In Defense of Snape (long)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 122126


>>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?<

Betsy:
I agree with Pippin that Snape doesn't trust Harry's judgment.  And 
often when Snape and Harry are alone together, Snape has just caught 
Harry breaking a school rule, and usually placing himself in some 
danger. (Which wouldn't help Snape in the whole, trusting Harry's 
judgement thing. <g>)  I think Snape honestly thinks Harry is 
careless and foolhardy, so he tries to curtail that behavior, in 
his inimitable snarky way.
 
>>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.<

>>Naama: 
>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.<

Betsy:
I think it *is* legitimate to theorize that Snape's behavior is 
affected by his need to maintain his cover as a true Death Eater.  
But I agree that if it was an "elaborate masquerade" that Snape was 
trying to perform, there would be a need to show canon where Snape 
dropped character and became an entirely different personality.

However, I do not think Snape is creating an entirely different 
persona.  For one, he's trying to fool people who've known him since 
he was a boy -- a new persona would be jarring.  What Snape is doing 
(in my opinion) is tweaking his behavior in fairly mild ways.  His 
dismissal of Harry's plea about Snuffles in Umbridge's office in OotP 
was in character - Snape being Snape, especially when it came to 
Harry.  But we know that Snape was lying.  He knew exactly what Harry 
was talking about and he took immediate action to do as Harry had 
asked.  It was a masquerade, but not all that elaborate. 

Betsy