Snape's contributions to Harry's education (Was: Sadistic Snape, Occlumency, etc

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 140314

vmonte wrote:
> <big snip> Didn't Harry learn about Buckbeak, skrewts, dragons, and
thestrals from Hagrid? 


Carol responds:
True, but he learned Expelliarmus (which saved his life in GoF) from
Snape in the CoS duelling lesson and learned about bezoars (which
saved Ron's life in HBP) in Snape's very first Potions class
(reinforced by the young Snape's notations in his Potions book). I'd
say that's at least as important as learning how to care for (or fly
on) dangerous creatures. 

On a less crucial level, Harry learned useful spells like Muffliato
and improved potion-making methods from the HBP's notes. Hermione
learned about Polyjuice Potion (and even that the recipe could be
found in "Moste Potent Potions") from Snape in CoS (as Harry and Ron
would have learned, too, if they'd paid attention). She also learned
how to recognize a werewolf from the essay he assigned in PoA. All of
them learned to do "nvbl" DADA spells from Snape in HBP.

I'm sure there are other lessons that Harry learned from Snape that
I'm forgetting and still others, such as that essay on the uses of
Moonstone, which may come in handy later. And surely Snape is right to
insist that Harry should not use Unforgiveable Curses or Dark Magic in
general, a lesson that Harry *must* learn if he intends to defeat
Voldemort.

I don't think that Harry is going to be fighting dragons, Thestrals,
or hippogryffs in the next book, and he certainly won't be fighting
blast-ended skrewts, which are Hagrid's (illegal) invention. He may,
however, find that lessons he learned from Snape will again save his
or a friend's life or that they have some bearing on the destruction
Horcruxes. And there will undoubtedly be some sort of life lesson or
moral lesson involving Snape, regardless of Snape's intentions.

Snape as a teacher, I'll grant you, is far from nice (though less
cruel than Umbridge), and his teaching methods are not particularly
effective (at least for Harry), but much of what he has tried to teach
Harry is nevertheless valuable, and the potions and antidotes he's
taught or mentioned in various lessons might be worth examining more
closely with that in mind. Even Occlumency *could* have been helpful.
If Harry had been willing and able to learn it (and hadn't looked in
the Pensieve), he could have blocked the fake vision of Sirius and
Sirius would not have died. And walking through Snape's memory was a
lesson, too, though not one Snape meant to teach, IMO. 

In the long run, I'm pretty sure that the lessons Snape has
deliberately taught or tried to teach Harry (and the lessons in human
nature that he has unwittingly taught him) will be of much more use
than Transfiguring pincushions into hedgehogs, Charming cushions to
fly, or squeezing Bubotuber pods to produce pus. 

Only the Patronus charm taught to Harry by Lupin (aided by Harry's
convenient Dementor Boggart) has proven as useful as Snape's lessons
on Expelliarmus and bezoars. In fact, if it weren't for Snape, both
Harry and Ron would be dead.

As JKR herself says, there's more to Snape than meets the eye, and she
points to Book 4 (GoF) as the place to start looking. That's the book
in which Snape shows Fudge his Dark Mark and courageously faces
Voldemort on Dumbledore's orders. I know that HBP has muddied the
waters and made it difficult to analyze Snape without projecting the
tower scene onto him, but I think it's essential that we separate
Snape the teacher from Snape the spy and Order member (and especially
from Snape the apparent murderer) if we're ever going to untangle the
mystery that is Snape the man. And just possibly labeling him as
"evil" or "good" (or arguing whether he is or isn't sadistic) is IMO
too simplistic an approach.

How has he contributed, wittingly or unwittingly, to Harry's
development might be a better question.

Carol