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

[littleleahstill]

No: HPFGUIDX 184647

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at ...> wrote:
>> 
> 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. 
> 
> 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.

Leah: Sorry, I did not make myself clear. If we are discussing moral 
courage in making an apology, then the person who is in the wrong 
has to feel that, and to feel an apology is due, and then has to 
make the apology however hard it might be. If the person is too 
afraid to make the apology, then there is a lack of moral courage.  
What I was trying to say about Snape is that I don't think there is 
a time in the books when he would be able to calmly review his 
relationship with Harry and come to the conclusion that he should 
apologise to Harry for some aspects of his behaviour to Harry (not 
all, because Snape justifiably calls Harry to account on a number of 
occasions).  He  can't lack moral courage in not apologising because 
he hasn't reached the stage of considering apologising. The reasons 
I gave were reasons why it was difficult for him to reach that stage 
within the timeline of the books, not reasons for lack of moral 
courage. Perhaps DH was such a time, but he has no opportunity to be 
with Harry, other than to give the memories, which are a form of 
reaching out for Harry.  If Snape had concluded that he owed Harry 
some apology, then, based on his other behaviour in the books, I 
don't think he would lack moral courage to do so.  
>.
> 
 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.

Leah: Nothing to do with the moral courage point, but I disagree. 
When Harry starts Hogwarts, we know from 'Spinners End' that most of 
the Death Eaters thought Voldemort dead or gone forever.  There 
would be no need from their point of view, as Bellatrix says, for 
Snape to spy for him, and therefore no need for Snape to curry 
favour with Dumbledore. The mere fact of Snape being at Hogwarts is 
enough to to make him suspected of being a turncoat and viewed as 
being in Dumbledore's good graces by those of Bella's persuasion.  
What would be essential, if Voldemort is to return, as Dumbledore 
has told Snape he will, is that Snape is seen as retaining a Death 
Eater mentality, so that he will be able to convincingly return to 
Voldemort's side. Sneering at the 'Chosen One' will achieve this; 
befriending him will not.  

>> 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.

And being a parent is not just about showing affection, it has to be 
balanced with guiding and correcting the child.  None of the above, 
for various reasons, call Harry on any of his bad behaviour.  Snape 
does.  His instincts there are right, but due to his personality and 
all the reasons I have given above, he often goes wrong in the way 
he tries to do it.  Snape may well feel that protecting Lily's child 
involves punishing that child for all the times he endangers 
himself, rather than just twinkling at him.
 
> 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.

Leah: Well, aside from all the feelings of guilt etc which Snape has 
wrapped up in the whole Lily thing, he can't be in a position where 
Harry worships the ground he walks on.  I'm also not sure it's 
particularly moral to befriend a child as an act of revenge against 
their father.  

Leah