More on Snape

Shaun Hately drednort at alphalink.com.au
Sun Jun 20 23:38:10 UTC 2004


No: HPFGUIDX 102203

Taking this out of a particular thread, just so I can express what 
I'm trying to say without feeling bound into replying to particular 
comments.

First of all, let me make something clear here - I could say a 
great deal more about my education than I have on this list - 
because, it's not directly on-topic I, of course, limit what I say 
and only mention enough to give a little bit of context, but I'd 
appreciate if people could bear in mind when they read what I've 
written, that there is a huge amount of background to my views. 
Because I'm only talking about little snippets, out of context 
people don't really know exactly where I am coming from - there's a 
book coming out next year in the US, which I wrote a chapter of 
describing some aspects of my school experience, but even that 
doesn't go into this stuff. I am actually in discussion about 
writing an entire book about my schooling and my childhood because 
there is that much to say. I'm only giving snippets here that don't 
give anywhere near the full story. I'd be happy to discuss it in 
more detail if people wanted to know - but HPFGU is not the place 
for it, so I limit myself to saying the minimum I feel I need to, 
to give any context at all.

Now... to Snape.

The reason I defend Snape's teaching methods isn't because I 
particularly agree with them. I certainly do not believe Snape is 
the ideal teacher, or anything close to it. But I just have the 
feeling that many people are conflating multiple issues into a 
single monolithic view of Snape, and I don't think that's 
particularly fair.

I personally see two *separate* issues when it comes to Snape and 
his teaching. (1) his specific treatment of a specific individual; 
(2) his general pedeagogical techniques.

With regards to point #1, I think Snape is pretty close to totally 
undefendable.

His treatment of Harry is indefensible, and reprehensible. To an 
extent, it may be understandable in some ways, but that doesn't 
make it right. I truly believe he unfairly targets Harry because of 
resentment of James Potter - and there's no excuse for that. To his 
credit, on occasion, I think Snape has tried to do the right thing 
when it comes to Harry - he has protected him, and I think he made 
a sincere initial effort to try and teach him occlumency. But even 
on these occasions, Snape's "good intentions" are overlaid onto his 
irrational hatred, and he can't move beyond them.

My point is that Snape's general treatment of Harry Potter as an 
individual is purely and simply wrong IMHO. I will *not* defend it. 
I do *not* defend it.

But it's also, IMHO, unique. I don't think Snape targets anyone 
else in the same way he targets Harry.

We certainly see him target Hermione on occasion - and Neville on 
occasion - but it doesn't seem to me to be the same as his 
targeting of Harry. Which is unremitting, constant, and born of 
specific animus.

What we see directed towards Hermione and Neville is different, 
IMHO. We're talking specific instances, not an uremitting program 
of hostility targeting them specifically. 

Which brings me to point #2, Snape's general pedagogical technique.

This is the area where I *will* defend Snape to an extent. Not 
because I think the methods he uses are ideal, by any means. Not 
because I think they are even particularly good methods. But 
because I just don't think they are bad as some people seek to make 
out.

I think there's a significant number of people on this list who 
don't make any distinction between Snape's treatment of Harry, and 
his general teaching practice. Whereas I think there is a real 
distinction. His treatment of Harry is anomalous to his normal 
teaching practice.

But people conflate the two - there are a lot of people on the list 
who allow their general opinion of Snape's teaching methods to be 
influenced by their opinion of how Snape treats Harry. I just think 
the two things should be considered separately, based on their own 
merits. That's my opinion, and I don't really expect others to 
agree with it necessarily. But I need to explain because if I 
didn't make that distinction, I certainly wouldn't defend Snape.

Snape teaches a subject that is - from what we can see in the books 
- unusually difficult, and fairly uncompromising. Minor mistakes - 
missing a single ingredient or a single step - renders the entire 
end result virtually *worthless*.

With other subjects we see at Hogwarts, this really isn't the case 
- at least not to the same extent. History of Magic - well, like 
most humanities type classes, it's very possible to be partly 
correct, or nearly completely correct, as well as totally correct. 
There's a lot of grey areas involved. Transfiguration - we have 
numerous references to students who've only half completed a 
particular transfiguration - it's a subject where (though I am sure 
McGonagall's standards are just as high as Snape's, if not higher) 
at least if you're partly correct you can see some progress.

Potions is different. If you get it wrong - it's worthless. Maybe 
even worse than useless - something meant to heal or enhance, could 
kill.

There is no middle ground.

That imposes particular standards on a teacher. Unlike many other 
subjects, near enough ain't anywhere near good enough. This means 
that you can't *let* a student get away with sloppy work. Because 
it either works - or it doesn't (there does seem to be some small 
grey area when it comes to precise colour or consistency, etc - but 
it's still has to work, and not kill the imbiber).

So Snape has a duty to make sure his students *learn*. He can't 
afford to go soft on them.

He can't *afford* to make allowances for Neville. He can't afford 
to let Hermione dominate the classroom, giving other students the 
chance to sit back and coast. I don't personally like the way he 
uses to deal with these issues - I think he goes too far with both 
Hermione and Neville - but I think they are the outliers - Neville 
is the least competent student in the class (at least out of those 
he bothers to teach - as I've said, I have the distinct impression 
the Slytherins get away with learning nothing, so Crabbe and Goyle 
can be ignored). Hermione is the most.

Snape is a hard taskmaster. When his students do not perform to the 
standard he expects, he lets them know about it. There is nothing 
invalid about that as a method of teaching. Not all teachers do it, 
but plenty do, and their students often learn very effectively in 
the classroom. They work harder to avoid being told off.

Is that the best way of teaching? No, not in my opinion - but there 
isn't any single best way.

I guess my view really is that people see Snape's indefensible 
treatment of Harry (and that is how I would characterise it) and 
then assume that this has some connection to his teaching methods, 
and they allow that to colour their opinion of his teaching 
methods.

I see it differently. I think his treatment of Harry is anomalous. 
It's got nothing to do with his normal way of teaching. He hates 
Harry - and he'd hate Harry even if he was 'Teacher of the Year' 
material.

His teaching methods should be judged on their own merits - in my 
case, when I do that, I don't think they are that bad - although I 
don't think they are that good either. My view is based largely on 
my own experiences, of course - of learning effectively in such 
classes, and suffering no ill effects because of them. But I *know* 
personally that a student can prosper in such an environment - 
because my classmates and I did.

We often did even better in many ways in other classes where other 
methods were used. There are better ways.

But I don't think Snape is causing incredible harm to his students. 
Every indication I see in the novels leads me to think he's a 
generally effective teacher.

And I will say so. (-8


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia





More information about the HPforGrownups archive