Snape's the Rescuer - Really?/Justice to Snape

[julie]

No: HPFGUIDX 170798


>
> > lizzyben:
> > 
> > Well, there's two levels here - the practical level & the 
symbolic 
> > level. This is a literary text, so the imagery & symbolism have 
> > meaning. And JKR clearly contrasts the images of how Sirius 
> treated 
> > an unconcious Snape (as a grosteque puppet, head lolling) and the 
> > image of how Snape treated unconscious people (as patients & 
human 
> > beings,in stretchers, in comfort.) This is the ONLY glimpse we 
> have 
> > of the real Snape, and it's quite telling. JKR didn't have to 
show 
> > us this - but she did. It doesn't really matter where the 
> stretchers 
> > came from; what matters is how Snape treats vulnerable, injured 
> > people. And in this instance, the only time we see the 
unvarnished 
> > Snape, he treats the unconsious people with dignity & care. 
> > 
> > 
> Lanval:
><snip>
>   
> But I strongly object to the notion that we see the "real Snape" 
> here. It's just Snape, doing what he needs to do. No healing desire 
> required. 
> 
> You may say that she could have shown us Snape kicking Sirius, or 
> dropping Harry, or something along that line. Yet, if she wanted to 
> show us Caring Snape, she could have made it more obvious as well. 
> Have him cover Ron with a blanket, for example. As it is written 
> (and remember that she still considers children her target 
> audience), Snape's behavior is just too subtle and seems to me 
> mostly neutral. Yet knowing what took place just before, and what 
> followed must be taken into context, I think.

Julie:
Here's the context I see. Harry, Ron and Hermione all hexed
Snape unconscious. Three *thirteen-year-old* students hexed
a TEACHER unconscious. And right next to them is Sirius, the
escaped prisoner from Azkaban, whose guilt Snape could have
some reason to doubt if he looked at it rationally, but only
*some* reason, as he still didn't hear anything about the 
actual switching of Secret-Keepers. But being Snape and 
hating Sirius, that doubt if it exists is suppressed under an
ocean of hatred. As far as Snape is concerned, Sirius IS
guilty, if not of one part of the disaster at Godric's Hollow,
surely some other part, and absolutely of a multitude of other
sins including the attempted murder of Snape himself. 

I focus on Snape's state of mind not because his perceptions
are valid or noble, but because he *is* the one in complete
control at the time, of three students who had the unbelievable
audacity to hex him, and of a wanted murderer he hates with a
fierce vengeance. He's a bitter, vengeful man capable of both
great pettiness and meanness. To some he's a good deal worse,
a man with few if any redeeming qualities. 

So what does this man do in this *context*, when those who
have recently and not-so-recently wronged him (in his mind)
are under his power, and no one is watching? Vent at them,
kick them, call the Dementors back to suck out Sirius's soul
while he feigns unconsciousness, or transport them back to
Hogwarts in some haphazard fashion without regard for their
comfort or safety?

No, he conjures up stretchers and places each of the victims on
them to assure the least jarring transport of their unconscious
and injured bodies back to Hogwarts. (Heck, Snape could have at
least levitated Sirius a meter or two above his stretcher and
then dropped him on it like a sack of potatoes. That would
have been good for a cold chuckle or two, all those graceless 
limbs flapping around!) And Snape did this not because he is
tender-hearted, not because he is caring or noble, but because
it was the right thing to do. Not the easiest thing, especially
in the case of Sirius, but certainly the right thing. 

That's been the crux of my argument. I strongly suggest the 
Snape we see in these unguarded moments is the "real" Snape,
as he is playing to no audience but himself and his conscience.
He is acting from his *own* set of values or standards. And he
does what any responsible teacher would have done. It is 
nothing more or less than that, a mere act of human decency,
and that is the point. No sentiment needed, no soppy caring or
excessive nobility. Mere decency. That Snape choose to act so
on his own accord, without pressure from anyone, says something
to me about a character who many here believe has no sense of
decency at all.

<snip>

Lanval:
> 
> Oh, and remember Snape saying "I'll drag the werewolf"? 

Julie:
It occurs to me that Snape talks very big. He's going to 
feed Sirius to the Dementors, he's going to drag the werewolf,
he's going to see Harry expelled, he's going to feed Harry
Veritaserum, and so on, and so on. So many big threats, so
little resulting action. Talk about all bark, no bite. Kinda
makes you wonder, doesn't it?

Well, makes me wonder anyway ;-)

<mucho snipping>

Lanval: 
> But House, unlike Snape, HAS his moments where you see the human 
> side of him. His face will show concern, worry, doubt, delight 
(duh, 
> well, Laurie is a great actor, so that may be unfair to Snape *g*)

Julie:
Well, House is the star of his own show. Unfortunately for Snape,
Harry is the star of his show. IOW, House's emotions are provided 
direct from the source, but Snape's all come through Harry. And
if you're Snape that has got to hurt (your image anyway ;-)

Lanval:
> With Snape it's almost *all* conjecture -- his emotions, his 
> thoughts, his fears, his loyalty.  We see what we want to see.
>

Julie:
Absolutely. JKR has kept it that way on purpose. At least until
the final pages of DH. We can only hope by then we've learned 
some truths about Snape's character and motivations. (Yet even
if we have, why do I suspect that *still* won't stop the "Is he
good or bad?" debate!)

Julie