Snape, Hagrid and Animals

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 143836

leslie41 wrote:

> But should my instincts fail me, and should Snape actually 
> be "bad," the child reading the story would just think "Oh of 
> course Snape is evil.  He's ugly and not very nice.  Harry was 
> right about him all along."
> 
> The child would then feel vindicated in their assessment of Snape, 
> which is an assessment that draws mostly on surface demeanor and 
> appearance.  The "lesson" there that's reinforced is that people 
> who aren't nice and aren't attractive don't usually turn out to be 
> good.  


But it isn't based on appearance, at least not totally.  Hagrid isn't 
exactly a beauty plate, and neither is Lupin or Molly Weasley or 
Dumbledore or McGonnagall.  It is based on Snape's attitudes and 
actions, and that most definitely means he is not good.  He is, in 
fact, guilty of child abuse, if not in its most flagrant form.

I think the much more insidious and harmful message would be: "It's 
okay if someone is nasty and hateful and abusive as long as they do 
good in the world."  Absolute and total nonsense - and also not 
something I think JKR believes.

Which, I think, is one reason that many of us see various versions of 
Grey!Snape.  Grey!Snape allows him to do genuine good without denying 
or excusing the evil, or releasing him from punishment for it.  Which 
teaches the valuable lesson that "yes, nasty people can do good, but 
they are still nasty, and that is still very wrong and must be dealt 
with."  Which would be a much more valuable lesson than "nice isn't 
the same as good."


Lupinlore