saying I know he did. I just think
it is rather unreasonable to assume that he couldn't have. 

Cheers,
Wendy