The 'Seeming' Reality

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 155549

> Potioncat:
<SNIP>
> It isn't so much a case that if JKR is playing Austen with Snape 
that 
> he won't be a jerk when she's done. It's not an "evil/not evil" 
> formula. It would just mean he wasn't a jerk for the reasons we 
> thought he was. Or that, yes, he is a jerk but did these other 
things 
> too.

Alla:

Well I can buy the after "or" part of this paragraph - as in "jerk 
but did other things too". If he is a jerk but for different 
reasons, does it really matter though?

My point is that unless the narrator and /or Harry deaf and blind, 
the interactions of Harry and Snape **as reported** show to me very 
very ugly picture of Severus dearest. As I mentioned earlier I can 
see ( very reluctantly and unwillingly) that based on **unsufficient 
information** Harry and narrator with him can make a mistake about 
Snape loyalties, **but** based on what I hear from the narrator and 
by extension from Harry, I do not see how Snape can turn out to be 
**not** a jerk.

Does it make sense? 


Potioncat:
<SNIP>
> Snape didn't cause Harry's scar to hurt. He was mean to Harry in 
> class for no reason, (at least not one provided by canon) except 
that 
> maybe he's taking it out on Harry that James is his father. Snape 
> wasn't hexing the broom. Snape wasn't after the stone.

Alla:

Yes, just as Neri so brilliantly sums up down thread Harry was wrong 
about Snape motivations  ( or not - Hehe, in light of possibly evil 
or OFH! Snape), but not wrong about Snape nature, as the man so 
bitter who does not hesitate to take his issues with the child's 
father on this child.

Neri:
<HUGE SNIP>

> Like Austen, I think JKR doesn't believe that a character can dupe 
the
> hero for long about his/her true nature. Motivations yes. Personal
> history yes. Real nature no. 

Alla:

Word, Neri, word of agreement :)