Snape's rationality

[Scott Northrup]

No: HPFGUIDX 51051


SCOTT (Me) WROTE:
>From the beginning of the series, Harry has
never given Snape a reason to
dislike him, at least not a believable one.
END.

Me:
I should have phrased that differently.  I should have said "In Snape's
first meeting with Harry, Snape sets up the basis for their relationship in
the future."

TOM'S REPLY:
<<I have to contest this. I believe that Harry's
given Snape multiple reasons to dislike him,
starting with the fact that Harry doesn't
like Snape:

"Maybe he's ill!" said Ron hopefully.
"Maybe he's left," said Harry, "because he missed out on the Defense
Against the Dark Arts job again."
"Or he might have been sacked," said Ron enthusiastically. "I mean,
everyone hates him -"
"Or maybe," said a very cold voice right behind them, "he's waiting
to hear why you two didn't arrive on the school train."  (CoS 77-78)

Although this comes from CoS, it illustrates
my point better, maybe, than any other.>>

ME:
Obviously, Harry and Snape BOTH give each other plenty of reasons to dislike
the other throughout the series.

 However, in their very first meeting, Snape clearly singles out Harry,
because Harry is "famous," or so he says.  Why does he really single out
Harry?  Could it be because he hated Harry's father?  I think so.

Okay, now this is just my opinion, but trying to argue this is silly.  The
argument 'Snape wanted to let Harry know he wouldn't get away with anything
in his class just because Harry is famous' has so many holes in it, it
wouldn't hold ice cubes, much less water (sorry, witty repartee isn't really
my thing...).  Let's take a look at this in two ways:

1) Snape HAS to know something about Harry's background.  Honestly, I don't
see how he couldn't.  He would have known EXACTLY what happened to Harry's
parents.  We also know that Snape was a DE who switched sides before
Voldemort's fall.  I don't think it's a stretch to say that in the 10 years
after the fall of Voldemort, Snape would have found out at some point that
all of Harry's wizarding family was dead, and that he was raised by muggles.
If Snape honestly believes he has to send a message to Harry the first day
of class, well, then Snape's not all there.

2) Why did Snape even feel it was necessary to Send a message to Harry?  If
Harry tries to take advantage of his fame, THEN you send the message.
Honestly, singling people out before they give you a reason to is not a fair
way of dealing with people.


TOM:
<<Harry et al show Snape no respect.  Not only
don't they show respect, they're downright
DISrespectful of him.  It starts in PS/SS with
the trio's completely false and unfair assumptions
that Snape must be a) trying to kill Harry, and
b) be trying to steal the Sorceror's Stone.

"Quirrell said Snape -"
"PROFESSOR Snape, Harry." [empasis converted from italics]
"Yes him -" (Dumbledore and Harry on PS/SS 299-300)

Even Dumbledore, who clearly favors Harry, has
to remind him to be respectful of a professor.

And as we all know, this baseless dislike and
disrespect continues throughout canon.  And
although they often malign him, I don't think
he's ever really actually guilty of their
accusations. To date, the only wrongdoing of
which Snape is actually guilty happened
pre-canon, when he was a Death Eater.>>


ME:
The word 'baseless' destroys your argument.  If you honestly think that
Snape is totally undeserving of Harry's dislike and disrespect, you are a
SAINT.  Honest to God.  I'm all for children respecting their elders, but I
also believe that the elder should give the child a reason to respect them.
Personally, I don't think that someone is totally deserving of my respect
just because they've been on the Earth longer than I have.  That wouldn't
really be logical  (But then, I'm what Keirsey would call a 'Rational.' ) .
I try to respect people from the get go, but if I were Harry, Snape clearly
would have lost my respect in our first meeting.

Next; I don't see how you can say that Harry and Co.'s assumptions that
Snape was trying to A)Kill Harry and B)Steal the Sorceror's Stone are
'unfair.' I'll explain.

The whole book (PS/SS) is set up to make it seem like Snape is trying to
accomplish both A and B.  There are a series of clues in the book that are
clearly meant to direct the reader to the conclusion that Snape is the bad
guy.  If you read through the whole book, and knew that Quirrel was the real
perpetrator (the first time, and no cheating!), then I honestly believe you
are Batman or Sherlock Holmes.  Harry's line of thought is logical; he's not
basing his entire case against Snape solely on the fact that Snape is a
greasy jerk.  For the sake of brevity, I'm not going to outline the evidence
in PS/SS... we all know it by heart, and I'm fairly certain we can all agree
that it points to Snape being the culprit.



SCOTT (Me) WROTE:
Of course, Snape will later claim that his
intense dislike of Harry stems from
Hary's disregard of the rules. <snip>
It seems to me that if Snape had such high
respect for 'the rules,' he'd be the head of
Hufflepuff, not Slytherin. From the Sorting
Hat Song:

Or perhaps in Slytherin
You'll make your real friends,
Those cunning folks use any means
To achieve their ends.
-PS/SS
END

TOM'S  REPLY:
<<I think you confuse "cunning" with "rule-breaking."
Or, "cunning" <> (or ~=) "rule-breaking" (for the
programmers...)   ;-P

First, "cunning" has nothing to do with rules
at all.  It has to do with being crafty and clever.

Second, I would hardly describe Harry et al as
"cunning," since they're always getting caught
in medias res rule breaking.  A "cunning"
person is not someone who is likely to be caught
breaking the rules.

Slytherins respect "cunning" folks. They
don't respect blatant rule-breakers.>>

ME:
Of first, I'd just like to note that when I read your reply, I practically
fell out of my chair.  I didn't think I needed to clarify what part of the
Sorting Hat Song I was talking about; I assumed it was obvious.  Well, you
know what they say about those who 'assume.'

Let me explain it.  I'm not pointing to cunning.  You're right, cunning does
not necessarily imply rule breaking (though, I think to argue that it
doesn't it arguing over technicalities).  However, the song says "Those
cunning folks use any means
To achieve their ends."  Now, call me crazy, but someone who uses 'any
means' to acheive their ends sounds like someone who has no particular
regard for rules.  The hat doesn't say  "any means within the rules to
achieve their ends."  :P



SCOTT (Me) WROTE:
1) First thing: "I shall be interested to see how
Dumbledore takes this .
. . He was quite convinced you were harmless, you
know, Lupin . . . a tame
werewolf--" (PoA, The Servant of Lord Voldemort).

Snape is a hypocrite.
END QUOTE

TOM'S REPLY:
<<This is not "hypocrisy."  "Hypocrisy" would be
if Snape was a danger to the students himself.

And he is not a danger to the students.  DANGER
("harm") is the quality to which Snape is referring.
AND as we see, via the transformation scene in PoA,
Lupin, however gentle he may be in human form, IS
a danger to the students.

And by the way, regarding what Snape owes
Dumbledore: Snape is a SELF-reformed Death Eater
who changed sides at great personal risk to himSELF.
Dumbledore points out in GoF that he gave testimony
to the effect that Snape, of his own volition
and before the fall of Voldemort, switched sides
to serve as a spy.  He owes Dumbledore less
than for what your assessment gives him credit.
Snape didn't come begging for mercy like the other
Death Eaters.  He didn't lie and pretend to have
been under the Imperius Curse.  He switched
sides freely.>>

ME:
Maybe hypocrite is the wrong word.  I think the main thing I'd like to
emphasize is that Snape clearly owes Dumbledore a great deal.  Snape did
change sides at great personal risk to himself, but I do think that he owes
most of his post Voldemort career to Dumbledore.    You have make a
distinction; Snape isn't someone who was found not guilty of being a DE
(like Bagman)- he was an admitted  DE who changed sides.  So, who would hire
a former Death Eater?  The same person who would have hired a werewolf
(actually, I should note, just to make all cases, that he probably could
have gotten a job in Durmstrang, but since Durmstrang administration seems
to have the same value system as Voldemort, I don't really think that it
counts).

 I'll make an analogy: take the case of Benedict Arnold, who betrayed the
Americans in the American Revolution.  Well, after the war, he moved to
Britain (obviously), where he wasn't treated particularly well by his new
countrymen, who didn't really trust someone who'd already proven himself
capable of betrayal.  I'd imagine that Snape would have had to deal with a
similar situation, even if his reason for changing sides was slightly more
noble than Arnold's reason.  The Wizarding community tends to be near
sighted, I think.

Anyway, seeing that Dumbledore trusts Snape, where I doubt many others
would, I don't think he has a right to question Dumbledore's decision to
hire a werewolf.



TOM'S REPLY:
<<Okay. I see your point here [RE: SHRIEKING SHACK SCENE].  He loses his
temper.

But look, there's a problem I've noticed that
a lot of people have with dissecting these books:

They're written from Harry's perspective, and
we're *supposed* to identify with him, by design.
We *all* naturally like and identify with Harry.
Otherwise we wouldn't be reading.

Many of us have difficulty viewing the beloved
characters, like the trio, Dumbledore, Sirius,
and Lupin, from any other perspective than the
one we're fed by Rowling.  But remember, nearly
ALL of the characters in the books do NOT hold
the trio's P.O.V. (= point of view), and that
is what makes the books work.>>

ME:
Look, I don't care if it's from Harry's point of view or Ghandi's.  A
thousand lawyers couldn't argue that Snape was in total control of his
senses if they had a thousand years.

TOM:
<<Hermione interrupts him.  When told to be
quiet, what does she do?  She interrupts again,
showing nothing but disrespect.

And then what happens? They ATTACK a professor.
If that's not disrespect, and a reason for Snape
to dislike Harry, then I don't know what is.>>

ME:
Look, it's not an issue of disrespect, it's an issue of Snape HAVING TOTALLY
LOST HIS SENSES.  Look, I have a ton of respect for my Programming
Professor, but if he went nuts, I can say I would have no problem
interrupting him, or knocking him senseless if I thought it was for the
best.  I mean, come on, be reasonable.


SCOTT (Me) WROTE:
.fact of the matter is, this scene is why Snape bugs
me- his utter inability to listen to reason when his
temper is up.
END.

TOM'S REPLY:
I consider this to be an unfair remark. Why? Because
most people have an inability to listen when their
tempers are up.  Consider Sirius' insistence that
Pettigrew die without delay. Or Harry and Ron's
conflagration in GoF. This is normal human behavior.

ME:
Well, I do agree that most people have the inability to listen when their
tempers are up, but it's all a matter of degree.  Snape is particularly bad
at it.  I'd like to think that I can see multiple sides of an argument, even
when I'm angry, at least more so than Snape.  Harry also posesses this
ability.


SCOTT (Me) WROTE:
Harry, is rational. <snip> He is murderously angry at first (he wants
to kill Sirius in the
beginning of the Shrieking Shack scene, but something holds him
back), but
once he sees the facts, he is able to think clearly, and logically.
If he
didn't, well, he wouldn't have believed Sirius in the end, would he?

TOM'S REPLY:
<<Harry is *anything* but a rational character. That's
why he's so real.  He's rude, he's got a tart tongue,
and he's anything but diplomatic. All one has to do
is reread PS/SS with foreknowledge of the truth to
see how irrational he is, and how often he jumps
to conclusions, and how he acts falsely on those
conclusions.  And I think you're forgetting
something key here:

WHY does Harry listen to the facts?

Two reasons: one, he has his friends there to
support him; two, Lupin shows Harry a sign of
trust by returning their wands. Under those
circumstances, it's easier to chill out a little
bit.>>

ME:
You're confusing the defintion of rational again!  Being rational doesn't
mean you have to be polite or diplomatic.  I'll give an example, but it
requires that you've seen 'A Beautiful Mind.'  John Nash, the main
character, is  what Keirsey would call a 'Rational' personality (Keirsey is
a psychologist).  In fact, he's a pretty clear cut case of a Rational.  But,
no one would describe John Nash as being polite, or diplomatic.  Just the
opposite, actually.

Being rational doesn't even mean you have to be right often.  The argument
about having hindsight while reading PS/SS is well, a fallacy.  Most
rational people would conclude that Snape is the perpetrator while reading
PS/SS.  I certainly did (you'll just have to take my word that I'm
rational... I am, trust me *grins*)!    I general, Harry usually does a goob
job of putting the pieces together and making logical conclusions.  Not to
the same degree as Hermione, but no one's perfect.  (and no saying "Then why
didn't he figure out the plot in GoF?" Dumbledore didn't figure it out, and
he's the pinnacle of rationality)

If you put Snape in Harry's shoes, he would have never given Lupin the
chance to explain, 'act of trust' or not.

SCOTT (Me) WROTE (re: above):
Snape however, is so enraged, he won't even
listen to the facts.

TOM'S REPLY:
<<Snape has neither of those two conditions -
no friends present, and no reason to trust the
situation or the people in it.  From his P.O.V. he's
alone, surrounded by a escaped murderer, a werewolf,
and three students who obviously dislike him. And it
doesn't help that the criminal/escapee already tried
to kill him once before.  Snape, in essence, walks
into a room with five adversaries consorting together.
What would you do if you stumbled on this scene? I'd
probably behave very similarly, for my part.>>


ME:
I don't care what Snape's situation is; he LOSES HIS MIND.  He gives no one
a chance to explain anything, and threatens to have Sirius killed without
ever giving Sirius a chance to explain himself, simply because of his hate.

I can say that the only way you would have behaved similarly in that part,
is if you also happened to harbor an intense hatred for Sirius, Lupin and
Harry.

TOM:
[note that I've snipped some text]

<<An easy, all around great instance: In CoS, Harry
throws a firecracker into a cauldron in Potions
class, sending swelling solution onto the students,
putting them ALL at risk. He does this so that
Hermione can STEAL some ingredients from Snape's
office, so that they can make an illegal and dangerous
Polyjuice Potion in order to MASQUERADE as Crabbe,
Goyle and Bulstrode (whom they will have to DRUG
first.) All of this so that they can SNEAK into
the Slytherin common room on another false and baseless
assumption that Malfoy, for all of his crass
behavior, is actually attempting to MURDER students.

If that's rational, then I'm a purple bunny.>>

ME:
You're a purple bunny?!  How does that even work?  I don't mean to be rude,
but I think you need to look up 'rational.'  I see Harry as someone who does
what needs to be done.  If he has to break a few rules to solve a problem,
so be it.  Being rational means having valid reasons behind your actions.



TOM:
<<And what does Harry's excessive rule-breaking get
him? Excessive clemency from Dumbledore.  Over and
over again.

So, if many professors give Harry special leniency,
Snape, to his credit, is the one who doesn't. Except
McGonagall, and even then only in special circumstances,
when her Quidditch interests aren't threatened.

So, on the whole, I would say that Snape behaves
very realistically for the situations with which
he's presented.  His actions, I believe, are
completely justified in his own mind by the fact
that Harry is conferred special status by nearly
everyone, and that he gets away with nearly everything
that would get any other students expelled. He doesn't
appreciate the trio's blatant disrespect, nor does he
approve of their blatant disregard for rules that
are in place. And collectively, I would submit that this
illustrates extremely rational behavior.>>

ME:
There is absolutely no evidence to show that Harry is granted special
treatment from anyone but Dumbledore (and the cited special cases
McGonagall).  Well, possibly Hagrid, but I actually don't see Harry getting
special treatment from Hagrid.  Note that I define 'special treatment' as
being treated in a way differently from all of the other students, to
Harry's benefit.

Snape does NOT treat Harry fairly; I KNOW I've already made this argument
elswhere, but Snape is especially difficult on Harry, while letting
Slytherins (specifically Draco) get away with murder.  This by definition is
unfair.

You've even blown a hole in your own argument;  you use the the phrase "in
[Snape's] own mind."  Frankly, I don't think that Harry is treated totally
differently than other students.  Dumbledore is lenient with Harry, no
argument there, but I think that these are *very* special circumstances.
Besides, whose to say that Dumbledore isn't lenient with anyone else?  The
only real student-Dumbledore interaction we see is between Harry and
Dumbledore.  If Draco went around trying to prove people innocent, catch
servants of Voldemort, and attempting to do good in general, then I'm sure
Dumbledore would be just as lenient.  However, Draco is a nasty little boy
with an ego problem.

I wash my hands of this whole argument.  Feel fee to disagree, but at this
point, if I can't make you believe, I never will.

-Scott
(whose practically forgotten what he set out to prove-- oh right, that Snape
is totally lacking in rationality in certain instances, ie the Shrieking
Shack.  Why did I have to argue this in the first place?)


PS: I've noticed some 'Snape and Respect' posts popping up.  I'd just like
to say one thing- I think that people should be given the benefit of the
doubt; you lose your  respect for a person when they show that they no
longer deserve your respect.  Now, if after 4 books, you still think Snape
deserves Harry's respect... well, then you must be a very, erm...
'respectful' person.