Snape's Destiny/JKR quotes (or Snape-aholics and Siriophiles)

[melclaros]

No: HPFGUIDX 105480

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "curly_of_oster"   
> Huh???  Clearly I have spent at least some time in a very 
different 
> HP fandom than you have. :-)  Seriously, though, in HP fandom I 
have 
> encountered just as many Snape fans who "like" him in exactly the 
> way you're describing "Siriophiles" liking Sirius as I have 
> Snape fans who find him a fascinating if deeply unpleasant 
> *character*.  And by the same token, I know of a number of fans of 
> Sirius who would never in a million years describe him 
as "cuddly."  


I've seen that 'fandom'. It's the fic-contaminated one. The one that 
insists Snape's a peer of the realm and all he needs needs is a 
cuddle and even in some cases that Hermione is the 
only-one-ever-born destined to give it (that cuddle, that is) to him 
and solve all his 
earthly woes. It can be diverting, for sure, in oh so many ways, but 
it has nothing whatsoever to do with canon.
The movies have made it worse.



> 
> Lisa:
> But not everybody does seem to "know" these things.  I have seen 
it 
> argued that Snape treats everyone equally, for example. 

Me
Well yes and no. The argument in that direction is usually more 
along the lines of *we don't KNOW* how he treats anyone other than 
those we've seen. We've only ever seen the classes in which Harry's 
been present. We've never been privy to after hours in the Slyth 
common room. As far as his relationships with adults go, they seem 
quite normal.

Lisa
 I've seen 
> it stated as fact that he has such a strong "moral code" that he 
> would save you even if he hates you (based entirely, as far as I 
> could see, on the counter-cursing the broom episode in PS/SS).

Me
Moral code or not, actions from the PS/SS counter-curse and the 
intervention in the Shrieking Shack all the way to informing the 
Order in PoA are CANON. 

It still doesn't make him 'nice' though.

Lisa
>However, I also think that wanting to know 
> about/thinking there is a back-story and motivation for certain 
> actions (say, his treatment of Harry and Neville, to use one of 
your > examples) is no more valid than theorizing that he's treating 
>them  that way simply because he is a bitter, nasty man.

me:
Huh? What's 'valid' got to do with it?
Maybe some folk want to know 'why' he's a bitter, nasty man.

Mel