Admonishing Snape

[eloise_herisson]

No: HPFGUIDX 129678

> Potioncat:
> I really don't know why Snape is allowed to treat students the way 
he 
> does. What is JKR thinking/saying here? Perhaps JKR and DD know 
> something about Snape we don't. Perhaps they, or at least DD, care 
> about Snape and are making allowances.

Eloise:
I'm sure they both know a lot. ;-)

But before we ask why Dumbldeore allows Snape to treat students the 
way he does, I think we have to ask two questions. First, does 
Dumbledore actually *know* how he treats students and secondly why 
doesn't he interfere with all the other bad teaching that goes on at 
Hogwarts?

The latter is a question that has been asked in the past, but posters 
tend to get particularly fixated on Snape's deficiencies. I am not 
commenting on those deficiencies, merely suggesting that they need to 
be put into a wider context of a school which has a number of 
teachers who, in there different ways, are far from ideal: a 
talentless Divination teacher (known by Dumbledore to be so, with the 
exception of the two prophecies), in PoA a charlatan of a DADA 
teacher (and surely Dumbledore knew that), Hagrid who (through the 
creatures he picks) is a danger to life and limb to all who set foot 
in his class, a History teacher who puts everyone in his classes to 
sleep. Why are any of these allowed to teach? I would suggest it is a)
(within the books) possibly because Dumbledore wants them there for 
reasons other than their teaching abilities (I wonder if Binns *will* 
come into his own one of these days?) and b) (external to the books)
because they are colourful characters whom JKR chooses to use as part 
of the background to the real story.

It would seem that Snape gets decent results from his class. Does 
Dumbledore *know* how he treats his students? Possibly not. Although 
he gives the initial impression of being omniscient, we soon learn 
that there are many things of which he is either unaware or to which 
he chooses to turn a blind eye, MWWP's exploits for a start, or so it 
is implied.

Potioncat:
> Picture it now: Yearly Evaluation, DD says, "Well, Severus, you've 
> made improvements. This year we only had 10 complaints from 
students' 
> parents.  Keep up the good work and let's make 5 our goal for next 
> year..." 

Eloise:

I wonder whether in the Tough wizarding world there would be 
complaints from parents. Yes, they'd complain about a werewolf 
teaching their children, but those who'd been through Hogwarts in the 
days before Dumbledore was would be just as likely to tell their 
children to stop whinging and be glad that they're no longer subject 
to whipping or being hung from the ceiling in chains. 

Harry and Neville are the two who suffer most. We know that Harry 
doesn't complain, doesn't confide in Dumbledore, which is just as 
well, or the plot lines would be ruined. Would Neville? Hermione? 
Children in these kind of stories don't complain, they get on with it 
themselves.

I am afraid that I am one of those readers, who although I can 
immerse myself in fantasy as much as the next person (don't ask) 
when it comes to discussing these books cannot forget that this is 
what they are: books. Now yes, JKR does seem to be giving various 
moral messages. But she is also telling a thoroughly good story and 
there are devices, including compelling and intriguing 
characterisation, which simply make stories better, more interesting 
and I am not convinced that there is a message in every aspect. Nor 
do I think that there is a necessity to take an overt moral stance on 
everything. I don't believe JKR is condoning or making allowances for 
his behaviour, just recording what "really" happened in her fictional 
world, just as Dickens recorded the wrongs that happened to children 
in Victorian England.

JKR described Snape as "a gift of a character." Surely he is a gift 
exactly because he's so genuinely nasty, yet we know (hope, believe) 
he's on the right side. He's a gift because he's an enigma, because 
we don't understand what's going on with him. His relationship with 
Harry is the epitome of that conundrum as he repeatedly protects or 
attempts to protect this boy for whom (for reasons that seem not to 
be fully disclosed - another mystery) he harbours a genuine and deep- 
seated hatred. If Snape were not the nasty git almost all of us 
either love or love to hate, then he would not hold his perennial 
fascination, he would not be that gift of a character and this board 
would be a lot quieter.

Which brings me to a final point, which is that in this series, which 
is influence by so many different genre, one of the necessary 
features seems to be that the protagonist is always fighting against 
something. Now ultimately, he is fighting Voldemort, but it is the 
essence of the heroic element of the stories that the hero keeps 
coming across new difficulties and hurdles to cross in pursuit of 
that final aim. Snape frequently performs that function. He gets in 
the way, he puts him down, he acts as a lesser, foreground enemy, 
maintaining tension when the real enemy is in the background.

I would be interested to know what others think the effect on the 
story would be if Snape were a nice guy who treated his pupils fairly.

~Eloise