In Defense of Snape (long)

naamagatus naama_gat at hotmail.com
Sun Jan 16 22:36:20 UTC 2005


No: HPFGUIDX 122108


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> wrote:
> 
> 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? <
> 
> Pippin:
> Snape doesn't trust everyone that Harry trusts. Do you think 
> Snape wanted Harry telling Quirrell that Snape treats him okay 
> when they're alone?
> 
>  Naama:
> > 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?<
> 
> Pippin:
>  Snape's  hidden agenda is revealed when we would expect 
> nasty behavior and don't get it; in OOP when he gives Umbridge 
> fake veritaserum (the Order's secrets are in little danger since 
> they are under fidelius), in GoF when he stands with the others 
> to honor Harry at the leaving feast,  in PoA when he conjures 
> stretchers for Harry and the others,  in CoS when he has a 
> "shrewd and calculating look" instead of the discomfiture you 
> would expect if his sole purpose in having Draco conjure the 
> snake was to humiliate Harry, and of course in PS/SS when we 
> find he has been shadowing Harry not to get him into trouble but 
> to protect him from Quirrell.
> 

I'm not arguing that Snape isn't on the side of the Good, or that he isn't (now) doing the 
double spy thing. The question is, is it legitimate to theorize that various aspects of 
Snape's behavior which are not directly connected to the Good Fight (such as his behavior in 
class and generally to Harry) - are part of an elaborate masquerade? This has nothing to do 
with the incidents you refer to above, all of which have to do with fighting for the Cause -
 and like I said, I don't doubt his basic allegiance. 


> His words are nasty, but that goes back to the nice vs good 
> conundrum. "Nice" is dependent on social convention, whereas 
> most of us like to think goodness is not. Whether it's nice to 
> belch at the table depends on who you're dining with; the Queen 
> of England or a South Seas islander. 
> 
> There are cultures where casual insults are just the way you 
> establish yourself in the pecking order...I remember reading a 
> translator's note to the stories of Sholem Aleichem which 
> explained that all the insults had been toned down, because no 
> English-speaker would believe that people who actually liked 
> each other could talk like that.

You are totally disregarding here the tone of voice, the viciousness, the sneer, the cold 
eyes, etc. There is absolutely nothing "casual" about the way he insults - certainly not 
when it comes to Harry or Neville.

> 
> Slytherin is definitely one of those. When Draco tells "Goyle" that 
> if he were any slower he'd be going backward, he's asserting his 
> social dominance, not trying to pick a fight. 

Draco is nasty too, and depicted as such, (not to mention described as such in interviews). 
So he's a bad example of the "casual insulter". Besides which, although not nice to "Goyle", 
there is a huge difference in tone when you compare that with the way he speaks to Harry, 
and with the way Snape speaks to Harry.


> Phineas Nigellus is 
> as insolent to Dumbledore as he dares to be, because that's his 
> way of saying, "I was a Headmaster too." He makes a big show 
> of not co-operating, but it's clear that he does. 
> Sirius falls back into this way of relating at Grimmauld Place and 
> tears into Kreacher, though he preaches, as a good 
> Gryffindor, that you are judged by how you treat your inferiors.

I don't agree that Sirius "tears into Kreacher". If anything, it's the other way around. (If 
that disgusting little creature had talked to me the way he did to Sirius, there would have 
been another head on the wall.) And, in any case, just because Sirius is not being nice to 
Kreature, doesn't make him "fall back into" any kind of way of relating. "A way of relating" 
implies habit, consistency. Phineas Nigellus is obviously in the habit of behaving in the 
annoying way he has - Sirius isn't. 

> 
> Snape has, by the conventions of Slytherin House, and of 
> authoritarian societies generally, the privilege of insulting his 
> inferiors. If he didn't exercise it, he'd be no true Slytherin and he 
> would lose the respect of his House. How much genuine spleen 
> there is behind the insults is anyone's guess, but we know that 
> Harry tends to equate  casual put-downs and hatred, so he's not 
> our best witness. He's convinced that Lily hated James and that 
> Sirius hated Kreacher, and he's told this was not so.
> 


Lily, at that point, did dislike James. Sirius and Lupin say as much. Sirius certainly 
disliked Kreacher. "This is all Harry's point of view" is a two edged argument. For 
instance, when you quote above the "shrewed and calculated look" - one could argue back, 
very simply, that since this is all from Harry's perspective, we can't know what Snape's 
expression was really like at that moment. Maybe he was, in fact, simply contemplating 
what's for dinner? 

It leads to the same sort of arbitrariness in interpretation as playacting!Snape. You apply 
it in order to undermine the straight meaning of the text in one place, while leaveing other 
places undisturbed. What's the criteria? 



Naama 








More information about the HPforGrownups archive