Snape and Harry again.

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 113086

I (Carol) wrote:
> 
> <huge snip by Alla>
> 
> > Just because Harry dislikes Snape and he's presented *from Harry's
POV* as a "greasy git" who is sarcastic to his students doesn't mean >
that he's evil. Dumbledore trusts him. Maybe we should, too.
> 
> Alla responded:
>> Maybe we should or maybe we should not. Yesterday I was worrying>
that I went into defending Snape mode for too long. :o)
> 

Carol: No, no! I love seeing you in Snape defense mode. Great job!
 
Alla:
> I wholeheartedly agree with you that there is absolutely NO canon 
> whatsoever to indicate what exactly Snape did while being a DE, but 
> just because we saw certain DE committing certain crimes, does not
mean, IMO, that Snape was given a free pass and allowed not to commit 
> crimes (what crimes - we don't know). Personally I am hoping that he 
> did a lot of bad things, otherwise,as I said earlier, it cheapens 
> his redemption in my eyes.

Carol:
True. We don't know what he did. I suspect, though, that Voldemort put
him to the best use he could--meaning potion-making. I know Snape was
very young, but talent will out, and Voldy is not going to waste
someone who can help him with his quest for immortality on work that
can be done by any old DE. I don't know about "cheapening the
redemption." I personally hope he didn't perform any Unforgiveable
Curses, otherwise the concept of "unforgiveable" is cheapened! So, to
each her own on this one. I was just objecting, as you also did, to
another poster's assumption that we know what Snape must have done. We
don't. JKR could have had Karkaroff reveal what he knew about Snape's
deeds at his hearing (or whatever it was), but she didn't.
Interestingly, Snape is *not* mentioned in connection with the named
murderers, Cruciatus experts, and Imperio specialists, which suggests
(but of course does not prove) that his specialty was something
different. (Maybe he concocted some of the poisons that Lucius Malfoy
still keeps in the hidden chamber. We just don't know. Quite possibly
Karkaroff didn't know, either.)
> 
Alla:
> Snape is sarcastic to his students? If you put "sadistic" instead, I 
> would probably agree with you. Nope, Snape is not evil, but he is 
> not a good person either. Person with honor? Yes, I hope so, though 
> we don't know for sure yet. Good person? I doubt it.

> Yes, I would say the fact that Harry views him as "greasy git" 
> is not a reason for dislike of said character.
>  
> I am trying to pick the strongest reason for my partial (although 
> very strong one) dislike of Snape personality and the fact that 
> Snape enjoys to cause another human beings emotional pain comes back 
> over and over again.
> 
Carol:
I never said he was a good person; only that I'm sure he's on the side
of good. But he does have admirable qualities: loyalty to Dumbledore,
impressive powers of deduction (when he doesn't let his assumptions
get in the way), and remarkable courage for a Slytherin. As for
"sadistic" vs. "sarcastic," I still go with sarcastic. Sarcasm
involves the caustic and often ironic use of words as ridicule.
Sadism, as I'm sure you know means taking pleasure in inflicting pain,
usually physical pain. (I'm ignoring any sexual connotations; this is
the HP series, after all.) At least two qualify as sadists in my view:
Umbridge and Bellatrix. Based on their treatment of Dobby, the Malfoys
may also fit this category. (Imagine making the poor creature iron his
hands!)

Snape, however, uses *words* to ridicule students who perform poorly
or otherwise annoy him. I don't think it causes them any real or
lasting emotional pain. (His unfairness, which I grant you, does make
*Harry* come up with some pretty sadistic fantasies. But, of course,
he would never carry them out. I hope! And even Neville, though he's
afraid of Snape, isn't suffering lasting emotional pain because of
him. Crouch!Moody's prolonged crucioing of the spider in front of him,
OTOH, was genuinely cruel.) Even what I think is Snape's meanest
moment as a teacher, "I see no difference" in reaction to Hermione's
elongated teeth, caused her no lasting harm. These kids are tough.
Even Neville is stronger than we think. And they live in a very harsh
world, where students hex each other and step on their fallen bodies
and great uncles dangle children out of windows. Being able to deal
with Snape, to silently accept criticism and learn from their
mistakes, is an important lesson. He would never succeed as a teacher
in our politically correct modern Muggle world. But what he does works
well in the WW, where there's no place for weakness--or so we can
assume from the apparent success rate of his students. (We'll see how
accurate his prediction of their success is in the next book. We can
safely assume that he will have weeded out the dunderheads, Crabbe and
Goyle. Maybe we'll see Snape interact with Nott and Zabini in their
place. Sorry to go off topic here!)

Alla (citing examples to prove that Snape isn't "good," a point I've
already answered): 
 
> 1. The first Potions lesson inn PS/SS was cited so many times, that 
> I really don't want to do it again today.
> I may even agree with you that Potions, which Snape mentions 
> especially putting "stopper in death" will become important at the 
> end, but you are not saying that Snape KNEW that in PS/SS?
> I mean, it would be a nice foreshadowing, but what Snape got to do 
> with it? How it makes his absolutely undeserved attack at Harry, who 
> just been thrown out in the world unknown , looks less asdistic?

Carol:
I honestly believe that his singling out Harry isn't sadistic, though
of course his reference to "our new celebrity" is sarcastic (caustic,
ironic, and intended as ridicule). But I believe that there's a
valuable lesson being inculcated here. Harry *doesn't* know anything
about the WW at this point. He didn't *earn* his celebrity status.
It's not through any skill or talent of his own that he's the Boy Who
Lived. And Snape wants not only Harry but everyone in the class to
know that. He doesn't want an insufferably arrogant Harry (a second
James) who thinks he's better than everyone else. It's very important
that Harry recognize and remedy his ignorance before Voldemort
returns. (Yes, I do think that Snape has been briefed by Dumbledore
regarding Harry's special role in the war to come even though Snape
doesn't yet know that Voldemort is under Quirrell's turban.)

Also, though he probably doesn't intend to do so, he's doing Harry a
favor by reducing the number of adoring fans following him around
(think of the girls who hound Cedric and Krum for autographs in GoF).
One Colin Creevey (who missed out on this lesson, being ten at the
time) is more than plenty. No, I don't credit Snape with altruism in
publicly exposing Harry's ignorance, but I do think he has a reason
for what he's doing and believes it's a good one. (He also, no doubt,
enjoys doing it.) And I think it's most unlikely that Harry will
forget what he learned in this lesson about aconite, bezoars, or what
happens when you add asphodel to wormwood. Maybe these lessons will
never come up in the war against Voldemort (though it wouldn't be a
bad idea to carry a bezoar around if he can find one!), but if they
come up on the OWLS or NEWTS, Harry has it made.

<snip> a bunch of good examples that show an antipathy to Harry and
friends which I don't think anyone denies--but note that Harry in
recent books has not helped matters and Snape had good reason to
suspect him of stealing potion ingredients in GoF. Also note that
Snape has never yet given *Hermione* a detention or an unfair mark,
and he really treats Ron no differently from his other students,
punishing him only when he gets out of line (except for making him cut
up Draco's roots when Draco's arm was supposedly injured). As for
Neville, Snape loathes incompetence and probably thinks he's forcing
Neville to learn. And he may be right, though I won't argue that the
end justifies the means.

Alla: 
> Many argued that Harry is able to handle what Snape throws at him. 
> yes, I said many times that Harry is not Neville, but why shoud it 
> matter? I think Snape's intentions should matter, not Harry's strength.

Carol:
Maybe Snape's intention *is* to make Harry stronger. That's what I
think, anyway. Competence without arrogance or anger, and the ability
to concentrate under pressure. I think that's what he's after. And
it's a lesson Harry really needs to learn.

Alla:
>  But, I think I posted earlier that Snape does manage to make Harry 
> afraid of himself in OOP (to his delight, I am sure :o)).

Carol:
Make Harry afraid of *himself*? Harry afraid of Harry? Not sure what
you mean here. If you mean "make Harry afraid of *him* (Snape)," I'm
not sure I agree. Sure, Harry may be nervous about Snape's reaction in
certain cases, but he shows a similar reaction to Dumbledore or
McGonagall on occasion. No, I don't think that's what Snape is after.
He wants Harry to fear *Voldemort*. I don't mean that he wants him to
be a coward, but he wants him to fully understand what Voldemort can
do to him if he tries to confront him before he's ready. (Suppose that
the wands hadn't been "brothers" and there had been no Phoenix song in
GoF. Harry got lucky--again. And of course, he'd have been finished
off in OoP if Dumbledore hadn't shown up when he did. I think that's
what Snape is trying to get Harry to understand. He's still not ready
 for the ultimate confrontation with Voldemort. And I hope Harry
understands that now.)
> 
Alla (quoting): 
> "Wondering what on earth was doing here, he jumped when Snape's cold 
> voice came out of the corner.
> "Shut the door behind you, Potter."
> Harry did as he was told with the horrible feeling that he was 
> imprisoning himself as he did so." -OOP, paperback, p.529

Carol:
Snape is doing nothing terrible here, and nothing terrible happens.
You're only citing Harry's reaction, which, as it turns out, is
unjustified. Reminds me of all the times he "knows" he's going to die.
> 
Alla (quoting again): 
> "Snape pulled out his wand from an inside pocket of his robes and 
> Harry tensed in his chair, but Snape merely raised the wand to his 
> temple and placed its tip into the greasy roots of his hair" - OOP, 
> paperback, p.533.

Carol:
This example I don't get at all. All Snape is doing is removing
thoughts from his own head, demonstrating a key element of Occlumency
that Harry may never learn (and attempting to protect his own memories
against intrusion). If you're just trying to show that Harry is
afraid, okay. But I think he's merely nervous and there's certainly no
need for fear--as long as he keeps his head out of that Pensieve!
(Maybe Harry is remembering Sirius's warning, which I think was very
ill-advised. Sirius ought have advised him to pay attention and learn
occlumency regardless of who the teacher was. Instead he badly
misleads Harry and helps doom the Occlumency lessons to failure.)

Anyway, you evidently see sadism, a la Umbridge, where I see a
combination of antipathy (which Snape is fighting to overcome in the
Occlumency lessons until Harry's invasion of the Pensieve causes him
to lose the battle) and (motivated) sarcasm. I guess we'll never agree
on this one.

I think it's admirable that Snape repeatedly tries to help Harry
despite his antipathy and against his natural Slytherin inclinations,
out of loyalty to Dumbledore and opposition to Voldemort. In his own
way, he's doing what is right rather than what is easy. (Contrast the
coward Karkaroff.) And I hope he continues to do it till the end of
the series.

Carol, who will be very, very disappointed if Snape rejoins Voldemort
and very sad if he dies