Conflict, imposition, and morality

[Ceridwen]

No: HPFGUIDX 140585

Sandy:
*(snip)*
> It seems to me Snape stopped being quite so 
> respectful during the conversation Hagrid 
> overheard; is that a clue?

I think it might be, if you're talking about moral/behavioral codes.  
What one does in private can be different than what one does in 
public.  In public, one presents a united front, toward students if 
one is a teacher, toward neighbors if one is part of a family. 
Showing discord or falling apart publicly is 'airing dirty linen in 
public' and is discouraged.  That they took their discussion to a 
place where even the portraits couldn't overhear, may indicate 
something along these lines.  And, since one is a spy and the other 
is his superior in a more military sense, it makes even more sense 
not to go airing their differences publicly.

Sandy:
*(snip)*
> Snape has expectations of others; he expects them 
> to behave towards him in certain ways. Regardless 
> of whether it is his "inferiors" or not, Snape has 
> clearly "bought in" to certain codes. As a matter 
> of fact, he is still apparently steamed that the 
> Marauders were not dealt with harshly. It seems 
> unfair to him still. If he rails against unfairness, 
> and it seems clear he does, there's a moral code 
> involved. Otherwise, there is no standard for 
> fairness. So Snape has argued for what he considers 
> right and wrong; he has invested in some part of a 
> code, and should be held accountable by that code. 
> It's the one he chose.

Since religion has been brought in, I don't feel too bad in 
furthering it.  *g*  I've been reading along here, and it seems to me 
that Snape is behaving much like the Good Brother in the parable of 
the Prodigal Son.  The way that parable is usually taught, the older 
brother who did no wrong, is considered to be petty at the least for 
feeling steamed that his younger brother, who took his inheritance, 
blew it, practically gave their father 'the finger' when he left, is 
welcomed back with open arms and the killing of an animal apparently 
intended for celebration.  While the good brother has continued on 
the family farm, respected their father, done his duty, not shamed 
the family name, and so forth, and got no obvious reward.  He 
certainly wasn't feted!  Snape insisting that Harry work with the 
incident cards for his detention, so he could see how bad his father 
and the other Marauders were, I think, supports this sort of reading.

The parable goes on to make the point that the father, being a 
father, is just plain glad that his son, who may well have been dead 
since he had no contact with his family for some time, is back.  It 
suggests that the good son (no, I haven't seen that movie) is *wrong* 
not to be happy that his father is happy.  And that's valid, too.

But, the good brother isn't wrong in feeling put out, either.  I 
think any of us could sympathize, if the parable wasn't meant to show 
something totally different.  Good brother has been good all along, 
yet he's pushed aside because the bad brother comes crawling home.  
Snape is pushed aside, told not to tell about Lupin's 'furry little 
problem' even though it nearly got him killed.  He's put into danger 
by spying, while every effort was made to keep James and his family 
safe.  He's done what he was expected to do, kept to the rules, while 
Harry has broken them all over creation - one of those kids who get 
away with murder while other kids would be punished.  And, he's 
celebrated, James is well-liked, while Snape, doing what he's 
supposed to do, is pretty much ignored unless it's to send him into 
more danger.  As if his life isn't as valuable or desired as Harry's 
or James's.

And, all this talk about a twenty year old grudge, I do stop and 
think, it isn't twenty years old.  It's as recent as the last DE 
meeting Snape attended, definitely as recent as the end of GoF.  The 
Order protects James and Harry; the Order throws Snape to the lions.

Ceridwen.