Thoughts on Snape from a non Snape Fan (uh-oh)

[prep0strus]

No: HPFGUIDX 175937

Just a question -- is Snape's behavior as a teacher the main reason
that you hate him? (As opposed to, say, Snape's having been a Death
Eater as your reason.) I'm trying to get a handle on the whole Snape-
hatred phenomenon.
	-- JudySerenity, whose affection for Snape seems to grow the more
> that people here criticize him. (The poor guy!)


The question has been presented, in various forms, why NonSnapeFans
are that way.  I've been meaning to write something for a while,
expressing how I feel about it – originally how I feel about him as a
character, but I'm sure some other judgments will come into play.  So,
if you are a SnapeFan, and have a tendency to take criticism of him
personally
 I encourage you not to read this.  I will do my best to
write considerately and with respect, but I have a tendency to pepper
my writing with sarcasm, hyperbole, and extended parenthetical
tangents.  Also, I occasionally forget to use `IMO' every 4 words. 
So, you should all just take to heart that everything I'm about to say
is just my opinion.  Indeed, I will affirm that there is not one fact
in the entire post.  Absolutely everything is the deranged ranting of
someone who couldn't possibly see reason or reality, or would already
worship at the alter of Severus Snape.  Ok.  Forewarning over.

It's complicated, I guess. Why doesn't Snape work for me?  First of
all, let me get the

D:
`Good Guy disguised as Bad then Redeemed = usually awesome character in my
opinion.'

thing out of the way. I guess this is the case for some people.  For
me, that's not gonna be enough.  I just don't care.  This analogy may
not work for everyone, but there was a time when I felt that every
female character on tv was dating the same guy.  A good looking guy,
introduced into the show as an arrogant jerk, possibly a business
nemesis to the protagonist gal.  However, eventually, their attraction
to each other brought them together, and then we see the goodness
underneath, even niceness, though they still have that `edge' that
makes them so attractive.  But to me
 `No, you fool! He's just a
JERK.'  Now, I know Snape isn't this – he's not good looking, and it's
not about attraction.  But to me, it's the same thing. Just as I was
watching show after show do the same thing, trying to make me like a
big jerk, I feel like good guy disguised as bad then redeemed is
passé.  It's not interesting to me, because it's been done.  Snape
worked great for me in the first book – ooh, he's so nasty! Could he
be the bad guy? Nope!  Sixth sense revelation, with clues the whole
way – it's Quirrel!  And Snape is just that – a big jerk!  Perfect
children's story.  It's only as the books got more complicated, as did
Snape, did it become a problem for me.  Because I pretty much stayed
there.  Snape's a jerk – he was a red herring villain, but in reality
he's only a jerk.  The rest of it.. I don't think a story of
redemption makes him an awesome character.  I think there are lots of
people who are instantly drawn to that.  Like the simple fact of a
jerk who's not evil gives depth and intrigue, and
 I'm sorry.  But I
don't care.

Then, there's the identifying thing. Let me get that out of the way as
well, because a lot of people bring stuff to the story that leads them
to identify with a character.  I never had any horrific teachers.  I
was never really bullied much, and I wasn't a bully.  I wasn't a
sports star or really all that adventurous.  If anything, I was more
like Snape than the Marauders, but only inasmuch as Dean or Seamus was
more like Snape.  There's no one for me to identify with – I made
jokes, had my own friends, did my own thing.  More academic than
athletic.  I had a perfectly fine childhood, with decent parents,
friends, etc.

So, if people identify with Snape because they were bullied, because
they had it tough growing up, no one can really argue with that.  It's
how they responded to the story.  But again, for me
 I didn't care. 
Finding out Snape was bullied
 meh.  And even more so in the final
book, when we find out that he wasn't a complete loner, picked on by
the school.  There were Marauders, but there were also Young Death
Eaters.  He was bullied, but he also invented nasty hexes and was a
sneak and a snitch.  I'm not saying this to defend the Marauders, but
just to show how it didn't make me like him any better.  And every
time I'm shown something that should make me like Snape better,
there's another character who I think exemplifies it as well.

Snape had a tough childhood?  Well, Harry had it worse.  Yeah, we saw
Harry's childhood more through the `Roald Dahl' glasses that made it
unrealistic, and by the time we saw Snape's childhood the story and
writing had grown up a bit, so his looks harsher, but
 he had not nice
clothes, but he had a real friend.

Snape had his mother and schoolmates that made him lean towards
Slytherin?  Sirius had family indoctrination on a grander scale than that.

Snape infiltrated a dangerous group to spy on them?  Lupin did the
same, and not to atone for anything, just because he had the ability.

Snape gave his life for the cause?  Sure, who didn't?

I'm just saying, he didn't connect with me.  And, if he doesn't
connect, either because you're intrigued by someone who seems bad
being good, or because he was put upon as a child, or because he was a
double agent, then
 what are you left with?  Well, a big jerk.  I
don't need to list his good qualities, but I will – talented,
intelligent, brave, dedicated.  But he's also mean, sometimes cruel,
to children.  He made some terrible choices, worse than almost every
other character.  He was but for the grace of Lily, evil.  And I don't
say that against him, but against the character.  I don't see his
transformation as something that inspires me.  For me, the love of
Lily thing didn't connect.  If that's how he turned back towards the
good side, but for me, it wasn't that powerful.

You know what was much more powerful for me?  Dudley.  A caricature,
really, and I liked his character arc more.  The glimpses we saw of
him growing up.  Wow.  That's what I wanted, and didn't get, in Draco.

I even enjoyed Voldy's character more – not to say I `liked' him –
he's evil.  But I found his character interesting.  Snape I was bored
and frustrated with.  I just wanted him to grow up, which I don't
think he ever did.

NonSnapeFans have been accused of wanting him to be evil, and didn't
get their wish in this book.  Not me.  I was pretty sure he was good,
and Dumbledore had asked him to kill him – though I thought the reason
was much more to do with Draco, and therefore wanted more of a Draco
arc in 7, but whatever.  I did want Snape to get a more powerful (for
me) demise – I thought he would die, just by defying Voldemorte
openly, and either killing someone bad or saving someone's life, or
both.  So, I didn't think he'd really bad evil.  I hoped he would do
something powerful for good. But either way, I still don't think I'd
care about, or especially *like* his character.

My impression of some SnapeFans (not all, ok, fine, maybe not ANY –
but just the way it comes across sometimes, to ME – no judgment on
anyone else) is that there is some moral and intellectual superiority
associated with being a SnapeFan.  That somehow, it's more enlightened
to connect with him, and other characters (and people who identify
with them) are bourgeois.  Some quotes:

Lenore:
I don't care about superficial things,
like personality pleasantness or unpleasantness, or external
forms of things, like dress, fashion sense, status, etc.

D:
Casual readers of these books won't be joining and
reading hundreds of long discussion threads daily would they? And
they're usually the kind of readers who will say their favorite
characters (if they're any) are 'Hagrid' and other obvious 'lovable'
characters. Most of us here (=fandom) are the *fans* with a certain
obsessive quality and some tend to find the 'unlovable' moral
conflicting characters more lovable. Why do majority of
discussions goes to characters with moral struggle (ie: Snape, "a
flawed man like all of us" in JKR's own words) instead of
pure-and-stay-good and supposedly more 'lovable' characters

Carol, agreeing with your characterization of Snape with regard to
both his powers/genius and his teaching philosophy, which does not
suffer fools gladly, or rather, does not suffer fools at all


Adam again
 I hope it's easy to see at least how these can come across
to other people who don't share the same views.  Not caring about
superficial things like personality?  I don't exactly consider that
superficial, in a person or a character.  The powers/genius, the not
suffering fools – these are portrayed with admiration, maybe awe, or
at least a slight sense of camaraderie.  And I was accused of using
the phrase `pure-and-stay-good', which I did not – I said good and
stay good.  Which is not the same.  None of these characters are pure.
 And I think anyone can identify with any character, and it does not
need to be the `lovable' Hagrid (we've seen many readers not find him
lovable at all) or the `moral struggle' character of Snape – I, for
one, don't think he's the only character with a moral struggle, and
his particular moral struggle doesn't interest me.

Look at Dumbledore – I've noticed he is getting a really hard rap on
the board, and I think it's because he's never been someone most
SnapeFans would be drawn to, and he's also turned away people who
wanted him to be better than he was.  I don't know how I feel about
him, but if Snape is a moral lesson that not all that seems gross is
evil, then Dumbledore is the opposite – that not all that seems
perfect is truly flawless.  In fact, why wouldn't Dumbledore appeal to
SnapeFans?  Sure, he was bullied, and he isn't a copy of Snape
 but
this brilliant man, with terrible memories of his childhood
 he made
bad choices which may have hurt those he loved, he used to be
arrogant, and he turned his life around, fought for good most of his
life.  He was manipulative, secretive to a fault, lonely, arrogant,
and he puts people in harm's way for what he sees as good reasons – of
course, he also is willing to sacrifice himself for his cause as well.
 But with all that, a complex character with a checkered past who
fights for good while keeping secrets of his own
 can we really not
see Snape in that?  What is it that SnapeFans like in Snape, but not
in Dumbledore?  My personal theory: he's nice.  For book after book
we've seen quirky Dumbledore, who likes candy and joking around and
appreciates the lighter side of life.  No, he's not Gandalf or Aslan,
but I don't think that part of him was put-on, or fake.  I think it
was just another facet of him.  It doesn't mediate his faults, but it
makes him whimsical.  And if there's anything a SnapeFan
(theoretically, in my fake world of the consummate snape fan, who
loves snape and is bored by good characters, who looks down on
nonsnapefans and who identifies a little too much with severus) hates,
it's whimsy.   Snape is interesting because he's seemed like a big
jerk; Dumbledore is a dolt, and now a manipulative bastard because he
seems nice and jokes around.

And that's how I feel many Snape fans look at all other characters. 
Snape is basically one big flaw, who is redeemed.  Other characters
who they lambaste are good, with flaws, but every flaw they have is
thrown in their face – `see, see, mr. perfect isn't so perfect', be it
harry, ron, Hermione, hagrid, Dumbledore, Sirius, lupin, james, or
even lily.  And it's enough to make a non-snape fan tear his hair out.
 Because why oh why does he get so much slack while these others
don't?  Because they identify with Snape.

I started to say I think that SnapeFans find something superior about
identifying with Snape.  Something about a really smart jerk, who
doesn't take crap from anyone, even kids, who plays double agent ,who
is the `anti-hero'.  And everybody loves an anti-hero.  I guess. 
Maybe I would if done differently.  I don't want to have to work hard
to like a character, or a person.  That may make me shallow, as I will
miss out on friendships of people who you have to get through that
shell to get to know the person underneath, but
 to me, it's like

don't be a jerk, then?  I think how we treat other people does matter.
 And I think there's an appeal of characters who don't take crap from
people or deal with people they think are below them or are smarter
and better in all these ways but are misunderstood by the people
around them, and that's fine, but neither that person nor that
character appeals to me, because I know enough people who are talented
and complex and don't treat children or their peers like dirt.

Well, I'm winding down.  I'm sure after the flame war that this post
creates (maybe not? Maybe no one will read this much endless blather?)
I'll remember other things and say in response.

But why does this Snape fan dislike Snape?  Because he just didn't
connect to him.  Because he's bored by the whole was bad is now good
storyline, not intrigued.  Because he wasn't bullied as a child,
maybe.  Because a spade's a spade and a big jerk is a big jerk. 
Because I'm a patsy who thinks whatever JKR wants me to think.  I just
know that Snape worked as a character for me in the first book, and
ever since, I've just been like
 ok, so here's why he's a big jerk

now could he maybe, you know, stop being a big jerk?  

~Adam (Prep0strus), who isn't good with remembering all the acronyms,
so thinks, if anything, he would be a SnapeMeh.  Because
 Snape?  Meh.