Is Snape nice or good?

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 127457


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Magda Grantwich 
<mgrantwich at y...> wrote:

<snip>

> I did not label everyday behaviour as superficial, at least not in
> the way you're implying.  What I said (and I thought I was clear) 
> was that what you see on the surface can be different from what a 
> person is really like.  Lockhart is a pleasant nice person in 
> public but is a supremely selfish cowardly person inside and the 
> public display is strictly camouflage.  If you're going to consider 
> everyday behaviour then you have to consider ALL the everyday 
> behaviour.

I would agree with this--although I would say the problem is that 
Lockhart is insincere in his daily behavior, which makes it a 
slightly different valuation.

The question that I am deeply conflicted on and don't think there's 
enough canon to decide about is how sincere Snape is, in some of his 
actions.

And let me clear up one thing; I was thinking of everyday behavior as 
opposed to something like behavior towards a specific 
mission/goal/whatever.  That's a distinction I would like to make 
because the defense is made for Snape that "Oh, it doesn't matter so 
much how he behaves in the classroom because he's out risking his 
life on missions".  Exceptional behavior as opposed to general 
habitus.  I'm suggesting there are ways of thinking about ethics that 
are not so interested in that kind of distinction.  I'm not sure if 
canon is tilting to one or the other, yet.

<snippity>

> Snape despises victims, starting with his younger self.  Victims
> deserve whatever they get.
> 
> But while he despises victims, Snape really HATES bullies who abuse
> their power and don't obey the rules.

Then what this gets at is: why is Snape a bully himself?  I'm willing 
to buy the authorial voice here as to the "teacher who abuses his 
authority", because one has to rationalize too many things away to 
clear him of that charge (while making it clear that he is certainly 
not Umbridge, either).  Perhaps he rationalizes that since he is in 
authority, to some extent he is the embodiment of the rules and thus 
cannot be breaking them as a student bully would be.  Snape is 
certainly somewhat biased in his enforcement of codes of conduct, 
going easy on Draco Malfoy, refusing to note the Gryffindor Quidditch 
player hexed by the Slytherins despite all the witnesses.

If he were fully equal-opportunity, this wouldn't bother me (and I 
suspect others) as much as it does.  But even with the Harry's POV 
filter, there's some strong bias going on.  There may well be 
objective reasons for it.  It will be interesting to see how it 
meshes with whatever he's doing for the Order, which we have no idea 
what it actually is.

> So to return to the subject line: yes, Snape is good - because he
> knows what it's like to be really bad and he rejected it.  He's not
> nice but niceness ain't going to win any battles against DE's. 
> Molly's nice but her idea of preparing kids for the battle ahead is
> worse than useless.

I'd say that's a false dichotomy, and there's an excluded middle 
walking around here somewhere.  Nice isn't necessarily going to win 
battles against the DEs, but cooperation amongst members of the Order 
is--and civil, acceptible behavior towards people is a large part of 
building that cohesion.  Being demanding does not require being 
nasty, as McGonagall proves to us.  One does not have to be either 
Snape or Molly, after all.

-Nora turns the pages and reads through the Hours