good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 175206

houyhnhnm:
If Snape chose memories to make himself look good (as
if he had time to give thought to such a thing in his
death throes*), he did a poor job of it. All of the
memories in the Pensieve show Snape offending Lily,
making her angry. Yet there must have been good times,
too, that we didn't see. Why else would they have
remained friends into their fifth year?

Prep0strus:
To clarify, my point wasn't that Snape was trying to make himself look
good.  In fact, I think he shed quite a harsh light on himself in
trying to tell Harry his whole story.  But I don't think he has the
inclination – or the ability – to show James in a good light.  My
point is that we only see James in scenes when Snape is present –
which is never going to show James in his best light. Snape could have
made the choice to show us some touching scenes with Lily, and
doesn't.  But he couldn't have made the choice to show us James scenes
with his friends or later, when James and Lily got together.  I don't
think the Pensieve clips keep us from knowing Snape fully – I think
they keep us from knowing James fully.

Ceridwen:
Any person can be "corrupted" into seeing things, or even people, in
a different way, if they live a lifestyle that encourages such
attitudes. I think Snape was corrupted to think it was okay, even
right, to look down on Muggle-borns. I think Lily was corrupted to
look down on Slytherins. Neither showed any such leanings, in my
opinion, before starting Hogwarts. A child's training is critical.
Attitudes are passed on through house-mates and teachers, in a
boarding school setting more so than by parents. She might not be
threatened or humiliated into holding her house's opinions, but she
can be persuaded through constant reinforcement.


Prep0strus:
If Lily was `corrupted' into looking down on Slytherins, I think the
Slytherins did it.  She didn't like James and Sirius.  But she saw
what Mulciber and Avery did.  I think for anyone to come out of that
NOT looking down on Slytherins is a saint or a crazy person.  Every
Slytherin she knew became a Death Eater!  This is corruption?  Ok, I'm
going to make a wildly inflammatory comment here, but
 those darned
jews!  All corrupting their kids to hate Nazis!  Look, we can argue
Slytherin's worth in a lot of different time periods, but in Lily's
time period, almost every one of them joined Voldemorte's army of
evil.  I think viewing her looking down on that as corrupted is a
strange use of the term.

Julie:
OF COURSE he was too weak to avoid influence, because he was an
11 YEAR OLD child! All children are easily influenced, and we see that
evidence from both James and Snape on the train. They've already learned
certain "ideals" from their parents which has made each determined to be
chosen by their particular houses.

Prep0strus:

I patently disagree that all children are easily influenced.  That is
obviously not a matter of canon, or Harry Potter, but I disagree with
the statement.  And children can choose to an extent where influence
comes from.  Snape had Lily as influence. He did not HAVE to become a
death eater because he was in Slytheirn.  I am one of the biggest
proponents of `there are no worthwhile slytherins', but even I don't
go so far that to be put into the house is a life sentence to death
eaterness.  He had a choice. And he had multiple influences.  11 year
olds are not mindless creatures ready to be manipulated.

I maintain, as I have this entire time, that children know what is
going on in the world.  11 year olds understand murder and prejudice
and evil and hatred.  They know that there are bad guys out there. 
Those children did not go to school without an understanding of
current events.  Perhaps Snape had less information than Sirius and
James, but as soon as he got to school he would have heard it all. 
And talked about it with his friend, Lily. And known right from wrong.
 To absolve him of choosing evil for being a child is something I
won't do.  

Julie:
And while Sirius made a choice against his family, at the age of
eleven I have to believe it was made based far more on his personal
agenda--rejecting a family who perhaps has already shown a marked
preference for Regulus based on whatever likenesses or behaviors
parents can and do use to favor one child over another--than based on
any general principles, i.e., how his family treated *him* indicated
the value of "Purebloods"
rather than any general outlook they espoused toward non-Purebloods.

Prep0strus:

I'm curious as to where you got this assertion.  I don't care so much
that every opinion has to be supported by a page citation, but I never
assumed that his family innately treated him worse than his brother. 
The only reason I can think for that to happen is because he rebelled
against their rather odious beliefs, which is a mark in Sirius's
favor.  Also, considering `influence', no one had more influence on
Sirius' life for his first 11 years, and yet he was able to see past
that and make a different choice.  A lot can be said for sitting next
to James on the train, but really, that's a 10 minute conversation
being compared with 11 years of life.  There is something in Sirius
that made him go against his family and against those beliefs.  Maybe
his cousin, maybe his friend, maybe something inside of him.  But to
attribute this overwhelming influence to James and to the Slytherin
house in Snape's case  while ignoring the influence they took from
other sources – the Black family, and Lily, is only showing part of
the picture.  Each of these children was exposed to many ideas.  Some
chose one path, some another.  I don't know why Snape gets let off the
hook for making a bad choice and Sirius gets no credit for making a
good one.


Montavilla47:
Now, we're presented two different images of James. We're
told he was a great guy and we're shown memories that
reveal an arrogant, bullying, privileged kid. It's very hard
to put those two things together into a coherent picture
of an individual. For me, what I'm *shown* is more vivid
and convincing than what I'm told.

Prep0strus:
It is more vivid, which is why I think I am trying to hard to present
the other side.  What we see visually is only the James with Snape. 
What we hear about from other characters is the James when he wasn't
with Snape.  I have to hope that that James is a very different
person.  A person Lily would love, a person that would love her, and
his son, and fight for his friends.  And even if it's second-hand, I
listen to the opinions of other good characters we've come to know,
and in my case, like.  The fact of James and Lily's marriage, of the
friendships he's developed, of the way he was well thought of in the
school and in the ww
 there must be more to that man that what we have
been shown in Snape's memories.

Montavilla47:
Okay, I'm not going to dispute that adult Snape bullied children, but
I am going to dispute the points thing. Because we're taking that
solely on Harry's word. We don't have any basis to compare how
Snape and McGonagall took or gave house points. On occasion
we see Snape deduct points from Harry and his friends. The only
time it's uncalled-for is in first year when Snape deducts 1 point
from Harry because Neville melted a cauldron.

Unless you want to count Snape deducting points from Harry for
being out of uniform at the beginning of HBP.

Prep0strus:
Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to refute this with canon at
the moment, but if anyone could help, I'd appreciate it.  I'm really
pretty sure it's the case, and it's driving me nuts that I can't think
of good examples.  Perhaps it's a faulty memory based on prejudice,
but I seem to remember plenty of times that Draco's antics were
ignored, while Harry, Ron, and Hermione lost points for very slight
offenses.  Whereas Mcgonnegal does not hesitate to take away points
from anyone.


Montavilla47:
I think it's fine to want to see the best in people. What I find a bit
hypocritical, though (and I'm not directing this at you, but at the
general trend) is for either side to ignore the faults of their favorite
characters, or to insist that these faults are meaningless, while
insisting that the faults of the characters they disliked define
their characters.
<SNIP>
I guess what I really don't understand in all this discussion is
why we insist on following the Marauder/Snape feud. Why can't
we like Snape AND James and Sirius? I know I like them all.


Prep0strus:

I completely agree with that first statement. And, for the record
 I'm
not even that huge a fan of Sirius.  And James isn't enough of a
character for me to be that attached.  I do like Lupin quite a bit.

But I think that your first statement is why many of us (including
myself) fight so hard for characters we see being maligned.  I will
freely admit James is a bully as a child, Sirius is arrogant his
entire life, and Lupin has many flaws.  I will also admit that Snape
had a difficult life, a great deal of caring for Lily, and in the
years of the books acted bravely and on the side of good.  I can see
this duality.

But I like the Marauders better than Snape.  A lot better. And what I
see in a lot of posters is this (to the perspective of someone who
doesn't like him) a fanatical devotion to Snape.  I mean, let's face
it – he's interesting.  This evil seeming guy who has been doing good
all along.  He has an interesting past, it's checkered, and he turns
out good.  And people identify with parts of that, and defend him.

But then I see these same people absolutely tearing apart characters
we know to be basically good – James, Sirius, Lupin, Hagrid.  And it
confuses me greatly why the people who can forgive so many more flaws,
so much more evil in Snape take the (in my opinion) much smaller flaws
of the good characters and vilify them for it.

The only thing I can think of is that they're not as interesting
characters.  And there's more of a betrayal – they were supposed to be
GOOD and they did BAD things.  So they're castigated.  But Snape
seemed BAD and did GOOD – and all is forgiven.

I think Snape's flaws are much greater than those of the Marauders. 
Because he did choose evil.  He had a choice, and he chose evil.  And
then he redeemed himself.  And all the while he was mean.  But Sirius,
Lupin, James, and Hagrid all chose good.  And all except James had
valid reasons to choose evil – I would argue the possibility that they
had in some aspects more reason to choose evil than Snape – what good
influence did Sirius have but his cousin?  Was Hagrid not more lonely
than Snape?  What happens to most werewolves?  And even Harry's lonely
lonely childhood.  But they chose good.  And they stumbled and fell
along the way – through bullying, arrogance, self-pity, weakness,
irrational trust in monstrous creatures
. But in the end they fought
for good, and were loyal and true and kind.  And of them, I only see
Sirius possibly treating children as unfairly as Snape we know did
(and I wonder how he would have been had he not been in Azkaban for a
decade).

And so, while I very much respect the ability to love all of these
characters, and accept their flaws and their strengths, I see many
more strengths in the Marauders and many more flaws in Snape, and so I
will defend the toe-rag James who some posters think manipulated Lily
into marrying and I will remind those who think that Snape was an
innocent little boy who grew into a hero of the path that I see him
taking.

The Young Death Eaters weren't the AV Club, being picked on by the
football team.  They were studying to join up with an army of fascism
and racial purity.  Lily gets that.  People grow out of being bullies.
 Snape et al grew into being an army of evil.  And, for, I think that
Lily's assertion that Snape called others Mudbloods and that they were
planning on joining Voldemorte is much more telling and supportive of
the evil-kid-snape than the punishments for james-the-bully are.  I
don't deny he was a bully
 I just want to know how many of the kids he
bullied were part of the Young Death Eaters. (not an excuse, I know,
but
 what if it was in retaliation for something Mulciber did?  If
we're going to read into it, let's read into ALL of it)


~Adam (Prep0strus), coming up for the first time in a while on the
frustrations (and likely saving grace) of the 5 post limit.