In Defense of Snape (long)

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 122068


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "snow15145" <snow15145 at y...> 
wrote:
> 
I really hate to get into a Snape debate on his teaching methods but 
it is too compelling, can't help myself. First off Snape is not only 
> a teacher but is also a spy, this can cause conflict in what Snape 
> normally would have seen as a proper teaching method. Not only does 
Snape need to cross over between the spy and the teacher but also the 
> fact of his appearance and eventually, at least to Harry, a former 
> death-eater status. That's quite a performer who can take on such a 
work load and still manage to produce the most lament students to do 
> well on their OWLS, at least the exams appear to have gone well for 
> both Harry and Neville.  
> 
Snape the spy is teaching class in front of death-eaters sons, would 
it not be wise for Snape to appear to be of Slytherin like tendency? 
Does Snape really have a choice not to be more than rude in front of 
> his former colleagues sons? It does sell the point to them at the 
> very least, which is very good if Snape wants to remain as the rest 
> of his former colleagues have done; which is to appear to take up 
> residence on the side of good. 


Naama:

I have two objections to make here. One, on a plot leve. Second one, 
on a "meta" level, regarding the methodology of interpretation.

My first point is - if Snape is nasty to Harry et al. in order to 
maintain his spy cover - why is he even nastier to Harry when they 
are alone? You would think that those would be the moments when he 
can relax from the burden of playacting all the time and show just 
how much he admires, loves and cherishes Harry. 

Second point - which holds to most conspiracy theories, actually. If 
you hold a theory that explains a character's behavior in terms of a 
hidden agenda, you have to be very careful about consistency of 
interpretation. For instance, taken one by one, which of Snape's 
moments of nastiness do you interprete as necessitated by spy cover, 
and which are authentic, expressing his true feelings and 
personality? I don't think any of the spy-cover theorists are making 
the argument that Snape is really a sweet, good-natured, lovable sort 
of fellow, right? As far as I remember, they all admit that he is, to 
some vaguely drawn point, pretty nasty. But then, according to what 
evidence do you distinguish authentic from inauthentic nastiness? 
Clearly, JKR is *not* signalling this in the text at all. This is not 
merely IMO - I haven't seen a single argument of this type that 
points to something in the text that signalls transition to or from 
spy-cover mode. Snape is described in the same way (glittering black 
eyes, silky voice, etc.) in all the incidents (he is, in fact, more 
vicious when alone with Harry, more openly antagonistic, than when 
they are in class); nothing that is reported of Harry's thoughts or 
perceptions is different. (Compare this, for instance, to the scene 
between Snape and Lupin and the map - we are signalled that something 
is going on underneath the surface by the mention of Lupin's closed 
expression and so on.)
So, as there is no evidence in the text, what are we left with? 
Randomly, arbitrarily assigning authentic/inauthentic interpretations 
to the various Snape incidents. Which, to be blunt, reflects nothing 
more than the theorist's preferences. 

Snow:
<snip>
> 
> Snape knows how far he can push Harry or even Neville because he 
> knows who they are through his legilemency powers. 
> 
Take Neville he appears to be afraid but, as it all turns out, we see 
at the end of OOP that Neville has superior bravery. Snape could see 
> this and knows that he can push Neville beyond his apparent limits. 

Naama:

We are *told* that Neville did well in his OWL because *Snape wasn't 
there*. Neville did not do well at all in Snape's classes, he did not 
do well in four years of end-of-term tests in potions. He did do well 
in Herbology - where he wasn't "pushed beyond his apparent limits", 
but treated fairly and with patience. 

Besides, whether Snape knew his treatment of Neville wasn't going 
beyong his limits or not - he was continually *hurting* him. Since 
when has it become ok to hurt people, as long as you don't actually 
destroy them? 

Snow:
<snip> 
> Then we get into the aspect of whether or not Snape is actually 
> attempting to play the good side or not. I will defiantly admit to 
being a fence sitter on this one, which does not denounce what I have 
said above. Whether Snape is good or evil he still needs to play the 
part, this is why there have been more posts created on Snape than on 
> Harry, or else one or the other will suspect him. No one can be 
> accurately certain that Snape is good or evil, which is what makes 
> him a great character!  


Naama:

I'm actually pretty certain that Snape, when it comes to basic 
Light/Dark allegiance, is on the side of Light. However, this would 
lose a lot of poignancy if Snape's nastiness wasn't authentic. If we 
find that "really" his personality is different from what we have 
seen on the surface, it would take all the tortured out of Snape, 
wouldn't it? And that would be .. well, boring. I mean, that's what 
Snape brings to the story -  he's the unhappy, brooding, tortured 
soul (wherein lies his infamous attraction). Explain away too much of 
his darkness, and you get bland!Snape - which I'm sure you wouldn't 
like half as much, anyway. 



Naama