[HPforGrownups] Re: OoP: What Snape is really doing out there...

[Irene Mikhlin]

No: HPFGUIDX 66518

First of all, I want to establish some understanding:

I don't deny that Snape is a miserable (and may be even ever so evil) 
git, and I don't deny that Sirius is a pretty decent person if you 
happen to be his friend or godson.
But it does not stop me from liking the first and disliking the other.
Now to the details...

pjuel13 at aol.com wrote:
 > Irene says:
 >
 >>Well, it's a question of chicken and egg, I'm afraid. :-)
 >>She would not, but then Sirius would not request it.
 >
 > And you know this how exactly? Could you point me to the paragraph I 
missed?

How could I show you the canon for "what if" scenario? But does not it
seem likely that Sirius wouldn't be so apprehensive if it was any other
member of the Order?

 >>He said "Sit down, Potter". Does not get more neutral than that.
 >
 > Hmm, well Black seemed to take it as an order, as did Harry. But then of
 > course their perceptions must be imediately discounted.

No, of course not. But Harry didn't offer any perception.
Sirius interpreted the offer for him and basically told him to take it 
as another offence.

 >
 >
 >>Excuse for what? He talks to Harry in a perfectly civil and professional
 >>way.
 >
 > In what disfunctional workplace does a "sneer curling one's mouth" 
(US ed pg
 > 518_ indicate civility and professionalism?

You'll be surprised. :-)
But seriously, his sneer is directed towards Sirius here, not Harry.

 >
 >
 >>Sirius throws in his face the fact that it's his house, and from Snape's
 >>reaction there is something bigger behind it.
 >
 > Oh, so only Sirius' words are allowed to have things read into them? 
"Sit
 > Down Potter" is perfectly neutral. But "It's my house you know" is a 
personal
 > attack?

It's hard to argue about perceptions, I agree. But this time Rowling 
helps me around: "Sit down, Potter" carries absolutely no qualifier she 
usually adds to Snape's speech: not sneering, not menacingly, nothing.
Sirius, OTOH, was speaking to the ceiling and assuming a pose that means 
he was watching too many westerns. :-)


 >
 > Lets go through the -whole- chronology here shall we? You seem to 
have left a
 > few bits out.
 > Just after Sirius reminds Snape that he's in Sirius' house. We get 
the first
 > comments regarding Sirius' supposed uselessness and cowardice:
 > "I know how you like to feel...involved."

See, I just happen to agree with Snape that Sirius's demand to be
present was not exactly out of place (OK, it's his house and his 
godson), but still something akin to micro-management: I can't protect 
Harry at Hogwarts, I can't meet him on weekends, at least I'll control 
this little meeting.


 > "'I am sure that you must feel  -ah- frustrated by the fact thay you 
can do
 > nothnig useful' Snape laid a delicate stress on the word, 'for the 
Order'"
 > "Snape's sneer became more pronounced"
 > Only after that did Sirius ask "Why can't Dumbledore teach Harry?"

Aggressively, as JKR tells us.

 > then some shots at Harry:
 > "It is the headmaster's privilege to delegate less enjoyable tasks. I 
assure
 > you I did not beg for the job."

That one is open to interpretation. Did he necessarily mean that it's 
such a dreadful task because of Harry? Or maybe teaching occlumency 
leaves you open for any hexes your student comes up with when he fails, 
and with mind intrusion when he succeeds?

 > "If anybody asks, you are taking Remedial Potions. Nobody who has 
seen you in
 > my classes could deny you need them"

This one is also open to more favourable interpretation. "That's our 
cover story and it sounds very plausible"

 > and another shot at Sirius:
 > "unlike you I do not have unlimeted leisure time"
 > and finally a shot at James and Harry:

After Sirius took it to personal territory.

 > "you'll know he's so arrogant that criticism simply bounces off of him."
 > And only then do we get:
 > "I don't care if Dumbledore thinks you've reformed. I know better."
 > So it's not quite "poor abused misunderstood Snape was only trying to 
be a
 > professional and they drove him to the point of using harsh words."

I never said that. But I think that he wouldn't bring Harry's father 
into it if Sirius didn't look for confrontation.


He was
 > having no problem using harsh words from the start of the encounter.
 >
 >
 >>This is what bugs me - how can Dumbledore blame Snape for Harry's
 >>failure? I wrote before that Snape was surprisingly civil and
 >>professional during the lessons. Cold, yes, but civil.
 >
 >
 > Surprisingly civil? What, should he not have been?

Surprisingly as in "better than could be expected from his behaviour in 
Potions". I don't deny he is neither civil nor professional to Harry 
during Potions.

 > Is "Dim though you may be" (pg 590) professional or civil?

A while ago The Times published bits of (public) school reports of 
various famous British figures. This remark would blend in really well.

 > Is parroting the MoM line about Harry seeking out danger in order to get
 > attention: "perhaps you actually enjoy having these visions and 
dreams, Potter.
 > Maybe they make you feel special - important?" civil and 
professional? (pg 591)

I happen to think there is a bit of truth in this. Harry does not seek 
personal importance, true, and Snape has a problem to get his head 
around the fact; but Harry definitely thinks his visions are important, 
and he's upset with Dumbledore because he's not interested and wants 
them to stop.


 >
 >>Harry made absolutely no effort to succeed in these lessons.
 >
 > Absolutley no effort?
 > Is that your reading of the text. Harry stops trying to clear his 
mind before
 > sleeping prior to the pensive incident but I think that saying he was 
making
 > "absolutely no effort" is frank hyperbole. He seems to be trying very 
hard
 > during the sessions that are documented in the text and getting a 
review of his
 > most painful memories and increasingly severe chronic pain as his 
reward.
 > And when Harry says outright that Snape isn't telling him how after 
Snape
 > tells him to repell with his bain, Snape replies only with "Manners, 
Potter."

But he told him basically: do whatever it was that you did to stop me 
from seeing you kissing, and this time don't waste energy on shouting.
How do you teach someone to whistle? How did Moody teach him to resist 
Imperio?


 > I don't dislike Snape, I think he's an interesting, complex, and 
compelling
 > character and I enjoy learning more about him. His contradictions add a
 > tremendous amount of depth to the story and lend real weight to the 
JKR mantra of
 > chosing who and what you will be. But I don't understand at all the 
efforts by
 > some of his supporters to explain away everything he does or strip 
from him any
 > responsiblity for the effect of his actions. From what I've seen in some
 > postings Snape never does anything wrong - has never done anything 
wrong,  he's
 > always the victim, always misunderstood, or always eyeball deep in some
 > mindbendingly machiavellian scheme of positively byzantine complexity 
that justifies
 > even the most blatantly cruel, partisan, or just plain nasty act that 
he's ever
 > done.

I never said so. He can definitely be cruel and nasty, but he also tends 
to be blamed (by Harry and readers) even when he is not.

Irene