Harry IS Snape.

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 141305

Eggplant: 
> Actually I think a nasty uncompassionate man with no empathy is the
> very definition of evil, and I certainly don't understand why a person
> with those tendencies would be loyal to Dumbledore and devote 16 years
> of his life to defeating Voldemort.
> 

Pippin:
IMO, this confuses temperament with character. 'Temperament' refers to
those psychological tendencies which are apparently biological in 
origin and can't be changed by an act of will. We all know some people
are 'easy' -- they're sociable, adaptable, sunny, calm, patient, enduring,
in short, they're Ron. Snape, OTOH, seems to have been constructed by
turning all the temperamental dials as far towards 'difficult' as they will
go. He's "unpredictable, withdrawing, non-adaptable to change, extremely 
negative and very intense." *

People who are born that way soon exhaust their caregivers, who
are apt to wonder what they've done to deserve such a difficult child.
The child meanwhile learns that he cannot be himself without provoking
others to anger, and not surprisingly he learns to experience the world
as a very hostile place. It's a tough row to hoe.

But none of that has anything to do with what Rowling considers 
goodness -- the moral courage to set self-gratification aside, whether 
what gratifies you is causing pain or feeling helpful, and do what 
is truly best for others. 

The virtue Snape exercised in saving Harry's life was not
that he saved it -- as Alla rightly points out any responsible adult
would have done that. But none of the responsible adults who were
present ever noticed that Harry's broom was being hexed, because what
they saw was either a reckless Gryffindor showoff or a hapless Muggle-
raised firstie who couldn't control his broom. 

Hermione, of course, knew that Harry was neither of those things. But
Snape didn't know, and  yet he still thought to look beyond the easy 
and gratifying answer and search  for a possible attacker instead of 
smirking, "I thought so" and sitting  back to watch  with 
a sneer on his face. If only he could have exercised as much virtue
in the Shrieking Shack! But on the Quidditch pitch he could act 
anonymously -- at the Shrieking Shack he had a part to play. It's not
surprising that Snape would learn to be good at occlumency and acting,
considering that his sincere feelings would make him miserable company 
for anybody but a saint.

I can well believe that Snape had true loyalty to Dumbledore, because
Dumbledore is probably the only person Snape ever met  who could 
accept Snape for what he was and see that there was goodness in him.

I can also imagine that Voldemort pretended to be that person,
and had Snape's loyalty until he made the mistake of letting Snape
know that he was going after Lily and James on Snape's information.

I can  believe that no matter how horrible Snape believed himself
to be, he clung to the knowledge that unlike those supposedly more
virtuous folks, James and Sirius and Lupin, *he* was not a killer. 
After all, we know that young Snape knew at least two lethal curses,
he was certainly clever and capable enough to get away with murder,
he undoubtedly hated the Marauders with all his heart and hexed
James every chance he got all through seventh year, ie *after* James
supposedly tried to kill him. Yet it is never even hinted that any of that 
hexing was meant to kill James or even seriously injure him.

I think understanding the difference between temperament and
character is at the heart of it all -- it's why Lupin could be ESE and
Snape could be loyal.

Pippin


*
http://childparenting.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/
XJ&sdn=childparenting&zu=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elainegibson.net%2Fparenting%
2Fdifficult.html