Snape and moral courage WAS: Re: The Houses, Finally

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 184638

Leah: 
<SNIP>
I just wonder when there would have been an opportunity
before Snape's death for this apology to take place. Snape's
behavior to Harry springs from a number of causes, the whole
James/Lily back-story, the need to maintain cover in his Order role,
particularly in front of a class which contains a high proportion of
Death Eaters' children,punishment for Harry for things he has done
or Snape thinks he has done outside the classroom, and a desire to
have Harry not turn out like James (eg the post-Sectumsempra
detentions). That's not to excuse the whole of Snape's behavior
but to point out that its motivations are very complex, perhaps not
consciously understood by Snape, and certainly, as far as the
maintaining cover motivation, dangerous to reveal before the death
of Voldemort


Alla:

I thought reasons for not giving an apology were not very relevant 
for this argument. Pippin  if I understood her correctly posited that 
Gryffindors as a group did not have the kind of moral courage that 
makes one freely and without any self justification apologize to 
those they wronged. And while I am not sure if I can agree with that 
as generalization about Gryffindors as whole, I can certainly agree 
that there are several significant examples of that in the books and 
certainly we had been making generalizations on fewer examples.

I also thought that Pippin was positing that Slytherins do have that 
sort of courage ( even if it is not my definition of it), but I am 
willing  just abandon the name for this behavior and just talk about 
it. Basically Gryffindors according to Pippin have much more trouble 
apologizing when guilty then Slytherins do and Snape in particular 
can give an apology for his wrong behavior.

I can give you gazillions reasons of why Sirius did not apologize to 
Snape, but the fact of the matter he did not. 

But certainly we can talk about Snape's reasons for not apologizing 
to Harry. Sorry, but I do not buy that any of the things you listed 
**are** in fact good enough. My opinion of course.

Let's go through them one by one. I always considered Snape's 
treating of Harry as supposed cover for him to be in Voldemort's good 
graces  to be the strangest explanation ever. Let me explain why I 
thought so. Because I always thought that if Snape wants to show 
Voldemort that he was a good little spy for him, it would make much 
more sense for him to treat Harry **extra** nicely, to make sure that 
DE children report to their fathers that Snape is doing anything he 
can to get into Dumbledore's good graces and treat his Chosen one 
well.

So, no, I do not believe that need to maintain the cover equals Snape 
has to be an *sshole to Harry, quite the contrary.

Everything else seems to be very simple to me. In fact, I think Snape 
and James's backstory is the only thing that is relevant in Snape's 
treatment of Harry.

Snape sees Harry, Snape sees James instead of Harry, Snape hates 
Harry just as he hated James. SO, of course I believe that backstory 
is the reason. But do I think it should matter? Um, no, not in the 
slightest. 

After book 7 my contempt for Snape increased tenfold. He **loved** 
that woman for goodness sake, how dare he treat her baby that way. 
Harry was desperate for father figure, he reciprocates ten times to 
any adult who shows him a tiny bit of affection – be it Hagrid, 
Dumbledore or Sirius.

As far as I am concerned Snape could have Harry eaten from his hand, 
if he so desired. Just tell him – I knew your mother, I can tell you 
stories about her, offer him tutoring in Potions. And here we go – 
Snape has James's son worshipping the ground he walks on.

Instead he does that.

Oh and of course through the school life Harry did things he needed 
to be punished on. Except Snape started it. If Snape never attacked 
Harry on the first lesson, sure, I would have fewer problems with 
some of the things he made Harry go through. As it stands, nothing 
justifies what Snape did IMO.

Now to answer your initial question – when such apology should have 
taken place, since I do not believe that it has any relevance to 
Voldemort, my answer is pretty much at any time when Snape was 
teaching Harry, at any time would have been good.

I mean, what I am trying to say is that Snape could have given whole 
hearted apology without mentioning Voldemort's business.


Leah: I agree that the clearing of Snape's name during the Battle
was an apology for getting Snape's loyalties wrong, and
certainly it is difficult to see that Snape did not deserve that.
<SNIP>

Alla:

Sorry, I meant to say that naming Harry's child after Snape was way 
more than Snape deserved. I agree that he certainly deserved to have 
his name cleared and have no problem with Harry doing it.

Leah
<SNIP>
By the
time Harry names Albus Severus he has had eight years of what seems
to have been stable, happy successful life to mull over what he
knows about Snape. He has enough information from his own knowledge
and from Snape's memories to at least understand some of the reasons
listed above for Snape's treatment of him and to reach his own
conclusions. Snape did give Harry all his memories (including again
SWM)which he had always wanted to conceal from Harry in life; this
isn't an apology but it is an explanation.

<SNIP>
Alla:

It does not matter to me that Harry names his child after eighth 
years of happy stable life. Jews as you probably know often name 
their kids in honor of the dead family members. I was named in honor 
of my grandmother's brother, my brother was named in honor of my 
other grandmother, my niece was named for my grandmother, etc. To me 
it is highly symbolic and loving act and nothing I saw in the books 
can convince me that Harry has any reason to love Snape. I am telling 
myself that for JKR it is just an act of respect for Snape's courage, 
but as I said, personal interpretation for me comes through here. I 
think this was so much more than Snape deserved, so much more. IMO of 
course.



Alla before:
<SNIP>
>Oh sure Snape apologized to Lily, why would he not want to keep
> friendship with the girl he loved? He said the words.

Leah: And is clearly very emotionally involved in doing so.

Alla:

Of course he is, but how to put it? His apology to me is sort of self-
serving here. I do not mean to say that loving somebody is a selfish 
act, quite the contrary often. But nevertheless, if Lily was just his 
friend and he had no romantic feelings for her, the apology would 
have carried more weight to me in a same way that Harry's apology to 
Luna would have carried more weight than his to Ginny.  I mean, it is 
a good thing that he apologized of course, but I do not consider it 
to be a very courageous act, the apology to Harry would have been to 
me an act of more courage.

Alla before:
> I seem to remember James also not fighting with Snape in front of
> Lily anymore.


Leah: And continued to hex Snape behind Lily's back. Why does this
demonstrate moral courage?

Alla:

And Snape was hexing him as well, but I was trying to say that it 
does not demonstrate moral courage, quite the contrary IMO either on 
James' or Snape's part. What it demonstrates to me is the willingness 
to promise anything to the girl one loves and continue to do whatever 
one wants behind her back.