Snape's DE past

[macfotuk at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 111366

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, juli17 at a... wrote:

<snip> 
> I do think that part of Snape's job is to keep Harry's ego in 
check. 
> I'm not sure Snape *knows* it, but I think that is why Dumbledore
> allows their contentious relationship to follow its course rather 
> than putting a stop to it. <snip>

Do you mean you think that's his 'job' as a literary vehicle (i.e 
JKR's motivation in writing the character) or that he has been 
assigned the job by DD within the context of the books' plot?

It certainly has puzzled me why in what otherwise seems a very fair 
world the other, very wise teachers (esp. McGonagle and DD) tolerate 
and approve so many of Snape's arbitrary removals of points from 
Gryffindor when victimising Harry, Ron, The twins, Hermione and 
Neville which he clearly gains enjoyment from doing. I often ask 
myself what system there is at Hogwarts of approving points being 
added to or removed from house totals, but think this is a wrong 
thing to do. Like so much else in JKR's universe I think it is 
concepts that matter and not details: the idea that the points are 
added and removed and what we, as readers, feel about this being 
fair or unfair, rather than some explicable system which actually 
tallies the points and changes them fairly.

Of course, we the readers cheer each time these unfair decisions 
*are' overturned or countered and we enjoy booing loudly when they 
aren't or are especially unfair. Personally I feel this just 
sketches Snape as a really really nasty and vindictive teacher in 
the mould of teachers that many of us have probably encountered at 
school somewhjere in our lives. He's a bad guy - the teacher every 
student hates (unless they're horrid/slimy themselves)and yet noble 
enough to follow rules when commanded to. That Umbridge was allowed 
to do all that she did was just the same thing writ even larger, 
except that she never did anything noble ever - not intended to make 
sense in a real world respect where we hope fairness mostly prevails 
so much as to illustrate abuses of power and the powerlessness of 
the abusees to do anything about it, i.e. a literary vehicle to 
convey evil and unfairness. I believe Snape to be a complete and 
utter bastard (scuse my French) and JKR seems to agree (hence her 
surprise at his fascination for, and hero worship by, so many fans) 
and yet in other respects a very very noble individual who will do 
what is right when encouraged, forced or required to to do so. Even 
Vernon Dursley fits this description since in his own mind he is 
living up to a standard - magic is bad and errant. Therefore 
Snapes's nature is bad yet he can do good things and he knows the 
difference because he is intelligent but fallible. LV is simply bad 
and, while evidently fallible believes himself otherwise. Clear, end 
of story. It is interesting that completely opposite to Snape, 
Harry, Ron and Hermione and DD, McGonagal, Hagrid, Sirius and Molly 
(Magda) are good, but now and then do bad things despite themselves 
(like 99% of the rest of us).A mirror of real life and the strength 
of JKRs well-observed writing.