Who's at fault for Snape v. Harry?

[rhosyn4u]

No: HPFGUIDX 68009

Again, I'm not quoting anybody. Forgive my arrogance.

I posted pretty much the same thing on the "Harry is a brat" thread, 
but I think the argument has shifted to this thread and I don't want 
to be left behind; you know, like in class when you have your hand 
up for ages but when you're finally called on your comment isn't 
relevant anymore. I hate that.

ANYWAY, I don't pretend to have my mind made up on the Snape issue, 
and I look forward to more information on the subject in further 
books, HOWEVER, I have a STRONG hunch Snape has been acting a good 
deal of his malevolence.

Look at it this way: If Snape were fair, decent, and less-than-
horrible to Harry and the Gryffindors (and maybe other houses too; I 
dunno), then the Slytherin kids wouldn't like him, thus the 
Slytherin's parents (notably Malfoy) wouldn't like him, and he would 
lose his place as Head of Slytherin House or at the very least be 
mistrusted by the Slytherins. To do this would be to forfeit a HUGE 
advantage both as a spy in Voldy's camp and as a 
confidante/hopefully redeemer of the Slytherin children, who frankly 
have my pity, along with Mafia children. It must be near impossible 
to escape that kind of deep-rooted family/cultural evil society.

Now I'm not saying that Snape is really a bubbly social butterfly or 
anything, but I'm willing to bet his blatant cruelty and deeply 
unfair behavior is an act. We already know he can act unconcerned 
and dismissive on demand; his reaction to Harry's cryptic yell in 
OoP was perfectly in-character, so much so that Harry didn't see 
through it (even though it was totally obvious Snape would have to 
feign ignorance or Umbridge would get suspicious).

There. I'm done. 

~rhosyn =)

P.S. This has been my theory from the beginning, and I don't imagine 
I'm the only one. Is there an acronym for this theory?