good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility

[montavilla47]

No: HPFGUIDX 175216

> Prep0strus:
> 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.

Montavilla47:
I agree with you that people are probably more fanatically devoted
to Snape than to the Marauders (although, viewed from the other
direction, the pro-Marauders can seem pretty fanatical, too).  The 
reason I say that the pro-Snapists are more fanatical is because
they have to work a bit harder, as they need to fight against
the author's state opinion of the character to find him fundamentally
worthy of respect.

And yes, he is more interesting.  I think it's pretty simple.  While
James, Sirius, Remus, and Hagrid all chose to be good, their 
choices did not require the amount of danger and plain hard
work that Snape's choice did.

> Prep0strus:
> 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.

Montavilla47:
I suppose that, speaking strictly for myself, it's partly that Snape's 
major crimes are off the page.  Unless you want to count the 
his classroom scenes, which I simply dismiss as a teacher being
mean.  You know, teachers do that and you just learn to live with
it.  And you keep your toad in your room, instead of carrying it 
around with you.

Even in the first three books, I sort of viewed Snape as the kind 
of teacher that all the students complain about no one takes 
very seriously.  Especially when he's revealed as protecting Harry
in the first book.  At that point, all his behavior ticks were easily
explained as the over-reactions of an over-protective adult.

His Death Eater crimes are, like James's good deeds, unknown, 
except for his taking the prophecy to Voldemort, which makes
sense to me from Dumbledore's explanation.  It wasn't 
personal, it was what he was supposed to be doing because
of where he was within the structure of the First War.

I'm not trying to minimize the gravity of his crimes, I'm 
explaining why they don't strike me as strongly as the
things I actually know he's doing.  *Nothing* strikes me
as strongly as those moments in the hospital wing in GoF.

It's Sirius gripping Harry's shoulder when he hears the 
story of the graveyard.  It's Snape's glittering eyes when
he leaves to try to convince Voldemort not to kill him.  It's
the both of them, hating each other but also recognizing
that they are on the same side.

So, yes.  Snape's more interesting than James.  So is Sirius
and Lupin.  It isn't what they chose.  It's what it costs them
to make their choices.

> Prep0strus:
> 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?

Montavilla47:
I'm curious.  What was Hagrid's incentive to choose evil?  He was 
certainly done wrong by when he was young.  He was expelled and 
his wand broken when he was 13.  But was there some attractive
evil out there for him to choose, rather than accept the work that
Dumbledore secured for him?

After all, Tom wasn't recruiting at that point.  Even if he was, he'd 
just framed Hagrid.  Why on earth would Hagrid throw in his lot
with Tom, even assuming he had an offer?

Or would the attractive evil be some undefined life of crime--
perhaps as a bodyguard to some kingpin in Knockturn Alley?

I think the same question applies to Lupin.  Lupin is presented
as someone with a medical condition that turns him into a 
monster for about three days a month.  Other than that, there's
no reason for him to be any darker than James.  And, since 
Dumbledore is the one giving him an education, it's in his
interest to be "good."

Of all the people you mention, the one with the most to
lose by joining the Order is Sirius.  Which is probably
why Sirius is more interesting than James as a character.

> Prep0strus:
>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).

Montavill47:
Of the qualities you mention: fighting for good, loyalty, truth, and 
kindness, the only one not exhibited by Snape is kindness.  Kindness
is important.  But it isn't everything.

> Prep0strus:
> 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.

Montavilla47:
I must have missed those who accuse James of manipulating Lily
into marrying him (aside from Harry, of course, who worries 
about that).  As for me, I figure that Lily is as susceptible to
good looks and Alpha male aggression as the next person 
and that she found that James improved with age.


> Prep0strus:
> 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)

Montavilla47:
Okay, I guess this is the crux of the matter for me.  I also don't think 
that the Future Death Eaters were an AV club, either, although I
definitely see Snape as a nerd.  

But Snape wasn't "evil" as an 11-year-old, or as a 17-year-old.  He was
a kid, trying to make sense of the world around him.  He made the 
wrong choice.  It seems obvious to us that it's the wrong choice.  But 
it probably wasn't that clear to Snape.  

Snape went with the people who were treating him well, cheering his
sorting and helping him study for classes and appreciating his talents.
Why the heck would he want to join the people who were hanging 
him upside down, pantsing him, and trying to feed him to a werewolf?

What allegance would he have to the Headmaster who allowed those
things to take place?

Montavilla47