In Defense of Snape (VERY long)
horridporrid03
horridporrid03 at yahoo.com
Sun Jan 16 06:11:15 UTC 2005
No: HPFGUIDX 122060
>> Hester Prinn wrote: (Actually - it was Betsy/Horridporrid. I sent
this post from a different source using my SuperSeekrit Name by
mistake. Sorry!)
<snip>
>First things first, Snape is not the nicest of men.<
>>Alla:
>All right, how can I not answer this one? :o) Keep in mind, that I
will be quoting a lot.
>First and foremost I keep asking this question all the time and I
did not get the satisfactory answer yet.
>So, maybe you can help me out :o)
>Since when in order to be a good human being, you don't have to
be "nice" human being?<
Betsy:
Okay, I'll see what I can do. :) "Nice" is a behavior word. It's
being polite, making sure others are comfortable, writing thank you
letters, showing sympathy to another's suffering. Whereas "Good"
refers to a core set of beliefs. It's what motivates someone to put
aside their own comfort to make life better for humanity.
For example: When Crouch!Moody takes Neville aside after the
Unforgivables class to make sure he's okay, and to buck him up a bit,
Crouch!Moody was being "nice". But since Crouch!Moody had a hand in
Neville's personal experience with the horror of Crucio and probably
would Crucio Neville without blinking an eye, Crouch!Moody is
not "Good".
So Snape is not "nice" to Harry in the books, but he does try and
assist in Voldemort's downfall and keep Harry alive. In that way
Snape is "good". (Unless, of course, he's ESE!Snape - in which case
he's not "good" at all. But that's a whole other ball of wax. <g>)
Generally, folks that are nice are also good. But there are plenty
of examples of not so nice folks who are still good -- the surly
surgeon who joins Doctors without Borders to pick one. And usually
someone who is not good is also not nice. But it's almost a cliche
now that when a serial killer is captured, his neighbors say, "But he
was such a nice man!"
>>Alla:
>I hear this argument all the time. Snape is a good man, but he is
not a nice man. You know, in my book " not nice" quite often
equals "bad" in a worst sense of this word.<
Betsy:
And usually this is so. Thank goodness life is generally more
straightforward than epic fiction. :) But we like a bit of
excitement in our fiction, and the "good" man who is not "nice"
generally makes for a more interesting read. I think it's the whole
Superman vs. Batman argument. How dark do you want your hero to be?
Snape is dark. But that doesn't mean he's bad.
>>Nora in 121315 said:
>Is it proper to draw the line between methods and broader objectives
for Snape, who often *does* seem intent upon causing emotional harm
to the students (I'm thinking specifically Neville here, but there
are other instances, oft-debated, that come to mind)? You know, the
also oft-debated 'sadistic' descriptor (JKR's words, not only mine),
for someone who gets enjoyment out of the discomfiture of others.
<snip>
Betsy:
Hmmm. I was using the definition of sadism as someone who gets
pleasure out of another's *pain*. (I think someone had suggested
that Snape would be all over corporal punishment.) I do think Snape
enjoys being feared, but I don't think he's trying to break Neville.
(Which is good, because he doesn't. Break Neville, I mean.) I think
he's got a very sharp wit, and he enjoys using it. I think he does
*not* suffer fools. At all. And Neville (though I love him) is a
bit of a fool. I think Snape spends very little time thinking about
his students' emotional well-being. Whether building it up, or
tearing it down. What he does think about is teaching them Potions
and he has his methods. (I am not including Harry in this - he's a
special case.)
>>Nora (same message as above):
>I think niceness is an underrated virtue, to be honest. I'm talking
about the genuine article, without the connotations of fakeness that
it so often carries. I would rather formulate it this way: to treat
people in a way that is not nice is not a trivial thing, but rather a
statement of how you regard that person and their right to
subjectivity. It is not generally possible to be a *good* person
without treating people well.
>So you can be someone who is not a good person, but still does some
good things.<
Betsy:
Nice can be good. But I live in the SouthEast of the United States
(where "nice" can be used as an aggressive weapon) and I come from
the NorthEast (where rudeness can be a finely honed skill and a weird
sign of affection). Social skills are a good thing to have, but
they're no guarantee of a person's depths of goodness. Just as
another point of view.
>>Nora in 113106 said:
>Snape was Neville's worst fear in PoA. Granted, Neville is tough and
he seems to have gotten past some of that...but that is telling. Let
me throw in a great quote here, although it doesn't completely apply.
>"What is moral cruelty? It is not just a matter of hurting someone's
feelings. It is deliberate and persistent humiliation, so that the
victim can eventually trust neither himself nor anyone else."
>If Neville were less tough, or had less supportive friends, I can
see him turning out that way. And it's absolutely no excuse for Snape
that he didn't, unless you *want* to play a strict no-harm-no-foul
rule on ethics, here.<
Betsy:
Snape is a scary teacher. I don't deny that. He's not nice to
Neville. I don't deny that either. I'm afraid I'm going to sound
fairly heartless here, but Snape is not responsible for Neville's
emotional well-being. He is responsible for teaching Neville
Potions, which he does. Frankly, the fact that Snape is Neville's
worst fear suggests that Neville leads a fairly nice life.
>>Betsy:
>But Harry is also a celebrity, and Hogwarts is abuzz. The students
are all excited, but the teachers aren't immune either. (Witness
Flitwick falling off his desk in excitement in PS on pg. 133.) Snape
is establishing that Harry's fame will not get him anywhere in
Snape's classroom. Harry will be judged on his potion abilities and
nothing more. This particular motive is not a bad one. Snape has
not met Harry yet, and I imagine there was a real worry that his fame
would go to his head. Snape is nipping a potential problem in the
bud.<
>>Alla:
>Forgive me, but I am now going to quote from my post 113925, because
I said it quite a few times.
>"In regard to your next point - please, please, don't think that I
am picking up on you, please feel free to disagree as much as you
can, but I think that if I hear again "slapping Harry's ego down" as
justification of Snape's abuse of him, I am going to bang my head
against the wall. :o)
>Harry did not have ANY ego to be slapped down, when Snape attacked
him on the first lesson.
>Harry did not have any ego to be slapped down, when Snape kept
reminding him how bad his dead father was.
>Harry did not have any ego to be slapped down, when in GOF he tried
to find Dumbledore to tell him about Moody and Snape kept mocking him
instead, etc.,etc.
>Harry is being angry in OOP (and often undeservingly) was so not the
equivalent of swollen ego, but normal adolescent reaction at being
fed up of people keeping him in the dark, IMO."<
Betsy:
First of all, I wasn't talking about Harry's ego or lack of ego. I'm
talking about what may have been motivating Snape. Snape had not yet
interacted with Harry, but he would be aware of how students and
staff were looking at Harry. Later on, I think Snape *is* worried
that Harry will get too big for his britches. He knew his father
after all, and James was an arrogant boy (not a bad boy necessarily,
but an arrogant one). We, the readers, know Harry doesn't have an
overblown ego, but Snape is not privy to Harry's inner thoughts.
Instead Snape must base his conclusions on Harry's actions. And
Harry does show a certain disregard for rules, and he does show a
certain contempt for Snape, and Snape is therefore not completely out
of line to think that perhaps Harry thinks he is above the other
Hogwarts students.
I'm not going to try and argue that Snape is being totally altruistic
when it comes to Harry. He tends to expect the worst of Harry, and
so he sees plots where there are none (just as Harry does of Snape
actually). I do think Snape gets a certain satisfaction out of
slapping Harry down (again - the James factor cannot be overlooked)
so I don't think he's all, "I will selflessly make sure Harry turns
out well," at least not if he's honest with himself. But I also
doubt Snape is skulking around his dungeons trying to figure out the
best way to make Harry cry, as some posters seem to imply.
>>Alla wrote in 112968:
>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 causing other human beings emotional pain comes back over and
over again.
>I am having a lot of trouble calling such person a "good one"<
<snip of several examples>
Betsy:
Snape has a sharp wit, and he does enjoy using it. That's why I
wouldn't call him "nice." But that does not mean that he is not
a "good" man. When push comes to shove, Snape is there to try and
help Harry when he is in danger -- though Harry rarely acknowledges
it.
>>Betsy:
>But there's another motive that Snape would have forefront in his
mind. Especially with the recent Death Eater activity. Remember,
Snape is not just a teacher, he's a spy. And the known top dog of
the Death Eaters appears to be (and Snape would most likely know for
sure - though we, the readers, don't) Lucius Malfoy. It makes a
whole lot of sense for Snape to seem very anti-Harry Potter in front
of Malfoy's son, Draco. In fact, it would be stupid for Snape to
appear any other way.<
>>Alla:
>Keep in mind that it is NOT a given that he is a spy, it is NOT a
given that Voldemort does not know that Snape betrayed him, therefore
I am not sure whether this motive even comes into play.<
Betsy:
Okay, I think it *is* a given that Snape is a spy. There are a lot
of hints dropped around, but Snape finally states it in OotP.
"That is just as well, Potter," said Snape coldly, "because you are
neither special nor important, and it is not up to you to find out
what the Dark Lord is saying to his Death Eaters."
"No -- that's your job, isn't it?" Harry shot at him.
[...]
"Yes, Potter," he said, his eyes glinting. "That is my job." (OotP
Scholastic ed. pg. 591)
It can't get much clearer than that.
And I think it *is* a given that Snape does go back to Voldemort. In
GoF, Voldemort lists three missing Death Eaters. We know that one is
Crouch, Jr., one is Karkaroff, and one is Snape. Voldemort calls one
his "most faithful servant [...] He is at Hogwarts, that faithful
servant, and it was through his efforts that our young friend arrived
here tonight..." Obviously - this is Crouch, Jr. The other missing
Death Eater "has left me forever... he will be killed, of course."
That must be Karkaroff. If it was Snape, he'd be keeping Sirius
company at Grimmauld Place or be locked up within Hogwarts. And
Lucius Malfoy would not speak highly of Snape to Umbridge (OotP pg.
745). Which means Snape is the Death Eater, "too cowardly to
return... he will pay." (GoF Scholastic, paperback, pgs. 651-2)
What else was Dumbledore sending Snape off to do at the end of GoF?
Snape paled and even Dumbledore was apprehensive (ibid pg. 713).
Again, it seems fairly obvious to me that Snape is about to return to
Voldemort and take whatever payment Voldemort will dish out to him.
>>Alla:
>I think it would make much more sense for Snape to be NICE to Harry,
if he is indeed a double agent...<
Betsy:
I don't think Snape is a *double* agent. He's a spy, spying on
Voldemort for Dumbledore. I don't think Voldemort has any clue that
Snape is in a position to spy on Dumbledore's Order. So yes, it does
actually make sense that Snape treat Harry badly to keep Voldemort in
the dark as to his true place by Dumbledore's side.
>>Betsy:
<snip>
>The easiest way to keep up appearances is to be mean to Dumbledore's
golden child, especially as Dumbledore's grip on the school is
slipping. The fact that Harry so closely resembles someone Snape
obviously loathed probably made Snape's job easier, but I honestly
think that until Harry stuck his head into Snape's Pensieve, most of
it was role-play. Once Harry did the equivalent of reading Snape's
personal journal, I do think Snape was genuinely furious with
Harry.<
>>Alla:
>Hmmm. Oscarwinning!Snape... I am sorry, I am not buying. First and
foremost because I am not sure that Snape ever returned to Voldemort.
I think that he either does something we don't suspect yet. or spies
by unconventional methods, which have nothing to do with returning to
Voldemort. JMO, of course.<
Betsy:
No, not Oscarwinning. Harry does push Snape's buttons, so it's not
like Snape's faking his dislike. I think he does exaggerate it a
bit, though. It's interesting that when he's totally furious he
*ignores* Harry, which is very unlike his usual treatment.
And again, it's pretty straightforward that Snape is Dumbledore's
spy, just as he was in the past. Of course, you can read things
another way, but I'm taking the most obvious surface reading rather
than the more twisty ones.
>>Betsy:
>And frankly, Snape's anger was understandable. Throughout the
Occlumency lessons, Harry's behavior was pretty bad, and he was
obviously not trying. I know this has been debated 'til the cows
come home, but barring any ulterior motive not yet revealed, Snape
was trying to teach the boy, and the boy was unwilling to learn.
Snape was endangering his role by spending private time with Harry,
and Harry was basically making Snape's risk meaningless.<
>>Alla:
>This was indeed debated many times, but I would say that Harry's
anger was understandable. And NO, we don't know whether Snape was
willing to teach the boy, or Dumbledore simply forced him to do so.<
Betsy:
I never said Snape was "willing" to teach Harry. I'm sure Dumbledore
gave him no choice. But Snape was there and he gave Harry
instruction, and Harry did not follow those instructions.
>>Alla:
>And I certainly would not call what Snape did "teaching", but more
like falling into hysterics and insults, every time Harry did
something he did not like.<
Betsy:
You'll have to quote me canon. I don't recall Snape getting
hysterical, nor being uncharacteristically insulting towards Harry
during any of their lessons together.
>>Alla:
>NO, we DON'T KNOW for sure that he is spy.
Betsy:
We know Snape is a spy as much as we know that Lupin is not ESE. In
otherwords to say Snape isn't a spy you have to disprove a lot of
what the books say. And as I stated in the begining, I'm going with
a straightforward reading.
>> Alla in 113962 said:
<snip>
>I am not saying that Snape is JUST a nasty man who hates kids and
can't tell Harry from James, but I am definitely saying that he IS
nasty man who hates kids and can't tell Harry from James, in addition
to that character quality, he , IMO has many other qualities, some of
which I like very much.<
Betsy:
I think Draco Malfoy and most of Slytherin House would argue against
Snape hating kids. :) (Actually - I think if Snape really did hate
children, he'd have never been appointed Head of House.) And I think
Snape is well aware that Harry is not James, especially after the
Occlumency lessons. But I do think that Snape is not the type of
person to coddle children, just because they are children.
Betsy
More information about the HPforGrownups
archive