Ambiguous Snape (was:Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles)

[horridporrid03]

No: HPFGUIDX 148203

> >>Betsy Hp:
> > Any evaluation of Snape's character has to include the boy Harry 
> > met in his text-book.

> >>Nora: 
> Okay, why?  Why take it for granted that the boy Harry met in the 
> textbook is *still* an essential part of Snape's character?

Betsy Hp:
Because JKR went through so much trouble to introduce him to us.  If 
young!Snape is unimportant, why bring him up?  Young!Dumbledore is 
probably unimportant, as is young!McGonagall, so we've never met 
them.  But young!Snape was important enough to be snuggled into bed 
with Harry and defended to his friends.

> >>Nora:
> If you mean that Harry has to take that boy into account to       
> understand Snape's history, then we have something like the       
> situation with young Tom Riddle being the key to understanding    
> adult Voldemort.  But just as Voldemort is no longer Tom Riddle,   
> Snape is no longer the boy in the textbook. 

Betsy Hp:
Hmm, but unlike Tom Riddle, Harry really learns nothing about young!
Snape's history (Hermione is the one to find out some bare bones 
facts) but he learns a whole lot about the inner workings of the 
boy. (Importance of character?)  With Tom Riddle, Harry learns 
enough of his history to understand the man and even sympathize a 
little.  But Harry's also had a chance to confront Tom Riddle and 
see that he is repulsed by all he stands for.  Harry is not so 
replused by young!Snape's character.  And at this point Harry 
neither understands Snape, neither does he see anything worthy of 
sympathy.  There's very much a sort of reverse mirroring going on 
here in Harry's relationship to Voldemort and Harry's relationship 
to Snape.

> >>Nora:
> Perhaps the brutal story here is precisely *that* Snape is no     
> longer the boy in the textbook, who could come across as 
> so sympathetic and interesting, someone who Harry would have      
> wanted to have met.  Maybe the book is a representation of what    
> has been lost in a sea of bitterness and unwillingness to move    
> forwards.

Betsy Hp:
It could be.  But then I expect JKR is setting up Harry to heal 
Snape, to find that lost boy and bring him out.  Which seems a 
fairly formidable task, but I suspect Dumbledore has been about it 
for a while now.  But there's a reason Harry related so strongly to 
young!Snape.  For it to be a mere object lesson seems... a waste 
almost.  So much effort was put into making that introduction for 
the payoff to be so small.  Especially for Harry.

> >>Nora:
> There's some loose set of analogies connecting Harry, young!Snape, 
> and Voldemort.  The unpleasant possibility (for your position) is 
> that the Snape/Voldemort axis is the dominant one, and not the 
> Snape/Harry parallelism.  Then we can shed a tear for the tragedy 
> of Snape's life and his fall back into evil.  Tragic!  BANGy!  
> Opportunity for the exercise of pity!

Betsy Hp:
Would that even work though?  As a bang or even a tragedy, I mean.  
If Snape is as bad as Harry has suspected all along, would any but 
the most fervent Snape supporters shed a tear?  Feel any pity or 
sense of loss?  If Snape is a Voldemont-lite then won't most readers 
say, "good riddance to bad rubbish," and move on?

I think a Snape/Voldemort axis would be boring and repetitive. (So 
yeah, a bit unpleasant <g>.)  Voldemort is enough, I think.  Plus, 
if the shift takes us away from Harry than where would Harry's place 
in the story be?  Suddenly he'd be an observer rather than an actor 
in the events.

> >>-Nora can't resist an opening for a pun (good-natured, natch)

Betsy Hp:
"He who'd pun would pick a pocket."  Yeah, I don't even know what 
that means. <g>

Betsy Hp