In Defense of Snape (long)

[naamagatus]

No: HPFGUIDX 122385


--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
wrote:
> 
> 
> Naama:
> . Phineas Nigellus is obviously in the habit of behaving in the 
> > annoying way he has - Sirius isn't. 
> 
> Pippin:
> Except with Kreacher, who was "a living reminder of the home he 
> hated." You remember what Sirius's mum was like, don't you? 
> That's what Sirius grew up with, and IMO, it comes out when he 
> has to deal with people he dislikes, like Kreacher and Snape.
> 
> The culture of insult doesn't mean that Slytherins never insult 
> each other for other reasons, but it does mean that any Slytherin 
> could come up with insults without feeling deep-rooted hostility. 
> Snape doesn't have to hate Hermione to come up with the tooth 
> remark, and he and Sirius don't have to be mortal enemies to 
> get into that silly almost-duel. 

If there was indeed a Slytherin culture of insults, then the 
Slytherins ought to be far less sensitive to insults levered at them. 
But, if when Draco insults Ron's family, he is doing it in a casual 
way, "without feeling deep-rooted hostility", why does he get so 
offended when Harry retaliates by insulting Draco's mother? The 
Slytherins may be quicker to insult but they are just as quick as 
others to take offense. This means that it's not a matter of 
different codes of behavior but of different personality traits - the 
Slytherins are simply more unpleasant, they are less considerate of 
the other's feelings, etc. 

More importantly, when you say "culture of insult", it elevates what 
is simply unpleasantness into something else. It brings a kind of 
post-modern, relative flavor to the understanding of the Potterverse. 
Since the Slytherins have their own culture, we can't judge them 
according to our criteria. It's an interesting point of view, but I 
think that it completely contradicts JKR's point of view. 

There is also no indication that each house has a culture, or sub-
culture of its own. Neither in the interaction of the Gryffindors 
within themselves or with other house members do we get a sense of 
seperate ways of understanding the world or of internal codes of 
behavior.  

> 
> Naama:
> > 
> > Lily, at that point, did dislike James. Sirius and Lupin say as 
> much. Sirius certainly  disliked Kreacher. "<snip>
> > 
> > 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? <
> 
> Pippin:
> You mean, there should be some kind of 'tell' that Snape is 
> acting? But it's the mark of a good actor that there aren't any! 
Did 
> you know that Quirrell was acting? Riddle?  Fake!Moody? But 
> maybe we can find one...

I mean that to postulate that a characters's most characteristic 
behavior is not authentic (to some degree), calls for textual proof. 
 
> 
> Harry *does* have trouble telling the difference between dislike 
> and hatred, it's one of those subtle distinctions he's not good at. 
> Hagrid tells him that Snape doesn't hate him, Sirius tells him 
> that Lily didn't hate James, and Dumbledore tells him that Sirius 
> didn't hate Kreacher, though in each case there's obviously 
> dislike. JKR is clearly making some kind of a point here.

If she is, I don't know what it is - that people's negative feelings 
for each other have many and varied shades? It still doesn't 
undermine the fact that Harry perceives people's basic emotions 
fairly accurately - even if he is not very sophisticated in analyzing 
their exact nature.

> We do know that at least one of Snape's sneers is not prompted 
> by hatred. The sneer in Umbridge's office, which Harry 
> characterizes as 'usual' is only pretence. So, according to your 
> premise, that would make  Snape's usual sneers pretence, 
> right?

I'm not sure what you mean by my "premise", but I'll try to answer 
anyway. My argument isn't on the plot level (in which it makes some 
sense that a double spy would be acting a lot of the time), but about 
methodology of interpretation - when is it valid to interpret a 
character's behavior as inauthentic?
In Umbridge's office, Snape is acting - he is actually against 
Umbridge and wants to help Harry and certainly save Neville, but he 
has to achieve this end without giving himself away. 
However, the *reader* is fully aware of this - at this point, the 
reader knows where Snape's allegiance lies, knows that Snape is loyal 
to DD and part of the OoP. Snape has a hidden agenda - but it is 
hidden from Umbrige, not from us. In this case, there is no need for 
the text to signal us that Snape is being inauthentic - we know it. 
But these are special circumstances. When it comes to ordinary, daily 
behavior - we have to take it as indicative of a character's true 
personality, or admit that we have absolutely no way of telling what 
a character's true personality is. Snape comes off as nasty - this is 
his normal mode, this is how he behaves *all the time.* To interpret 
his behavior as acting means, if we are to be consistent, that he is 
opaque to us. That his true personality might be anything - he might 
be actually the sweetest guy in the world, or even more horrible than 
Voldemort. That is - unless the text signals us authenticiy vs. 
acting - which, the "glitter" experiment notwithstanding, it doesn't.

<snip>
> 
> We get the glints and glitters when Snape accuses Harry of 
> being like his father, and when Snape is in the Shrieking Shack, 
> but *not* when he accuses Harry of helping Sirius escape. They 
> appear when Snape accuses Harry of invading his office but 
> *not* when he reads the Witch Weekly article, and interestingly, 
> not when Snape finds Harry in the pensieve . There's anger 
> there, definitely, but not hate, not if you believe the glitter 
clue.
> 

Nope. Sorry. I don't. It's far too arcane. 



Naama