Clues to Snape's Loyalties

[Zara]

No: HPFGUIDX 170883

> > vmonte:
> > Here is the problem I have with the idea that Snape is not a 
person
> > that's full of malice. If JKR had described Snape as being a big
> > teddy bear I would assume that JKR meant that he was cute and
> > snuggly.

zgirnius:
Note Rowling writes Snape as a person that is associated with bat and 
spider imagery. It is *you* who insist that the relevant 
characteristic of these animals is malice.

> > vmonte:
> > When a writer (correct me if I'm wrong) writes that a person is
> > spider-like and bat-like, the images I should get are of someone 
> that
> > has similar characteristics.

zgirnius:
Exactly! 

Bats are not malicious. They make up 20% of all mammalian species, 
and are vital to variuous ecosystems. They are primary pollinators of 
tropical fruit trees, and the biggest consumers of insects in most 
environments. 

So why should I conclude that Snape being batlike means Snape is 
malicious? This could have another meaning. For example, bats are 
nocturnal, and Snape seems to be too. He is active at night, we can 
think of tons of instances of this: PS/SS, the meeting with Quirrell 
in the Forest, PoA, the Shack scenes, GoF, the 'pajama party', 
HBP "Spinner's End", his argument with Dumbledore in the forest, and 
probably more. 

Bats do have an unsavory reputation in Western mythology, being 
associated with vampires, etc, but this is in contrast to their true 
natures. (This is not universal, in Chinese culture they are 
associated with longevity and good fortune). The European bat/vampire 
link, ironically, is older than European discovery of the three 
species of bloodsucking bats, which only live in Central and South 
America. No European species have this characteristic. If Snape is 
DDM!, this would make bat imagery *perfect* for him: he seems/is 
believed to be 'evil' but isn't, just like the bats.

Or it could be a straightforward reference to evil bats as you 
suggest, but *it does not have to be*. Bats are an ambiguous symbol, 
perfect for a character Rowling is workimg hard to keep ambiguous (at 
least, that is what I am utterly convinced she is doing to date...)

> > vmonte:
> > Why would JKR use descriptors that aren't meant to describe?

zgirnius:
She does not, and I never said she did. Snape swoops about at night 
like an overgrown bat, going about his DDM! business, as far as I am 
concerned. 

Spiders are also an ambiguous symbol. There is a European 
superstition that one should not kill a spider found in one's house, 
for example, because they bring good luck. They are associated with 
weaving (the craft/profession), which is highly useful, seeing as it 
provides us with warm clothes to wear and blankets to snuggle under. 
They are also used as an example of patience/persistence (as in the 
myth that Robert the Bruce was inspired to continue his struggle for 
Scottish Independence by watching a spider repeatedly failing to 
weave a web before achieving success). I personally tolerate them 
because they eat the other creepy crawlies in my house.

They do also have negative connotations, as you point out. So again, 
why must I conclude that it is the negative connotation that applies 
to Snape? DDM!Snape is patient and persistent and crafty, but if he 
is trying to deceive Voldemort because helping to defeat him is the 
right thing to do, I have no problem with that.  

> Alla:
> Well, I suppose the answer is that JKR may use those images as red 
> herrings, you know?

zgirnius:
That's not really my point. While I have definite (and oft stated 
<g>) views on Snape, it is also my opinion that Rowling has worked to 
keep him ambiguous, so that no side of the debate has any conclusive 
evidence at this point. In light of this view, I think she chose the 
symbols she uses for Snape deliberately with that end in mind - they, 
like Snape, are ambiguous. 

When we have DH in our hot little hands, only then will we be able to 
say (I sincerely hope) 'oh, he is malicious and poisonous and 
deceitful like a bat/spider' (ESE!/OFH!) or 'oh, he has an off-
putting exterior but serves a necessary and beneficial function in 
the story/has positive traits just like bats/spiders do'.

> Alla:
> If you want to see my type of looks, take a look at the new James 
> Bond <g>

zgirnius:
*swoons*

I guess the closest I can think of would be Ludo Bagman (in the first 
war, and at the height of his Quidditch career, not now). But a much 
less appealing character, for sure.