good and bad Slytherins/Disappointment and Responsibility

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 175334

> Julie in Chicago replies:
> She repeatedly calls him "horrible" and says he was inspired by 
sadistic/bullying teachers. 
> She admitted he had been "loved" (though never clarified by whom) 
but called the thought 
> that someone might be in love with him a "very horrible idea." She 
says he abuses his 
> power and that he is "not a particularly pleasant person at all."

> OK, fair enough. HOw much of this is deliberate 
obfuscation/misdirection, how much is 
> sincere? 

zgirnius:
I would place little weight in trying to determine her intent on 
anything she said about Snape pre-DH, especially as relates to his 
backstory/allegiances. I definitely think she was protecting her plot 
twist. After all, in post-HBP interviews she seemed to imply that 
Dumbledore's flaw was trusting recklessly (which Harry thinks, from 
the end of HBP until he learns the truth). *has giggling fit about 
DD's trusting nature* *resumes typing*

Though, to consider the particular quotes you mention: I am sure she 
did draw on bullying teachers she has known in devising his classroom 
manner (what this means in terms of her intent is less clear).  And I 
think we may conclude safely post DH that Snape was loved by Lily 
(his longtime best friend) and this is the reason for the coy 
phrasing (not identifying who it was that loved Sev). The third quote 
you have backwards - it is the idea of Snape in love that Rowling 
called horrible. Certainly, the one instance of Snape being in love 
turned out rather badly in many ways. Though without it we would have 
no story. <bg>

> Julie H:
> I think you can argue Snape very plausibly from the primary canon, 
either way. 

zgirnius:
The scene I have not seen argued convincingly from the 'obsessive 
only' standpoint is his attempt to save Remus Lupin's life in the "7 
Potters" raid in DH. (This results in the removal of George's ear). I 
suppose some readers choose to toss this out and suggest Harry 
misunderstood the intent behind the action. However, Harry is 
described as being right there on the broom with Snape in that 
memory, and Harry is an outstanding flier/Quidditch player, so I 
would tend to think he would be right about Snape's target (the wand 
hand of a fellow Death Eater who was about to curse Lupin). And if 
this is accepted as the reason, it is an act that could not have been 
requested by Dumbledore (he counseled rather the opposite) and does 
not further any of Snape's goals. But it had the possibility of 
saving a life - and if that is the reason Snape took it, as I 
believe, then he grew beyond a completely narrow obsession with the 
preservation of Lily's son.

Julie H:
> Just a few pages later, however, he himself (Scholastic edn page 
687) says "Everything was 
> supposed to be to keep Lily Potter's son safe" and denies all 
motivation other than Lily-
> love (by the symbolic patronus casting).

zgirnius:
Well, the comment you quote fits logically with Snape's accusation 
that he has been used - that *is* what Dumbledore told him it was  
about. Keeping Harry safe was not originally Snape's idea at all.

Taking the books as a whole, would you expect him to respond 
affirmatively to Dumbledore's inquiry ("Have you grown to care for 
the boy, after all?") even if it were true? I find it suggestive that 
his response was not formally a denial - *that* is the response I 
would expect if he did not care for Harry at all. I don't think he 
liked Harry or anything like that, but I don't think he wanted Harry 
(the person himself) dead either. 

After all, Snape loved Lily, and never told anyone about it. (Not 
even Dumbledore, if you read the dialogue, though Snape's feelings 
could reasonably be deduced therefrom). And Snape swore Dumbledore to 
secrecy about it, too. It is just not in character for him to make 
admissions of that nature.

If Snape developed any affection for Dumbledore, that's another one 
that I imagine went unspoken. I think he did, and I think Dumbledore 
knew it. Dumbledore's arguments convincing Snape to kill him suggest 
it, anyway. He could have focused on the intelligence coup the fake 
murder would be, cementing Snape's place at Voldemort's right hand 
the better to protect Harry/further their plans - instead he asked to 
be spared pain and humiliation. Which presumably means this is the 
argument he thought would sway Snape. As, apparently, it did.

Julie H:
> It's a tangle. I still honestly don't know what the author intends 
me to think about him in 
> the end. My brain hurts.

zgirnius:
One reason I don't worry too much about it. I know what I think about 
the events in the book, and why, and that's good enough for me.

Rowling's intent is a hard thing to discern from short answers to a 
few questions, anyway. Facts like Snape was heroic, but flawed, or he 
loathed Harry to the very end, or he only left the DEs because Lily 
was targeted, don't address all the nuances. (They surely do not 
discriminate between the two readings you offer). 

And the matter is complicated by statements like "Snape is a deeply 
horrible person". Even if truly reflective of the full array of 
things she was always planning to write about Snape, that statement 
is an opinion. If we kidnapped her and made her answer all our 
questions and interpret all the scenes for us, so we knew everything 
Snape ever did and why, it would be entirely possible that some of us 
might walk away not thinking Snape was horrible. Our personal 
judgment of him might simply differ from hers, just as our personal 
judgments of people in real life vary. 

I might suspect it was her intent to make Snape a character people 
would dislike, for example. But that would not make it incorrect for 
me to like him. It would just mean that things Rowling finds 
dislikable have, in the right combination, some sort of appeal to me.