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

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 184661

Montavilla47:
It's a matter of degree, I think. Later in your post you say he
should have been *neutral* in his manner, not showing his
feelings either way. Since I don't think it was possible for
Snape to actually like Harry at first sight, I agree that that
would have been the most proper course.


Alla:

I am saying that Snape should be fair and **at least** neutral. I 
guess I am using those words as synonyms even if they are not.

Montavilla47:

I just think Snape would have been lying if he had pretended
to like Harry for LIly's sake. And I don't think he was obligated
by any tie to Lily to do that. And, as Magpie said, it would have
been pretty creepy if he had. :)

Alla:

No I do not think he was obligated to like Harry for Lily's sake, but 
I do think that he **was** obligated to not show that he hates Harry 
as a teacher.


Montavilla47:
Yes. I quite agree with you there. I think it would have been
very good for Harry and Snape to have worked through their
connection. It wouldn't have been easy, but it would have
probably brought them both a bit more peace and a lot less
angst.

Alla:

Yes.




Montavilla47:
Oh dear. I can feel myself falling into the black hole of 
justification, and
yet I can't escape. As far as Snape knows, Harry grew up in a family
well acquainted with magic and therefore, this magical world should
not be that unknown. Furthermore, Snape grew up in the Muggle world
as well and *he* read his books before coming to class.

Alla:

Yeah, sorry, I do not think it is relevant in the slightest. I think 
that if one does not know the circumstances, one should double check 
and triple check before making assumptions.
And Harry read his books too, there was a remark somewhere in PS that 
he found them interesting, he just did not memorize information he 
did not think he will be quizzed on. Yes, I know Hermione did, no I 
do not believe that she counts.


Montavilla47:
As for why he took one point from Harry for not helping Neville, I've
heard various justifications, but they are all speculation and 
dependent
on larger theories, so I'll refrain. I imagine, though, that if Harry
weren't already smarting from being targeted at the beginning of
class, he'd have gotten over that pretty quick.

Alla:

As I said before, to me the proof that there was no underlying reason 
for Snape to take a point except him being nasty is that in PoA he 
takes a point from Hermione for helping him. Obviously Snape cannot 
punish two kids for doing diametrically opposite things if he has 
some sort of purpose for Neville in mind, don't you think?

And I really do not care whether Harry would have been gotten over it 
quick or not, I think it is an abuse of authority at least and just 
wrong.


Montavilla47:
It's unclear from the text whether Snape destroyed the potion or
simply smirked at its destruction. If he did, he was completely
wrong to do so. Either way, he was being extremely childish.
Its revenge on the level of a three-year-old, isn't it?

Alla:

Agreed as to childish revenge.

Alla:
> On the top of my head that includes **not bringing child's dead
> father in the equation** any time this teacher wants to lecture a
> child.

Montavilla47:
Snape didn't do that "any time." He did it on a few specific
occasions when Harry's behavior struck him as particularly
James-like.

Alla:

I just believe that Snape who is complicit in the Harry not having 
the father in the first place has no business bringing him up ever, 
not once.


Montavilla47:
I'm not trying to argue that Snape should be treating Harry badly.
What I'm arguing is that Snape treated Harry in the way that reflected
his genuine feelings towards Harry. And that to have pretended to
like Harry when he didn't, because he liked Lily, would have been
dishonest and creepy.
<SNIP>
Alla:

And I am arguing that  if Snape's genuine feelings towards Harry was 
hate, he should have gotten out of his way to make sure Harry is not 
aware of it and that his feelings towards Harry do not influence the 
way Snape teaches him.



Montavilla47:
I agree with the large point. A teacher shouldn't show his feelings
either way. He should not, for example, gift a first-year student
with an expensive present that is normally not allowed, whether
or not that gives an advantage to one's Quidditch team. He should
not target that student for punishment simply because he dislikes
his father. He should not manipulate House points, either to make
that student a pariah with his House mates or to pull off a dramatic
eleventh-hour twist that suddenly awards the House Cup to that
student's group.

Alla:

Agreed with the first two examples, not agreed with the third, but 
really do not feel like getting in the House points debate now.

Montavilla47:
I think that Snape would probably agree with you that Harry's
welfare came first. I think he might disagree with you about what
Harry's welfare consisted of. But, are you saying that his protection
of Harry is canceled out because he didn't treat Harry nicely?

Alla:

Not quite no, I am saying that because of Snape's attitude towards 
Harry he was not the best choice for protector at all in my opinion.

Montavilla47:
I don't think that's quite fair. He was rude to Harry *and* he
protected Harry. It seems like you want to discount that
protection because of Snape's attitude.

Alla:

See if you phrase it that way, of course my argument sounds 
ridiculous, but I would not call what Snape did to Harry  just 
**rude** anymore than I would agree with somebody (do not remember 
who) once calling Snape a git, as if being a git was his biggest 
offense. I always believed that Snape abused Harry and Neville or if 
you wish abused his authority over them, therefore while I do not 
discount Snape protecting Harry exactly, I do not believe he gets a 
free reign either because of it.

Look it is the same how I feel about Petunia taking Harry in.   Do I 
think that blood protection per se is a bad thing? Of course not. Do 
I think sister of his mom should have taken him in, sure, under 
normal circumstances why not.

Do I think that Petunia should have taken him in the way she feels 
about him? NO, not really.

Snape could not get over how he feels about Harry, therefore I do not 
believe he should been given any extra tasks of protecting him. 

Because we had been shown several times IMO that even with protecting 
Harry, Snape always goes about it the wrong way. Good example IMO was 
Harry's Hogsmead excursion. Was Harry wrong to go? Of course he was. 
What exactly did Snape's lecture accomplished? Did Harry feel 
remorse, desire not to do it again? No, he did not. What did Lupin 
accomplish? IMO he accomplished so much more. Of course it is not 
like one lecture to teen boy will accomplish everything, but Lupin 
made Harry feel guilty and Snape, his protector, just antagonized him 
more.

How about when Harry and Ron arrived with the car in CoS. I am sure 
Snape wanted them not to do so anymore and his response is to ask for 
their expulsion?

So yes I know that Snape protected Harry several times, but I do 
believe that he was the bad choice for protector even if several 
times he got the job done.


Montavilla47:
What's more important? How you feel or what you do? I think
this dilemma is what makes Snape so interesting as a
character. If he liked Harry or treated him "neutrally," then
we wouldn't still be talking about the man. If he liked
Harry, then it would be easy for him to protect him and give
up his life to help him.

Alla:

Well of course he is an interesting character.

Montavilla47:
It's precisely because Snape hates Harry that makes Snape's
choices the *right* ones instead of the *easy* ones.

Alla:

I do not know about that.

JMO,

Alla