good and bad slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility

[lizzyben04]

No: HPFGUIDX 175178

> Lanval:
> Ah, so Snape must, once again, be excused? He can't help insulting 
> James'choice, because James innocently waving an imaginary sword and 
> mentioning his dad immediately sends Severus into inner tremblings?
> 
> In other words, every time another kid mentions his/her dad, Snape 
> could be excused for getting snippy?
> 
> You have every right to interpret the scene that way, but I find it 
> a real stretch. Frankly, I don't see any  misconceptions and 
> misunderstandings in the scene. Both James and Snape are quite clear 
> and straightforward on what they want, expect, and prefer. 
> 
> Tobias, an abusive bully? Maybe. We see him shouting at his wife 
> once, but DH makes it quite clear that the Snapes were arguing with 
> each other. I don't think there's enough canon to make Mrs Snape the 
> perpetual victim here, and there certainly is none that Severus was 
> in any way abused by his father (another fandom myth down the 
> drain...). 
> 
> I would go as far and suggest that Harry's early childhood was in 
> fact far worse than Snape's. Not only was all the abuse in the 
> Dursley household heaped upon Harry, canonically, by three family 
> members, but he also lacked what young Severus had: a mother who 
> probably did love him, the prospect of a brighter future, and, at 
> least for a few years, a real friend.
>

lizzyben:

Nope, no excuses for Snape. JKR makes it clear that he was a nasty
little boy who became a nasty teenager who became a nasty adult. In
every scene, Snape is portrayed doing *something* bad. He was a bad
kid, which is why he was sorted into Slytherin, home of bad guys.
Snape was emotionally damaged by his dysfunctional childhood, while
Harry somehow still manages to become a well-adjusted, normal, heroic
person despite his abusive childhood. 

This is because, as a Gryffindor, Harry was simply a *better* person,
a naturally good person, so the outer environment can't change this
essential essence. Similarly, Sirius Black was a *better* person than
the rest of his family from an earlier age, which is why he became a
Gryffindor instead of a Slytherin. W/the Marauders & Lily, the Sorting
Hat recognized their innate moral superiority and place among the
elect. It also recognized Snape's inherent inferiority & bad essence,
which is why he gets Slytherin house. This is because Slytherin is
where the inferior, the bad, the morally suspect children are sorted
so that they can't corrupt the rest of us. As I've said, it seems
pretty clear that Slytherin children are the damned souls of the
Potterverse.

This sends a rather horrifying message, especially w/regard to abused
or damaged children. There are four examples of children who grow up
in neglected or abusive situations - Harry, Snape, Riddle and Merope.
Harry, the superior Gryffindor, isn't severely damaged by these
abusive circumstances, while the Slytherins *are*. Snape & Merope are
totally desperate for love & acceptance, which makes them turn to
sketchy means or people in order to get that acceptance. As natural
Slytherins, they were simply unable to "rise above" their
circumstances and be normal as Harry could. So, if you turn out
bad, it's because you were BORN bad, regardless of the trauma you
might have suffered. A better person would have gotten over it. 

Combine this w/DD & Harry ignoring the form of an abused, agonized
child who simply *can't* be helped, because the soul is already
doomed. Just like Merope, Riddle, and Snape simply *can't* be helped,
and probably shouldn't be helped. If they had a horrible childhood, if
they are psychologically damaged by abuse, that's their own fault. A
superior person would not have been damaged, no matter how bad the
abuse is. I'm just following the Calvinist sorting to its natural
conclusion here.

lizzyben