OoP: I'll do it: In defense of James

[professor_monkshood]

No: HPFGUIDX 62740

And now the Snapeologist rebuttal.

Before we begin, I want to clarify my position.

1. The Pensieve scene does not make Snape's behaviour towards Harry 
excusable but his attitude, particularly towards James in PoA, 
understandable.  Everyone thought James was this saintly character, 
which was blatantly untrue from this scene.  (I want to re-read PoA 
now, if I can tear myself away from OoP.)

2. Does that make James a bad person?  This question is a bit stupid 
itself because the whole theme of the series is that people can and 
do change.  James changed from the prick in the pensieve to a man 
who fought Voldie, someone who was honourable and should be 
respected.  So, yes, he was a horrible kid in the world at age 15 
but was he a bad person? No.

3. How far do you want to take the argument that 'Snape is a DE and 
therefore he deserved it'?  If we want to go down that path, then 
the Aurors would be perfectly justified to treat anyone on the other 
side in any manner they like.  Also, we are facing a cause and 
effect problem: as far as we know, Snape wasn't a DE yet when he was 
15.  From the Pensieve scene and Lupin and Black's reactions, he 
hadn't done anything other than the fact that he existed.  The fact 
that Snape became a DE later on did not justify what James had done.

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "mochajava13" 
<mochajava13 at y...> wrote:
>After Lily defended Snape, he didn't 
> even acknowledge her help.  He addressed James, and said "I don't 
> need help from filthy little Mudbloods like her!" (pg. 648, US 
ed.)  
> That's the equivalent of the N word.  And this was during 
> Voldemort's reign of terror.  Snape was in Slytherin, and had the 
> very Slytherin attitude towards muggle-born wizards.  During V's 
> reign of terror, this is definitely telling behavior.  Snape was 
> evil at one point; there is NO denying that.  

But does he really mean that?  Consider the situation: After being 
publicly humiliated, a girl comes to rescue him. (A big NO! for all 
teenage boys).  It would have been better if she just picked up the 
wand and curse James but no, she has to plea to his tormentors.  
(Humiliation Extremus! in the teenage world.)  Then James has to 
respond by saying 'I will stop if you go out with me' (A girl giving 
sexual favours to save me?  Another absolute no!).  I think Snape 
would rather die than for James to stop because of Lily, especially 
if the LOLLIPOPS people are right and there is some romantic 
attraction along the way.  He's probably resigned to the fact that 
it was going to be horrible and all he wanted was for Lily to go 
away and not witnessed this.

Could he have said something else?  Yes, but he was, after all, a 
Slytherin.  The bloodline thing is probably the first thing that 
came to his mind and he just shouted it out.

> Lupin and 
> Sirius both defend James by telling Harry that Snape still tried 
to 
> hex/curse James at any opportunity.  Snape still sounds like Draco 
> to me.  
<Snip>  I always thought the 'any opportunity' remark was 
interesting.  It seems along the way Snape has switched from being 
the victim to being the attacker and quite possibly, switching from 
being bullied to being a bully himself i.e. going down to the path 
of DE.

> In my 
> opinion, how others viewed the Marauders is extremely important on 
> what they were really like.  Combined with how Sirius, Lupin, and 
> Snape act NOW, I think we have an insight into how they behaved at 
> Hogwarts.

but that's probably what totally pisses Snape off: the aura of 
righteousness surrounding the MWPP.  First of all, MWPP probably 
didn't do it in front of teachers and adults.  Bullies are usually 
like this.  And from the Pensieve scene, I'm pretty sure that at 
least McGonagall didn't know her charges' behaviour or else, she 
wouldn't put MWPP in the same league as Fred and George.

<snip>
> Whatever they did to 
> humiliate Snape, they didn't physically attack him.  During V's 
> reign, who knows what type of people would annoy someone who 
> actively fights against the dark arts?  We have no idea who he 
hexes 
> in hallways; Lily only says he hexes people who annoy him.  Well, 
> Harry and Ron hex people who annoy them, too.  Hey, the twins hex 
> anyone!  All their practical jokes, they hex a LOT of people to 
get 
> a laugh.  They put poisons in some of their Snackboxes so people 
can 
> make themselves sick.

I have said elsewhere before that there is a big difference between 
what the twins do and what MWPP did and it is pretty sick that 
people are equalting the two.  To reiterate, IMO, a prank is 
something that the victim would at least find slightly amusing 
afterwards or something that challenges the authority.  What MWPP 
doing is clear and simple bullying and anyone in his right mind 
(Lily for example) wouldn't think it funny.  Moreover, bullying is a 
behaviour pattern and Snape's reaction to James as he approached 
suggests that it wasn't the only incident, only the worst.

As I recall, the worst thing Fred and George did was filled 
Neville's snack with Canary cream, which still fits my definition of 
a prank because Neville found it amusing afterwards.

The 'ferret' is an entirely different case.  First of all, Draco 
started it by shooting his mouth off; Snape did nothing to provoke 
MWPP.  Harry and Ron did not turn Draco into a ferret, fake Moody 
did (who is a DE anyway).

And how far do you have to take it before the physical parts come 
in?  They choked him and hung him upside down for goodness sake.  If 
it isn't physical, then I don't know what is. 

Only humiliates him?  I don't know about that.  Is emotional 
scarring a lesser offence than physical abuse?  Don't we hate Snape 
and Draco because they humiliate Harry publicly?  If I were Snape, I 
would have certainly preferred an outright brawl.

>We don't know if this is what Lily is talking 
> about or not.  We DO know that James was a trouble maker who made 
> people laugh.  We have no idea how he treats other people aside 
from 
> Snape

You know what, I hate the part 'it made people laugh'.  People were 
laughing too in the Pensieve scene.  Teenagers found plenty of sick 
things funny.  It doesn't make it right.  (To go off track slightly, 
there was a broom-handle-in-the-rear-end case here in NZ and I tell 
you want, those kids think it was funny.)

> And let's face it, at this time, Snape was well onto his way 
> to becoming a death eater.  
Again, cause and effect.  After the Pensieve, I now tend to think 
that Snape joined the DE because 'my enemies's enemy is my friend'.  

> Sirius - He strikes me as a spoiled rich kid who has no idea about 
> the consequences of his actions.  No excuse for him.  But he has 
> grown up, and did tell Harry that what he did to Snape was wrong.
 
You know, I would actually give Sirius more leeway than James.  He 
came from a Dark Wizard family and I think most people deduced that 
Snape is too.  So whenever Sirius laid his eyes on Snape, he saw a 
side of himself that he hates.  Does it justify the way Sirius 
treats him in the Pensieve?  No but it is a mitigating factor.

<Snip>
> As soon as James addresses Snape, in a pretty 
> mean way, Snape goes for his wand ASAP.  James takes away his wand 
> and prevents Snape from getting it by using the impedimenta spell. 
> Snape "let out a stream of mixed swearwords and hexes" in 
response.  
> (Proof that Snape DOES no quite a few hexes and curses while at 
> Hogwarts.  Evidence that Sirius might be telling the truth that 
> Snape knew more hexes and curses when he entered than even seventh 
> years knew.)

I would interpret it the other way: that picking on Snape is the 
gang's favourite sport and James's remark signals a curtain raiser.  
James certainly planned on doing more than calling names and Snape 
immediately knew that if he didn't do something first, he would 
never have a chance.  Hence the quote: 'Snape reacted so fast it was 
as though he had been expecting an attack'.  (p.569, UK ed.)

And does James take away his wand to prevent further attacks?  It 
seems more like that he takes away Snape's wand so he can't defend 
himself, so the gang could proceed with their 'fun'.

>Then James proceeds to humiliate Snape.  But, Snape 
> tried to physically attack James in response: "there was a flash 
of 
> light and a gash appeared on the side of James's face, spattering 
> his robes with blood."  (pg. 647) Snape gets humiliated, and he 
goes 
> for blood while his opponents back was turned.   Personally, I 
think 
> that was an inappropriate response.  Why didn't he just try and 
get 
> James's wand?    

Umm, are we asking for Saint Severus here?  He just been choked!  If 
that wasn't physical, then Cruciatus isn't physical either.  If 
anything, I said Snape's reaction was too mild, as though he didn't 
want to get into trouble.  I'm sure he could knock James out cold 
with a curse if he wants to.  Harry himself has use worse hexes on 
Draco just after verbal sparrings.

<Snip the Occlumency lessons>
Again, no Saint Severus here.  Snape is no Lupin, or Dumbledore.  
Snape is a guy who, deep inside, driven totally by his demons, his 
past and his emotions.  Harry just broke through to the worst memory 
in his life, something that he probably hadn't told anyone.  True, 
it would be nice if he could just let go but then he wouldn't be the 
Snape we know anymore.

Professor Monkshood, who would be horrified at the idea of Saint 
Severus