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