100 responses so far ↓

• 1 Erin // Apr 11, 2007 at 11:02 am

  Well, as a character pointed out in OotP (I think it may have been Sirius), the world isn’t divided between Death Eaters and good people. Umbridge wasn’t a DE and certainly considered herself on the side of good.

  Good!Snape, in my mind, has to do with his loyalties to Dumbledore and his stance against VOldemort’s power. It has nothing or little to do with the fact that he is a bully. So, in answer to your question, it doesn’t pose a challenge for me at all.

  One could argue that his blatent favoritism of Slytherin students (Draco in particular) in the books leading up to Voldemort’s gaining a body again in GoF is his way of insuring his “in” with the DE crowd should the need arise. I’ve also heard some theories saying that though Snape is unnecessarily harsh at points, his complaints aren’t all unfounded. Consider that when he docks points from Hermione in PoA, it is deserved because she is speaking out of turn. Neville, as well, desperately needs to get over his fear of Snape and concentrate because we’ve seen with Dumbledore’s Army and his Herbology talents that he can succeed when he wants to. Snape may be trying, with the wrong methods, to toughen him up.

• 2 Anton // Apr 11, 2007 at 11:17 am

  I think it’s a very significant challenge to the good-Snape theory! I once read JKR modelled Snape after a bullying teacher in her own childhood, and she definetely disliked that man…
  But I agree with Erin. There’s more to it. One’s allegiance doesn’t solely depend upond (past) mistakes. Remember James Potter was a terrible bully too, as we learn in OotP.

• 3 Spider // Apr 11, 2007 at 11:48 am

  Adding my voice to the chorus. I’m on the fence about whether Snape is on Dumbledore’s side or out for himself, but one can certainly be in support of the good guys and aligned against evil and still be a flawed person with horrible teaching methods! I also found that when I re-read the books with Snape’s complex history and Legilmancy abilities in mind, his bullying didn’t seem quite so bullying. He doesn’t like that Harry lies so much, and doesn’t want him taking after his father. Perhaps just because James participated in bullying, but also because his arrogance and errors *did* in fact contribute to him being betrayed and murdered — as well as Lily.

• 4 Dave // Apr 11, 2007 at 2:05 pm

  I would offer a fourth alternative to Snape’s ethics. I wouldn’t classify Snape as being out for himself, but I would offer up the idea that the books, in large part, are about whether or not a character like Snape can find redemption. He really is the one character that cannot be readily identified as good or evil. He wants to find goodness within himself, something that perhaps Lilly could have helped him with in a different universe.

  But Snape’s tendencies are to be vindictive and cruel. Even if his intentions might be called right, can a person motivated by vengeance and cruelty be good? Of all the characters in the books, he’s the one I would want to see in face the Mirror of Erised. What would he see of himself?

• 5 Travis Prinzi // Apr 11, 2007 at 2:11 pm

  Dave, I’ve been toying with a Book 7 Snape redemption theory as well as a possible alternative for Good!Snape.

• 6 shadowquill // Apr 11, 2007 at 2:28 pm

  It isn’t the events of the books that have me questioning the SnapeisGood theory, it is J.K. Rowling’s opinions. Like you mentioned, she said that bullying children is one of the shabbiest things a person can do. Her opinion of Snape is very low and not once has she ever defended him. Of course, this could be deception, but it still makes me wonder.

  Actually, there is something in the books that makes me question my hope that Snape is good. Snape is always compared to Hagrid in a negative light, and Hagrid is the character J.K. Rowling would bring to life if she could. She absolutely adores Hagrid. Hagrid’s eyes are warm, and Snape’s cold. Harry compares their eyes in the first book and, well, eyes are often poetically referred to as the windows to the soul. I’m still crossing my fingers, but I can’t help but take J.K. Rowling’s personal opinion of Snape to heart. I’d love for him to really be a semi-hero in the end, but considering her views I’m not so sure if that will happen. I’m so back and forth on this issue I doubt I’ll ever be 100% sure about anything concerning Snape.

  Ew, wouldn’t it be terrible if she left his loyalties unsettled? She could, but I doubt it. Still, that would be the worst!

• 7 korg20000bc // Apr 11, 2007 at 6:31 pm

  Although, as a teacher myself, I find Snape’s antics horrible I always thought his actions were part of an act in front of the children of known Death Eaters. If he acted like a nice person and enjoyed Harry’s company and so forth, these stories would get back to the other Death Eaters who may try to exact revenge.

  Matthew

• 8 Reyhan // Apr 11, 2007 at 10:02 pm

  Perhaps Dumbledore and Snape were friends in the sense that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, i.e. it was/is an allegiance based on mutual need rather than shared values.

  So when I say Snape is Dumbledore’s man through and through, I mean that they have a common enemy and that Snape takes his orders from Dumbledore.

  I voted for “Good Snape”. Not “good” in the sense of compassionate, forgiving, nurturing, unwilling to cause harm to others, or loving. “Good” in the sense that Snape has a shared goal with Dumbledore and Harry: the destruction of Voldemort.

  Can evil people do good things? I think so. And I think good people can do evil things. It’s because we are not always consistent, because we don’t always have all the facts, because we can’t see all the consequences of our actions, and because we have contradictory impulses.

  Travis, perhaps you need to define the word “good”.

• 9 mary // Apr 11, 2007 at 11:23 pm

  i agree with Erin. To say that Snape is merely a bully toward the children, and that his main goals are vengeful and vindictive, is to seriously misread the character and what Rowling is doing with him. I have little doubt that he is Dumbledore’s man, in spite of his imperfections. As to the compare and contrast with Hagrid - well, as a woman called Claire Jordan has pointed out, Hagrid is not really better than Snape. He also punishes a child for the sins of the father - but that child is a muggle, and Hagrid punishes him physically. Hagrid also makes racist comments about muggles, something we have *never* heard Snape do. I like Hagrid - he’s much more likeable than Snape - but he’s not perfect. Nobody in these books is perfect. And ‘good” and “nice” are not the same thing. Not at all.

  So - no problem for me. I believe there is much more going on with Snape, under the surface, than we have yet seen, and I believe he is very deeply good. i do hope I am proven right.

  Because, honestly, if I’m not, I think Rowlling will have written an immoral set of books. Really! so I’m keeping my fingers crossed, because it’s all entirely out of my control. I just hope I am reading her correctly-

  Oh - Snape favoring the Slytherins? A Gryffindor cliche, and for a long time I bought into it, but what have we actually *seen*? He’s enthusiastic about the Slytherin Quidditch team (but so is Minerva for Gryffindor), and he genuinely seems to like Draco, and praises him. He does not correct Draco’s misbehavior. BUT- he has never, ever, given Draco, or any other Slytherin, a single point toward the house cup. He never gives ANYBODY any points. And, as we discover in HBP, he does give Slytherins detention. It doesn’t seem like egregious favoritism, after all, especially since Slytherin is the despised house that everyone thinks is evil. Snape probably thinks they could use all the boosting they can get, in the face of all that emnity. But he does seem to overindulge Draco, which is no help to the boy.

• 10 NCMcGonagall // Apr 12, 2007 at 1:25 am

  I agree with Reyhan concerning the need for clarification of “good” in relationship to Snape. Specifically, I believe that he supports Dumbledore’s fight against Voldemort even though I think he is a despicable person. J.K. Rowling has said that he is “sadistic” which cannot be interpreted as “good” in any sense. His attitude toward students and most adults reflects his haughty nature and his conviction that he alone knows the right answers. So, while your poll question seems to focus on his allegiance to Dumbledore, that is a minor factor when considering the “goodness” of his character.

• 11 korg20000bc // Apr 12, 2007 at 7:37 am

  NCMcGonagall, you write that sadistic can not be interpreted as good in any sense.

  Not sure about that. I mean to a masochist it would seem good.

  Also, deliberate sadism would be how many military training programs would be considered (probably fewer these days) but it is sadism with a purpose ie. to train the soldier to be prepard for the techniques of the enemy.

  I’m not saying that Snape is deliberately a bastard because he wants to toughen his students up but rather that I disagree with you that “sadism” can never be perceived as good.

  Matthew

• 12 Dave // Apr 12, 2007 at 8:35 am

  I do need to say that I’m a relative newcomer to the books. I teach Rhetoric and Composition; ironically, I get little time to read on my own.

  So, any of my comments must be tempored with the fact that I’m still plugging my way through the first six (I’m halfway through GoF, and my wife informs me that things are just now getting interesting).

  Mary’s comments about Snape’s supposed favoritism are enlightening. Skimming what I’ve read thus far, nearly every scene/impression of Snape is mediated through Harry’s perspective, which is thoroughly flawed (as an adolescent, how could it not be?…one of the real genius authorial choices on Rowling’s part). This adds to the ambiguity of Snape’s character. To repeat myself a bit, he is the one main character I’ve found thus far who’s allegiances just aren’t clear at all. Rowling has to have done this for some purpose. He is by far the most interesting character in the books.

  And Rowling maximizes the limited perspective that she chooses. Harry’s perspective is the narrative medium, Snape’s change is important, and Rowling has intentionally positioned us so that she can manipulate our view of Snape perhaps more than that of any other character in the books. Dumbledore reveals so much about virtually every other mysterious character, but all he ever really says about Snape is that “[He] trusts him entirely.” Why does Dumbledore suddenly become so cagey about Snape?

• 13 Travis Prinzi // Apr 12, 2007 at 10:58 am

  “Good” Snape means that, regardless of his flaws, he’s ultimately loyal to Dumbledore - which means he didn’t actually kill him, and you need to sign on to some other explanation, like “Stoppered Death.” By using “good,” I mean “Dumbledore’s man,” however flawed he might be.

• 14 Reyhan // Apr 12, 2007 at 11:41 am

  Travis, thanks for qualifying good,that is how I understood it as well, but now I think you’ve attached too many assumptions. Being loyal to Dumbledore doesn’t necessarily mean he didn’t kill him. He could still have killed him - but only because he was following Dumbledore’s instructions (the same way, for example, that Harry force-fed Dumbledore the green potion in the cave).

• 15 mary // Apr 12, 2007 at 2:24 pm

  Travis, I’d just like to add a couple of things, briefly. To me, “good Snape” simply means that he is aligned with Dumbledore and opposed to Voldemort. But it doesn’t mean he is perfectly good, or hasn’t done bad things. He may have killed Dumbledore, anyway, whether on the headmaster’s orders or not. I think I said before that the apparent murder, from Snape’s pov, might be a textbook example of doing what was right rather than what was easy. In contrast, in his use of the Potions book, we see Harry continually doing what is easy rather than what is right.

  So - I think Snape is basically good, but that doesn’t excuse all his behavior by any means. Two things he does in the classroom are inexcusable to me: his attempt to poison Trevor, and his remark about Hermione’s teeth. As I’ve said repeatedly, he’s a very flawed young man, and it’s as though, in these books, he’s in a larval state - struggling painfully to become the sort of person he should be. He’s a complicated character; perhaps the most complicated and human character Rowling has written, and that’s why so many of us like him and hope for his redemption.

  Oh - a third thing. I read an interview in a Scottish paper with John Nettleship, the teacher Rowling hated. It was quite interesting. He’s retired now, and had no idea Rowling had used him as a model for Snape, though his wife and daughter recongnized him right away, as did some of his former colleagues. (I can imagine Rowling smiling to herself and saying, “Ha! he didn’t even recognize himself! Revenge is sweet! Now everyone knows *exactly* what he was like.)He admitted being sharp and sarcastic with the students, and said, “Well, I had to keep them from blowing themselves up, didn’t I?” He said Rowling, as a student, was a lot more like Harry than like Hermione in his classes. But here’s the thing: Rowling’s mother was Nettleship’s lab assistant, and she loved her job. When she became ill, it was a grief to her to leave it. And Mr. Nettleship spoke of her with great fondness and respect. As we know, Rowling was impelled to write these books because of her love for her mother, and her mother’s death. So he clearly wasn’t all bad. No one is all bad - in life or in these books. Everyone has some good in them somewhere, and some ability to choose the good. And that’s another reason why I am hoping for Snape’s redemption. We all are too quick to condemn - in fact, that is one of Snape’s failings with Harry, and vice versa - and that’s not a tendency that should be encouraged.

• 16 Mrs. Lovegood // Apr 12, 2007 at 9:22 pm

  The conversation here is fascinating. I very much agree that Snape is a multi-layered character who will not fit into a neat category. I remember one of the times I read Prisoner of Azkaban and got to the part in the Shrieking Shack where Snape calls Hermione a “stupid girl” (I believe it is even in all caps) — that was when I came to the conclusion that Snape is a very bad man, as the sticker says. Whether or not that means Snape is not loyal to Dumbledore, I am still not sure, though it is clear he doesn’t have Dumbledore’s heart and love for his students. Snape certainly is a perfectionist and very intelligent, a very capable wizard. You’d want him on your side just for his skills and abilities, I would think.

  He’s the most enigmatic character in the whole series, the one of whom we most want to know what he’s thinking, what motivates him. I sure hope we get a glimpse of that in the last book.

• 17 korg20000bc // Apr 12, 2007 at 11:37 pm

  Now thinking of Snape as a Slytherin and as head of house, you’d have to think that he must be representative of Slytherin traits. We don’t know if it was Dippet or Dumbledore who employed Snape but if Dumbledore (who takes great umbridge to his students being threatened or harmed) then he surely would have given him the sack if he really was bad.

  Not sure where I’m going with all this but i remember i had a point in my mind. It’s just refusing to come to the surface now.

  I’ll be back.

  Matthew

• 18 Travis Prinzi // Apr 13, 2007 at 7:32 am

  Whoah. If what mary says about Snape, Nettleship, and Rowling’s mother is true - does it shed any light on the story, given what we learned about Lily and potions in HBP?

• 19 seriously_black // Apr 13, 2007 at 10:19 am

  Although Rowling has said that Snape was “loosely based” on a sadistic teacher she once had, she has also *categorically* stated that:

  “I have only once set out to faithfully depict a real
  human being (see Gilderoy Lockhart); everywhere else,
  though I might have borrowed the occasional real
  person’s characteristic, they are at least 90% imaginary.”

  (taken from the ‘extras’ section of JKR’s web site)

  So while it’s possible that Nettlefield was the teacher on whom the classroom sadism was based, I’d doubt that the connection goes much deeper.

• 20 mary // Apr 13, 2007 at 10:32 am

  Matthew, Dumbledore employed Snape, if that helps. We know this because:
  1. Dumbledore was headmaster when the boys (marauders, Severus) and Lily were students in the school.
  2. Snape was not yet employed at the school (though he had graduated) when Dumbledore was interviewing Trelawney, apparently sometime in the late fall/winter of 79 or late winter/early spring of 80. From what Severus himself says in OOTP, we know he was hired in the autumn of 1981.

  Looking forward to your emerging thoughts!

• 21 Dave // Apr 13, 2007 at 11:07 am

  One character trait that I find particularly applicable here is Snape’s calculation. He is a methodical, calculated man who chooses the punishments he inflicts. For instance, when Harry loses his cool and quickly takes a shot at Draco just before potions class in GoF, the collateral damage to Hermione and the other girl from Slytherin are given consideration by Snape. He thinks about what he does when he sends his own housemember to the hospital wing, yet only insults Hermione by suggesting he sees no difference in her teeth, and then punishes Ron and Harry for standing to her defense.

  He does not show a lot of overt favoritism to the Slytherin’s, but he knows exactly the unfairness he imposes on Harry and any of the students associated with Harry.

  For those reasons, I cannot classify Snape as a morally good man. He seems to me to know the wrong nature of what he’s doing, yet chooses to do it, as opposed to Harry who tends to act from passion or conditioning without always considering the consequences.

  Which begs the question even harder for me: How could Dumbledore so unflinchingly trust Snape? Dumbledore exemplifies honor and justice as much as any literary character in the history of modern English. And he seems always several steps ahead of everyone else intellectually.

• 22 Travis Prinzi // Apr 13, 2007 at 11:13 am

  Dave, I think there are two options for Dumbledore’s trust:

  1. Huge emotional mistake. This fits Rowling’s post-HBP Mugglenet interview.

  2. Dumbledore knows things about Snape we don’t. Which is definitely true anyway, but that awkward pause in HBP when Harry was confronting Dumbledore about Snape yet again - that pause where Dumbledore looked like he was trying to make up his mind about telling Harry something - well, that “something” is going to be a huge factor in Dumbledore’s reasons for trusting Snape.

  And that’s why we can’t settle down definitively on Snape. We don’t know what Dumbledore knew.

  Of course, there could also be some combination of the two reasons. For example: Perhaps there really is some backstory that caused Snape to abandon Voldemort and side with Dumbledore, but being still a nasty guy overall, was tempted back toward the dark side after Voldemort’s return, and Dumbledore made a huge emotional mistake in continuing to trust him.

• 23 Dave // Apr 13, 2007 at 11:20 am

  But Rowling is also hiding something fundamental in Snape’s nature (maybe this is what Dumbledore knows). There’s just nothing about him that screams ideologue in the way that Voldemort is. To my knowledge, Snape never utters a single word about the pureblood/mudblood divide. Neither does Rowling do much to show Snape as a forceful advocate for Slytherin, like McGonagall is sometimes depicted.

  Snape’s a metaphor for the entire books, in a way. The reader clearly senses an internal conflict with Snape. His vindictiveness and cruelty are colliding with something else. And that something else is what Rowling is hiding. How Snape’s conflict resolves (even if it does so in a very messy way) is the comment the book is trying to make on good vs evil universals.

• 24 Doug // Apr 13, 2007 at 4:21 pm

  If you’re willing to define “good” as “loyal to Dumbledore”, then there doesn’t need to be any huge contradiction between JKR’s statements and the opinions of Snape’s defenders.

  Snape certainly has been a horrible person at many points in the book. We see his emotional abuse of Harry first-hand. We see his animosity towards Sirius. We eventually see him murder Dumbledore. But how do any of those things prevent him from sincerely desiring Voldemort’s defeat, and working with Dumbledore to accomplish it?

  I’d also attempt a limited defense of Snape’s classroom behavior, in that (a) we’re seeing it from (and sympathize with) Harry’s perspective, and (b) the bullying is almost entirely aimed at Harry. While there are episodes where he also bullies Neville and Hermione, Harry is by far his favorite and most frequent target. There’s not much to contradict the reading that his treatment of the other students is just that of a demanding instructor teaching a difficult subject.

  And while his treatment of Harry has been emotionally abusive, I think that many of Snape’s criticisms of Harry have some objective merit. Harry plainly does not put his best efforts into his schoolwork, especially in Snape’s classes. Harry is the Headmaster’s favorite, and is allowed to flaunt the school’s rules in a way that other students are not. Harry wears his emotions on his sleeve, and it allows Voldemort to manipulate him exactly as Snape predicts. Harry is unable to “close his mind and shut his mouth”, and it makes him a less effective dueler, just as Snape claims.

  I definitely find Snape to be JKR’s most interesting character. If the point of all the misdirection and ambiguity about Snape is just to have him turn out to be another bad guy, I’ll be disappointed. I think it’s more likely that she’s going to show that even a horrible person can choose to fight evil. I also think that both Harry and the reader will do some re-evaluation of Snape’s actions once they learn the full context.

• 25 salamander // Apr 14, 2007 at 12:04 am

  It seems none of you ever had my mother for a teacher. She is particularly hard on those she has high expectations from and ridiculously lax on those she doesn’t feel are worth the effort. They can pass her class without learning a thing.

  Now let’s give her the job of teaching the kids of Death Eaters and Future Aurors and say she is a Death Eater, she is going to make sure that all the DE kids can brew perfect potions of poisons and tell the FA that their antedotes are just fine (while giggling up her sleeve) Now does Snape do that?

  As it is Snape is hard on Harry, Ron and Neville while no comment is a compliment for Hermione. He does not have high expectations for Crabbe or Goyle and is not giving them any tips or extra homeowrk. But seems determined that Harry and others, get it right by examing where they went wrong.

  Snape is obviously a person motivated to over-achieve by critism and thinks this is what works best for the select few who most also gain that inner strength to withstand adversity.

  I stand by Snape as a good guy. Giving Harry tips to win even up to the last moment.

• 26 Travis Prinzi // Apr 14, 2007 at 12:12 am

  I’m not convinced that Snape is just “hard” on Harry, Ron, and Neville. He really is downright mean to them. I don’t think it’s coincidence that Rowling has said “bullying” is the worst thing a teacher could do, and that she uses the same word, “bullying,” to describe what Snape does in the books themselves.

• 27 mary // Apr 14, 2007 at 12:41 pm

  This might be as good a place as any to explain the problem I had with “The People of the Lie”. There are, as I remember, many true and valuable things in this book - I read it in fascination, standing up in the stacks of my local public library. And I have no problem with the idea that ‘evil’ people do not think themselves evil, but find all kinds of ways to justify their actions. In short, they lack integrity. So what was my problem?

  First and foremost, the idea of labelling people (especially mentally ill people - Peck was a therapist, and in some cases was talking about his patients!) evil. As Christians, we are taught that we do not have the right to judge our fellow human beings this way.

  Second, what does it mean to say someone lacks integrity? Do any of us *have* integrity; are we that good and pure and sure of ourselves? I’d say every human being on the face of this planet lies to himself (or herself) at some point, because we are all sinners, and all like to think better of ourselves than we perhaps should. Which brings me to the ‘good’ side in Rowling’s books, particularly Harry and the Marauders.

  The Marauders judge young Severus harshly, and think he is evil by nature - that he deserves to be tormented simply because he exists. They think they are good and virtuous and James, in particular, ‘hates Dark stuff’. It seems to me, when I look at the werewolf caper, that he is so secure in his judgement that he initially doesn’t recognize evil even when he and his friends are doing it. Which doesn’t make him a monster by any means - it just makes him human.

  The worst evils we know of in the world - genocide (which is still happening), apartheid (which is still happening), slavery (which is still happening) - result from one group of people judging another group the way Hary and the Marauders judge Snape. The mentality is: my philosophy (race, religion, political party) is right and good. Therefore my group is good; therefore I am good. And anyone who oppposes me is bad and deserves what happens to him. I see this as the road to evil.

  A bit off point, but I had to say it. Basically, with the bullying, too, I see people blaming Snape alone for something many, many characters do. Will be owling you privately with my further thoughts on this-

• 28 Travis Prinzi // Apr 14, 2007 at 1:45 pm

  mary, couple things in response:

  You wrote, “First and foremost, the idea of labelling people (especially mentally ill people - Peck was a therapist, and in some cases was talking about his patients!) evil. As Christians, we are taught that we do not have the right to judge our fellow human beings this way.”

  This is about as loose a reading of Matthew 7:1 (”Judge not that you be not judged”) as I can possibly imagine. There is a radical world of difference between hypocritically judging someone (Jesus actually commands us to “judge righteous judgments” elsewhere in the gospels, so you can’t say it’s “Christian” to never judge) and diagnosing a mental illness.

  You wrote, “The mentality is: my philosophy (race, religion, political party) is right and good. Therefore my group is good; therefore I am good. And anyone who oppposes me is bad and deserves what happens to him. I see this as the road to evil.”

  I’m not sure this is a fair or complete statement of the problem. I’d say it begins with an evil desire for power and control, and things like race and religion are merely the tools used to accomplish power. It’s ironic that you would, in the statement above, invoke Christian principles to argue your point, and then say this, since Jesus’ teachings are exclusive of any other belief system other than his own.

  You wrote: “Basically, with the bullying, too, I see people blaming Snape alone for something many, many characters do.”

  I think you’re missing the point. Everyone agrees there are other bullies in the series (like Dudley). But Rowling has said that the worst thing a teacher can do to students is to bully them, and Snape remains that only teacher who is a bully.

• 29 seriously_black // Apr 14, 2007 at 3:16 pm

  Dare I say it, but Christianity is not purely about forgiveness - and accusations of “bullying” cannot be levelled without careful consideration of the context.

  The New Testament contains lurid descriptions of merchants being driven from a temple in anger and with whip lashes, by Jesus himself. It’s not bullying if you take the view that he had a legitimate grievance and that his response was in some way righteous. Otherwise, it might well be.

  Mary would have us view anyone who acts in a way which is not overtly “nice” toward anyone else in the series, as equally culpable. If one ignores context and considers acts in isolation then perhaps they are (in which case, Jesus was indeed bullying those poor merchants). But when context is considered, a rather different picture emerges - and there is in fact no moral vacuum here.

  In general, those “on the side of good” who engage in acts of aggression against others in the series (eg the Twins, the Marauders, Harry etc) are doing so to *redress* ills and inequities and to stand up for what they believe in, against injustice and abuses of power. Others, however (Unbridge, Snape, Malfoy, Dudley) engage in such acts to gratify themselves or advance their own interests. Within the framework of the story (and the conceptions of good and evil which underpin the Potter Universe) this makes a world of difference.

  I said in general because there are of course exceptions here and there, on both sides. There are lapses of judgement or of intent on the part of otherwise well-intentioned characters - just as occasionally there are (arguably) justified actions on the part of some of the less admirable characters.

  However as Travis says, the position of trust of his role as a teacher gives Snape’s bullying a different meaning and a deeper significance. In case we did not draw such conclusions for ourselves, the author has publicly confirmed for us that 1) Snape *is* a sadist, who bullies students and abuses his power, and 2) that this is a particularly bad thing for a teacher to be doing.

  So I’m afraid that all the carefully spun arguments (on this thread and elsewhere) to the effect that:

  a) Snape merely dishes out “appropriate” punishments,
  b) Snape is just a “hard” teacher who means well,
  c) Snape only *seems* biased because of the so-called “Harry filter”,
  d) Snape is just a flawed human like any other,

  are entirely beside the point. Rowling has *stated* that he bullies students and abuses his power. And she has specifically described bullying as the worst, shabbiest thing a *teacher* can do, making it clear that the particular context *is* crucial.

  Unlike Voldemort, who is characterised as a psychopath - without the capacity for remorse or empathy, we are shown that Snape is a complex character who makes choices - and we are left in no doubt that he is capable of appreciating the significance of those choices.

  We don’t yet fully understand all of Snape’s choices. However, except for those among us who choose not to believe what the author has said, we *do* understand that he has chosen to bully students mercilessly throughout the six years of the series to date. And we might extrapolate from this to conjecture that he has had little genuine interest in serving the causes of love, justice, peace and equality, which are the key things Dumbledore stands for.

• 30 mary // Apr 14, 2007 at 3:20 pm

  Well, obviously, I disagree with a lot of what you said above. For one thing, as C.S. Lewis points out in “Men without Chests”, many (though not all) of Jesus’ teachings are *not* exclusive to (of?)other faiths. Of course, Christ’s message is something more, and greater, than has ever been seen in the world, but Christ himself said that he did not come to overthrow older faiths, but to clarify and improve them - “I did not come to overturn the law, but to fulfill it.”

  To me, the Gospel says very clearly that we are not allowed to judge our fellow human beings as evil. That is also standard Catholic theology as I understand it. That you do not agree is probably a theological difference, and therefore one not worth getting in to here. So let’s get back to bullying.

  You say that Snape is the only teacher ever shown to bully students. Is, he, really? Claire M Jordan, whom I quote in the essay I just wrote, points out (correctly) that both Flitwick and McGonagall are as nasty and sarcastic to other students as Snape often is to Harry. They are not so *to Harry*, the viewpoint character, so it’s easy to miss. But let’s look at Neville, as a good example of a student Snape should definitely let alone, and whom McGonagall also castigates. It seems both Snape and McGonagall (who appear to have essentially similar teaching styles and goals) are very frustrated by Neville’s lack of application. When Snape criticizes the boy, the effect is *always* to unite the other Gryffindors with Neville in opposition to Snape. This may or may not be Snape’s intent, but it is the effect he produces. When McGonagall criticizes Neville, the effect is *always* to humiliate the boy in front of his fellow Gryffindors and isolate him from the group. To quote Lewis again, in “Surprised by Joy”: “No amount of oppression from above can take the heart out of a boy like oppression from his fellows.” (quoting from memory; mistakes mine).

  I’m not arguing for Evil/McGonagall here. I’m just pointing out that bullies and poor teachers are rife in the potterverse - they are literally all over the place - and it’s really hard for me to see Snape as the worst in either respect. (Trelawney is both a bully and a very poor teacher, to give just one example. Her method of punishing and controlling is quite different from Snape’s or McGonagall’s, so it’s harder to see, but it’s there. And Umbridge, of course, is by far the worst in all respects.)

  And it *is* very, very dangerous to set yourself up as the arbiter of good and evil and the punisher of sinners. I firmly maintain that this is a good, quick path to evil actions. Getting back to the main point: many other teachers bully students. Other teachers bully *Neville*. Are they all evil? Why should Snape, then, be the only one who is blamed, and seen as evil, for being a bully? (Whether he actually is a bully or not is another question. I’m not sure he is, in general, but I do think a couple of the things he does to Neville and Hermione are way beyond the Pale, and cannot be justified.)

• 31 Travis Prinzi // Apr 14, 2007 at 3:37 pm

  mary, your misunderstandings here of Jesus, C.S. Lewis, and the Catholic church are every bit as much historical as they are theological.

  Jesus statement there emphatically does not mean that he came not to overthow ancient faiths, but to improve them. The “law” in that specific statement refers to Jewish (and therefore His Father’s) law, which he claims he came to fulfill. As such, Jesus declares himself the fulfillment, the purpose of Judaism, not a general overall improvement of the concept of religion. One wonders how Jesus did not come to overthrow past religions when he declared the temple, the central religious object of the Jewish religion, to be no longer relevant whatsoever.

  Jesus frequently teaches about whom to beware of, how to know someone as good or evil by their fruits, and righteous judgments.

  I’ve never read “Men with Chests,” but what I know about Lewis makes your statement inaccurately interpreted. The only area in which Lewis make exception for other faiths was in the case of those who had never heard the gospel before, and as far as he was concerned, only those who served that faith in a self-sacrificial manner (rather than selfishly) are accepted by Christ. As a philosopher, Lewis would have no problem pointing out that many of Jesus’ teachings are not incompatible with other religions, but Lewis took just as seriously as historical Christian teaching does Jesus’ statement that “no one can come to the Father except through Me.”

  To think your version of “not judging” comes anywhere close to the teachings of the Catholic church leads me to believe you don’t really know anything about the Catholic church! Have you ever read all those anathemas? What about excommunication? The Catholic Church, as far as its official doctrine and catechism goes, it most definitely as exclusive an expression of Christianity as any other denomination.

  Alright, now that I’ve allowed myself to be distracted by religion debates - interesting analysis of McGonagall. I do at times cringe at her treatment of Neville, but I’m not convinced it’s worse, or more frequent, than Snape’s. The criticism of McGonagall in PoA, for example, is centered around the fact that Neville had almost got Harry killed (or so they thought at the time). I’ll have to do more thinking on McGonagall, but I’m still not convinced her strictness in any way compares with Snape’s sadism.

  (And just for the record, I’m still hoping for a Snape who is loyal to Dumbledore, regardless of his MAJOR flaws. I’m just trying to get my head around his bullying right now and take an honest look at his character).

• 32 seriously_black // Apr 14, 2007 at 4:57 pm

  seriously_black said:
  And we might extrapolate from this to conjecture that he has had little genuine interest in serving the causes of love, justice, peace and equality, which are the key things Dumbledore stands for.

  I couldn’t have said it better myself.

  Which leaves us with a conundrum. If Snape has been in some way loyal to Dumbledore, then presumably it must be for reasons other than a fundamental commitment to love, justice, peace and equality. What would those reasons be?

  a) Humility - recognition that Dumbledore is a superior wizard who deserves and commands respect;
  b) Self-interest - Dumbledore has offered Snape protection, patronage and employment;
  c) Convenience - they may share a common enemy in Voldemort even if they have no other goals or values in common;
  d) None of the above - in which case it’s hard to see a motivation for him to ever have been *genuinely* loyal to Dumbledore.

  The humility theory is rather a stretch - since Snape’s self-importance has been routinely on display. He even openly vied for an ‘order of Merlin’ at the end of PoA, hoping for acclaim and credit for his daring capture of a “dangerous fugitive”. B and c don’t give much hope for his redemption either - they point to disingenuousness rather than loyalty.

  It seems distinctly possible that Harry perceived correctly when he noted Snape speaking of the Dark Arts “with a loving caress in his voice” (HBP Ch9).

• 33 Doug // Apr 14, 2007 at 10:57 pm

  seriously_black wrote:
  
  a) Humility …
  b) Self-interest …
  c) Convenience …
  d) None of the above …
  

  We agree that Snape is plainly not motivated by the same things as Dumbledore. However, it’s not hard at all to come up with motives that would make him quite loyal to Dumbledore. (b) and (c) are quite plausible.

  Another good motive would be revenge, or said more politely justice. This is, after all, Harry’s main motivation for fighting Voldemort - Voldemort has murdered many of Harry’s loved ones, and he wants to make Voldemort pay for these actions. If you accept any form of the Snape/Lily theories, then Voldemort’s decision to target the Potters could well result in this kind of motive.

  The bottom line is that Snape is not a [b]good[/b] man. He’s nasty, he hates Harry, he bullies Harry in his classes, he’s nursed an adolescent hatred for James & Sirius for more than two decades, he’s up to his eyeballs in the Dark Arts, and on and on. But his actions also show him to be a [b]loyal[/b] man, one who has saved Harry’s life on numerous occasions and was completely trusted by Dumbledore.

• 34 seriously_black // Apr 15, 2007 at 12:36 am

  Hi Doug,
  Yes, revenge is one possibility - and I would put that under item “c” in my previous post. A common enemy.

  I’m not, however, convinced that Snape’s actions have shown him to be loyal. That is, there could be other explanations for them, of which we may become aware in July. Certainly Rowling has been open about the fact that Dumbledore’s trust was a a grave error (‘an emotional mistake’ as per the LeakyMug interviews in July 05) - which seems to point to disloyalty (after all if Snape was loyal throughout, then Dumbledore’s trust was not misplaced and he made no mistake…).

  Again, however, there are those who choose to disbelieve the words of the author, preferring to think that she is lying, humoring the interviewers, seeking to mislead with her answers and/or choosing her words carelessly (eg ‘accidentally’ saying things she doesn’t mean). I think otherwise - which is one of several things which leads me to suspect that the Snape enigma is about to be turned on it’s head.

• 35 seriously_black // Apr 15, 2007 at 5:31 am

  A while back, korg20000bc responded to CMcGonagall with:
  “…but rather that I disagree with you that “sadism” can never be perceived as good”

  To which I would say that I’m afraid that this is based on a trick of semantics and is fallacious.

  A masochist is a person who is drawn to things that are ‘bad’ for them. Without talking about the psychology of masochism, suffice to say that a masochist is well aware that sadism is not good and that is *why* they are drawn to it (often more-or-less in spite of themselves). If they thought it was “good” then they’d have no interest in it because it is *bad* they find they need.

  Your other argument about the military is even more deeply flawed. The military encourage fighting skill, true, but not sadism. In times of peace, military training tends ot focus on *dispassionate* fighting skill - recruits are trained to suppress emotions when engaging in action against an enemy. In war, raw recruits are sometimes encouraged to direct *hatred* toward the enemy. Whilst either of these approaches may be ethically questionable, neither of them qualifies as sadism (which requires emotional involvement - the finding of *pleasure* in the pain of others). A sadist within the military is generally understood to be a liability, not an asset.

  Notwithstanding that, even in areas (eg torture squads) where sadism might be a sought-after quality, I think we can assume it to be understood that sadism is desirable for its extra-badness, nastiness and intense loathsomeness.

  So even in death squads, I believe it is understood that “good sadist” is an oxymoron.

• 36 korg20000bc // Apr 15, 2007 at 8:52 am

  Wow,
  You’re certainly giving me a schooling!

  But I believe that you have misunderstood my post. I did not write, as you suggest, that soldiers are trained to be sadistic, but rather some training could be considered sadistic. That to the people going through painful and grueling training consider that it is being done with the pleasure of the sergeants or whatever rank.

  Your argument against my post is based on your misreading of my words. I agree with your post BUT it’s not saying anything contrary to what I wrote. The tone of you post I found to be needlessly confronting. What’s you issue with me?

  I read your posts and see your skillful discourse that I just cannot compete with. My own arguments are generally poorly stated and could definately use some work. You are extremely intelligent but please don’t be derisive of my attempts to contribute to the discussion.

  If I have misunderstood your intention, please accept my humble apology.

  Yours in Harrydom
  Matthew

• 37 seriously_black // Apr 15, 2007 at 9:46 am

  Hi Mathew,
  I have no issue with you and I have agreed with some of your other contributions here. Even if I don’t agree, I think discussion about different ideas and perspectives is fine and it is one of the things that is good about this site (ie that Travis encourages a variety of views).

  It was not my intention to offend you, simply to contest that sadism can be perceived in any general sense as good. You’re right that I read your earlier comments as saying that military training may encourage sadism (whereas I accept that what you were referring to is the possibility that the training itself might be sadistic). Either way, it seems we’re agreed that it’s not a ‘good’ thing.

  Your apology is not needed - but please accept my apology for my contribution to this misunderstanding, and my best wishes!

• 38 korg20000bc // Apr 16, 2007 at 6:51 am

  seriously_black,
  Thankyou for your gracious words.

  I suppose I was a bit taken aback that you bought out the big guns without asking me to clarify my point.

  Yes, we are agreed that sadism is not “good” but I disagreed with NCMcGonagall that it could not be seen as good in ANY sense.

  once again- Thankyou

  Matthew

• 39 seriously_black // Apr 16, 2007 at 10:11 am

  No problem, Matthew,

  And your difference of opinion with NCMcGonagall is duly noted.

• 40 Christina // Apr 16, 2007 at 11:01 am

  I left a post on here, but it didn’t go through, so I will try it again.

  I see Snape as someone who is under a great deal of pressure. He was a victim of abuse (or at least witnessed it between his father against his mother) as a child. He was demoralized during his socially-formative years by the Marauders (save Lupin). He has to be the good guy in front of Dumbledore. He has to be the bad guy in front of the DE’s and their children. He risks his life playing the double agent. Yes, he is a bully. Do I excuse him of his actions because of his past? No, of course not, but I understand them.

  JKR is excellent at giving us characters that we can relate to, and again we see someone that is flawed, far from perfect, who is dealing with his demons. There are times when I find myself loathing him…usually those are the times when he is tormenting Harry or Neville for no apparent reason. But there are times, too, when I see him as a protector. The most vivid in my mind is when he puts himself in front of Harry, Hermione, and Ron when Lupin is transformed into a werewolf in PoA. When he puts his self aside and the real person shows through.

  He wants to hate Harry because he is a constant reminder of James (and perhaps his affection for Lily?), as well as the mistake he made when he told LV about the prophecy. Perhaps Snape has not forgiven himself for their deaths, and Harry’s presence makes him re-live that. Demons. We all have them. And often it is the hardest to forgive ourselves for the things in our pasts. Perhaps once Harry forgives Snape for his part in the deaths of his parents, then Snape will be able to forgive himself. Redemption is at hand, and I really feel like Snape will redeem himself in a BIG way!!

• 41 seriously_black // Apr 16, 2007 at 11:45 am

  Hi Christina,
  Your comment went through fine, it’s just on another thread (the one called Defending Dumbledore, Part II: “I shall not, of course, lie.”.

  In response to what you wrote on the previous occasion:

  “…most significantly, when he threw himself in front of Hermione, Ron, and Harry when Lupin transformed into a werewolf in PoA”

  I pointed out that I’m afraid that was an invention of the film makers. It doesn’t happen in the book.

  Since JKR did not write it - and since the actors and film makers have quite a lot of latitude in what they portray and how, I don’t think that it can be relied upon as a guide to the character.

  IOW the films are not part of canon.

• 42 Christina // Apr 16, 2007 at 12:59 pm

  Thanks for letting me know, that SB…I have been very behind on all the posts since moving and having a sick child last week. I am working on PoA right now and I am so dissappointed that the filmmakers took that liberty with Snape. I still think he will turn out to be a good guy, though!!

• 43 Travis Prinzi // Apr 16, 2007 at 11:35 pm

  The filmmakers are bound to take lots of liberties.

  I’m not sure that, either way, Snape standing in front of students to protect them from a werewolf ultimately says anything one way or another about Snape. I think it’s rather obvious that Snape would do that. He’s saved plenty of lives thus far in the books.

  The only way the scene in question would have any significance would be if it was one of the things the Rowling said “gave her chills” about Cuaron’s insight into the books. And we can’t possibly know that.

  Speaking of Cuaron, I just watched “Children of Men” tonight. Abysmal movie. I’m going to have to read the original book by P.D. James. Apparently, Cuaron removed almost anything Christian from the book that he possibly could.

  I’ve come to think Cuaron is brilliant with imagery/cinematography, but I’m not overly thrilled with the way he tells his stories. PoA was absolutely beautifully filmed, but how on earth he managed to allow Gambon to do what he did, and how he managed to cut revealing the identities of Moony, Padfoot, and Prongs, or that James’ dad was a Stag, or any of that…just baffling.

• 44 seriously_black // Apr 17, 2007 at 2:12 am

  Yeah. Great cinematic feel, but I’d have gladly traded the extensive focus on the talking (shrunken) head on the Knight Bus - which, frankly, had *nothing at all* to do with the story or even with the Potter universe, for some of the essential details you mention.

  Nevertheless, the PoA film is a step up from the previous two and overall is a great film. With regard to the portrayal of Snape, I agree that what they have done may have seemed in keeping with what was known of the character at that time (eg he saved Harry in Book 1, why not have him do so again in Book 3). And they *were* in a difficult position, creating a revised version of book 3 when the last few books of the series were not even written yet.

  All the same, whilst some departures from the books are inevitable, others appear gratuitous - and in Gambon’s case, the fact that says he hasn’t even bothered to *read* Rowling’s books explains a great deal about the man and the ineptness of his renderings of Dumbledore.

• 45 Reyhan // Apr 17, 2007 at 9:21 am

  Have to speak up in Cuaron’s defense. PoA is my favorite of the Harry Potter movies. Part of it is the pacing - it’s quick, almost breathless - but most of it is the story telling, especially in the last third of the movie when Harry and Hermione go back in time. It’s very difficult to tell a time-travel story coherently, and I thought Cuaron did an excellent job, not just of keeping the threads separate, but bringing them together to maximum effect. That’s where I got my chills.

  Gambon’s acting was unfortunate. But Emma Watson has never been better. She channeled Hermione’s intelligence and impatience and energy extremely well - it was as pleasurable watching her as it was distasteful watching Gambon.

  The visuals were not bad either. The repeated shots of the clockworks was a brilliant use of foreshadowing.

  What I’d really like to talk about, however, is this: do we know which scenes gave JKR the chills? I thought it was the confrontation between Sirius (in his animagus form) and Lupin (as werewolf). Is this right? Anything else?

• 46 Travis Prinzi // Apr 17, 2007 at 9:27 am

  Reyhan, agree with everything you said.

  No, we’re not sure which scenes gave her chills. There have been lots of speculations, of course. Some argue that Draco was bitten by Fenrir, and his howling in one of the DADA’s classes foreshadows it.

  I thought perhaps his use of the song “Double, Double, Toil and Trouble” at the beginning might be it. That’s the line repeated by the witches in MacBeth, and with the whole prophecy thing that we learn about at the end of OotP and more specifically in HBP, Rowling has said she’s going for a MacBeth sort of thing.

  Others have been suggested. Can’t remember them now.

• 47 seriously_black // Apr 17, 2007 at 9:52 am

  Well, that’s wierd.

  I posted a further comment a few moments ago, but it did not appear. Then I tried to post it again and got a WordPress error message that said.

  Duplicate comment detected; it looks as though you’ve already said that!

  Something similar happened a couple of days ago on another thread here. It seems the SoG Blog has acquired a ‘pottergeist’.

• 48 seriously_black // Apr 17, 2007 at 9:53 am

  Hmms. Well at least my complaint that it wasn’t working worked. Maybe I’ll try the original message again. Apologies if it ends up appearing twice…

• 49 Travis Prinzi // Apr 17, 2007 at 10:38 am

  There have been lots of weird, random comment errors lately. Nothing consistent enough to troubleshoot. My guess is that the newest version of Wordpress that I recently downloaded is just working out some bugs. I had some posting issues just after I downloaded it, but they’re resolved. So I’m guessing (hoping) the comment issues will be resolved as well.

  If you can’t get it to post, send the comment via E-Owl, and I’ll post it for you.

• 50 seriously_black // Apr 17, 2007 at 11:14 am

  Thanks Travis. It’s still refusing to accept the text I tried to post, so I’ve sent it to you as an E-Owl, as you suggested. Cheers.

• 51 Travis Prinzi // Apr 17, 2007 at 11:32 am

  seriously_black sent me this comment via E-Owl (is anyone else having difficulty posting comments?):

  Hey Travis,
  I’ve tried to post the same comment four times now, and it’s funny that it accepts my comments about the problems I’m having posting, but it won’t accept the actual on-topic comment. Wierd. Anyway, here’s the elusive comment:

  Regarding Rowling’s response to seeing PoA, it seems to be there’s a more obvious candidate for the cause of “chills” than any you’ve mentioned.

  The developing sexual tension between Hermione and Ron was featured bold and large in the moment when Hermione instinctively reaches for Ron’s hand, then (realising what she’s done) withdraws and their eyes meet fleetingly.

  It was a beautiful piece of foreshadowing of something that is scarcely hinted at in the books until 4 and is not fully on the horizon until 6. At that time, a sizeable chunk of fandom were absolutely certain that Harry/Hermione were destined for each other, yet Cuaron saw what was coming and managed to work it gracefully into 3.

  There may be other things (though none that have come to light thus far , as far as I can see). But I would say that would be enough to account for Rowling’s comment after the premiere.

• 52 Travis Prinzi // Apr 17, 2007 at 11:34 am

  seriously_black, while I’m of the opinion that Ron/Hermione has been blatantly obvious since day one (and Rowling has said as much), you may very well be correct. Perhaps that little exchange (which was very well done) did give her chills.

• 53 seriously_black // Apr 17, 2007 at 1:48 pm

  Hi Travis,
  I agree thought Ron and Hermione were fated ever since reading in the first book that Hermione spent the entire afternoon in a toilet crying after overhearing Ron insulting her.

  But apparently that was way too subtle for most of the readership, give the ferocity with which the so-called “H/H shippers” comandeered the airspace (and web space) right up until July 2005.

  Kinda like the Good!Snape devotees have been doing ever since.

• 54 seriously_black // Apr 17, 2007 at 1:50 pm

  Err… make that “I agree, I thought…” and (later) “”given the ferocity…”.

  Sheesh. Talk about all thumbs on the keyboard!

• 55 Reyhan // Apr 17, 2007 at 2:12 pm

  Travis, I put together a summary of possible instances of foreshadowing in the Cuaron movie and what they foretold, but the comment got lost in the electronic void. Next time I think I’ll try to post it on another thread, maybe on one of the book 7 posts.

  And S_B, I am tempted to ask you what you’re going to say when you find out that Snape has actually been a dedicated if deeply flawed agent of Dumbledore all along. Will you offer the defense prepared by the scientist who was an atheist who discovers upon death, that he was wrong: “But, Lord, you did not provide enough evidence?”

  The only reason why I do not ask you this question is because I think that your belief system does allow, very reluctantly, that Snape has been serving Dumbledore’s ends, if not his values, albeit for his own selfish reasons.

• 56 Ms. Jan // Apr 17, 2007 at 3:00 pm

  I reread what Christina said about Snape’s past. We read that he came from an sad family environment. His mother, a witch, was abused by a muggle. A being of such power allowing herself to be abused by a mere muggle? Even as a child, Snape had to be aware of that incongruity. Voldemort experienced a somewhat similar past and became cold and detached from others. However, unlike VM, Snape’s mother cared for him. He does know how love feels and has loved. VM had neither.

  Consider this, Snape is a real person. He comes from a family where mother is of some personage (educated, sophisticated) and his father is not. He is cruel to her in front of their child. Wouldn’t you expect some problems in this child’s emotional development? He first feels shame, then low self-esteem. By the time he goes to school, he has allowed himself to feel pride in being a like his mother, but then endures the bullying by his classmates. He becomes a loner to protect himself. The anger remains, though. Sadly, we see the results of this all-consuming anger every day in the paper when people commit crimes of passion or acts of cruelty to one another.

  On top of his family life, Snape is abused by James and Sirius–in front of the entire school. This is a man full of anger and resentment. He did manage to find in Dumbledore some quiet leadership and trust. So I believe he CAN be loyal to Dumbledore and but still rages against the world. Harry is a target because he is James’ son and Sirius’ godson. He looks like James and occasionally acts like him. It may be irrational, but Snape hates him for it. The adult Snape still feels as the child did years ago. (Bullying makes a bully. This is why we have been told as teachers to really crack down on all sorts of bullying.)

  In Book 7, I think JKR will bring Harry closer to his mother and therefore bring out those qualities in him that made Lily such an extraordinary person and gifted witch. In turn, Snape will see Harry differently. And if I have interpreted the clues correctly, Snape had feelings for Lily. I wonder if he’ll make the ultimate sacrifice for Harry, or aid him in some way. Either way, I’m certain Snape will die in Book 7.

  These are just my musings on the subject. I find myself turning over ideas about Book 7 often, of late and I keep coming back to that moment in the tower when Dumbledore says, “Please, Severus.” I can’t believe he’s pleading for his life. He asking something of Snape. Harry is invisible and frozen for a reason, but I’m not sure why DD did this. He has often delayed information to Harry about things he should know, and I think this was one of those times. There’s something about Snape…

  Carry on, you brilliant people!

• 57 seriously_black // Apr 17, 2007 at 3:06 pm

  Hi Reyhan,
  Let me answer your “questions” even though you “haven’t actually asked them”.

  Second “question” first: I think Snape *was* serving Voldemort prior to the incident at Godric’s Hollow. I think Snape served Dumbledore after a fashion, incompletely (!) and reluctantly for some years thereafter - saving his skin from Azkaban by doing so. I think that since the return of the Dark Lord, Snape has been biding his time and playing both sides, wanting to be sure that the Dark Lord’s strength was assured before declaring his hand. I do not think he ever served Dumbledore wholeheartedly (and therefore could not be said to have ever been Dumbledore’s man through and through) - and I think the act he committed on the tower at the end of HBP was murder.

  FWIW, although I don’t subscribe to the Stoppered Death theory - or the various other flights of fancy that have Dumbledore ordering his own death, my view is that it would still be murder even so. “He told me to” is no defence against a murder charge.

  As for the first “question that you didn’t ask” - what am I going to say if I find out that Snape has been a dedicated agent of Dumbledore all along?

  In that unlikely event, I will freely and openly admit that I was wrong. I do not think I will be looking for anyone (other than myself) to blame.

  Until then, my opinions are carefully considered and on occasions when I believe you are mistaken I’ll say so. If and when I come across a compelling argument and/or convincing evidence that leads me to different conclusions, I will say so also (and will revise my opinions accordingly).

  So - dare I ask - what do *you* plan to say when the full extent of Snape’s treachery and disloyalty is exposed?

• 58 Reyhan // Apr 17, 2007 at 3:32 pm

  Actually, I believe that “he asked me to” has been accepted by the courts in cases of assisted suicide. But it is obviously a very contentious issue.

  And let me take back one word I used: “all along”. I meant to say “after all”. Whatever Snape’s current allegiance, I certainly do not believe he was serving Dumbledore when he took the prophecy to Voldemort.

  In answer to your question, I suspect that the full extent of Snape’s treachery and disloyalty has yet to be exposed. One of my theories is that Snape - unlike Voldemort - did know what it was to love someone, and that he betrayed the one he loved. I think that person was Lily Potter. Hence the need for years and years of penitence and a final supreme act of self-sacrifice.

  The main difference between us is that you think he’s a treacherous dog; I think that he’s a recovering treacherous dog. If it turns out that he’s never changed his treacherous ways, or that he does not redeem himself with the final supreme act etc, but lives or dies unpenitent, well, I will say that I wilfully misread the signs because of my personal biases. It wouldn’t be the first time.

• 59 Travis Prinzi // Apr 17, 2007 at 3:48 pm

  Actually, “Stoppered Death” eliminates even “he told me to kill him,” which Felicity has adequately argued here. I also don’t think Stoppered Death fits in the same category of “flights of fancy” that many of the other loony theories do.

• 60 seriously_black // Apr 17, 2007 at 3:52 pm

  Hi Ms. Jan,
  Your thoughts are interesting but needless to say, there are a number of things we have interpreted rather differently.

  For instance I’m inclined to the view that the “Snape Loved Lily” line of thinking is conjecture rather than a reading of clues. Granted, Snape called Lily a Mudblood - which does sound rather like an overture. But then he has called Hermione some choice names as well, and we’ve yet to see any evidence of fondness there. It’s true that Petunia’s reference to “that awful boy” *might* have been to Snape - but it could just as easily have been to James or Sirius.

  So I’m inclined to think the “Snape Loves Lily” theories are speculative in the *absence* of clues, rather than a reading of the clues and information that *are* there. Similarly, I view much of your portrait of Snape and his past as conjecture and speculation. In the absence of fact, you are conjuring up details and theories to suit. It’s an imaginative and somewhat fanciful process. An interesting exercise maybe and you may be right about at least some of your speculation. For instance it may indeed be Tobias Snape who was shouting at a woman in Snape’s childhood memory, and that woman may be his Eileen Prince - I’m inclined to agree that in the absence of any hard *fact* that seems at least plausible, if not obvious. But it is also *possible* that the man was a mean uncle or Morphin Gaunt or even Cornelius Fudge - or that the woman was Mrs Figg. I doubt it, but we don’t actually *know*. For which reason, those things are directly supported by canon are a lot more useful than speculation and conjecture.

  The fact is we know that Snape is a sadist, but we don’t know why. Even if your conjecture about abuse and other difficulties in Snape’s past proves to be correct, there are plenty of people who excperience such difficulties in their formative years who don’t become sadists. It is not a foregone conclusion and the causal connections are therefore tenuous at best. And FWIW, Sirius remarked that Snape knew more curses and dark magic when he arrived at Hogwarts than most seventh years.

  I don’t think we have all the facts. And I’m not convinced that when we do, they will point in all the directions you presently suppose.

  Notwithstanding that, like you, I do not think that Dumbledore was pleading for his life on the tower. I think it’s more likely that he was pleading for Severus not to throw his lot in with the Death Eaters. He may even have regarded own fate as incidental in comparison to the misfortune (as he saw it) of losing Snape to the forces of darkness.

• 61 seriously_black // Apr 17, 2007 at 4:23 pm

  Hi Travis,
  Yes, I’m familiar with Felicity’s essay on the subject. Her argument about motivation boils down to:

  “Neither wanted circumstances to fall out the way they did, but both knew Snape had to cast the AK because it was the only option that offered hope given Dumbledore’s condition and the need to preserve Snape to help Harry vanquish Voldemort”

  Which to my mind provides an interesting *motive* for murder, but does not provide either an adequate or convincing justification, nor an excuse. Moreover it is inconsistent with everything Dumbledore has said to Harry.

  If Dumbledore believes that the power that will defeat the Dark Lord - the “power the Dark Lord knows not” - is Harry’s capacity for love, then he must surely believe that it is Harry, not Snape, who is the key to defeating Voldemort - and that Snape’s continuing underconver operation may be useful but is unlikely to be the deciding factor. Certainly not worth a murder.

  But my objections to the theory go much deeper. I’m afraid I don’t accept that Dumbledore was behaving like a man on borrowed time (any more than any 150 year old wizard would, at any rate) throughout HBP. He kept putting off various questions of Harry’s promising to tell him things all in good time and in due course - and then died before doing so. Not at all what I would expect from a man who (supposedly) knew his number was up.

  So while I agree that it is an interesting speculation, I do not think it is very useful. Even if Rowling had not already told us that Dumbledore’s trust in Snape was a huge emotional mistake and that Snape is “more culpable even than Voldemort”, I’d still find stoppered death a fanciful and ultimately unsatisfactory explanation of events to date.

• 62 Ms. Jan // Apr 17, 2007 at 5:25 pm

  To seriously_black

  Ah, come on. I’m a simple woman, interpreting things through my ‘female intuition’. I judge the characters as I would real people. It’s just gut feeling on my part. I’ve been known to be wrong, too.

  I don’t hold to a Snape-Lily romance. I only refer to a ‘regard’ on his part for her compassionate nature at time when he needed compassion. Pure speculation, of course.

  I read these books for fun and I interpret in the same manner. As with real people, you can’t ever know everything about them (even those you love and know intimately), so I ‘fill in’ the rest using my knowledge base of human nature. It’s the best I can do.

  I do enjoy your posts, though. They are enlightening and give me food for thought. That’s why I’m here.

• 63 seriously_black // Apr 17, 2007 at 6:56 pm

  Hi Ms Jan,
  It seems to me that it’s also possible that Severus *resented* Lily’s compassionate overtures, in much the same “prideful” way that he resented (hated, according to Dumbledore) James’ intervention to save him from a werewolf encounter.

  But that aside, I do agree that there is room for intuition and speculation. I guess the point I was trying to make is that it’s helpful to distinguish between conjecture and speculation (valuable though they may be in their own right) and deduction and proof from concrete clues in canon.

  I’ve been know to offer intuitions and the occasional wild guess myself - but I’m careful to say that it’s purely speculative when I do.

• 64 Travis Prinzi // Apr 17, 2007 at 7:10 pm

  If I’ve read Felicity correctly, her argument is that what happened on the tower was not murder, primarily because Dumbledore was already “dead.” He was only still walking because of Snape’s skill.

  We’ll have to disagree, I suppose, on how valuable Snape’s role as spy was in Dumbledore’s mind. We’ll also have to disagree on Dumbledore’s tone throughout the book. To me, he reads like someone who is very, very urgent, though just patient enough to let Harry learn things on his own.

  I think Stoppered Death is more than interesting speculation. I think it’s the only reasonable way to pull of a Snape who is loyal to Dumbledore, and I think Rowling can do it.

  Not to say she has done it, but to say she could.

• 65 Reyhan // Apr 17, 2007 at 10:53 pm

  Dumbledore never gets flustered (which is part of the reason Gambon is so wrong for the part), but I agree with Travis: throughout HBP he presents as someone who is in a terrible hurry. He just can’t let it show because the learning process can’t be rushed. Harry has to see and understand for himself.

  As for why he doesn’t answer Harry’s questions, and keeps putting him off, well, to me, the answer is simple: he doesn’t intend to tell Harry what happened to his hand. This can only be for one reason: the story of what happened to his hand is inextricably linked to the fact that he has been in some fashion mortally wounded and will die soon. And he can’t let Harry know that, because it will distract him from what he has to learn: the history of the Horcruxes.

  S_B, I agree with the distinction you draw between speculation and conjecture on the one hand, and deduction based on concrete clues on the other. But some clues are ambiguous, and can be interpreted in different ways. For example, the “gleam of triumph” in Dumbledore’s eyes when he learns Voldemort has reconstituted himself using Evans/Potter blood in GoF; the involuntary twitch Snape’s hand gives when he promises Narcissa that he will kill Dumbledore if Draco doesn’t have the parts for the job in HBP; the words Dumbledore murmurs in OotP after Harry dreams of biting Arthur Weasley as Nagini/Voldemort:

  “‘Naturally, naturally,’ murmured Dumbledore apparently to himself, still observing the stream of smoke without the slightest sign of surprise. ‘But in essence divided?’. ”

  And the “look of grim satisfaction” he gives when the smoke serpent splits into two snakes.

  The look on Snape’s face “as though he was in as much pain as the yelping, howling dog stuck in the burning house behind them” when he tells Harry ‘”DON’T … CALL ME COWARD!”‘ at the end of HBP.

  The inherent - and deliberate - ambiguity in these passages invokes conjecture. We are meant not to understand. JKR is toying with us, smiling as she thinks “but I don’t mean what you think I mean”.

  If I understand you correctly, you’re trying to maintain some standards in logical discourse by drawing a distinction between what constitutes logical deduction vs what is pure speculation. I applaud you for this. But, when the author’s intent is so mischievous, when she publicly chides herself for possibly having said too much, to the extent that we will deduce correctly from the evidence, then I think that line is not as clear as you sometimes argue it to be.

• 66 Travis Prinzi // Apr 17, 2007 at 11:29 pm

  Reyhan’s correct - Rowling’s really tricky with her “clues.” But seriously_black does well to point us towards defining parameters for speculation.

  The “Coward” anger is an interesting one. It’s not the first time Snape’s been described as looking deranged, and most of the other times, it had to do with his being really angry at Harry for petty, selfish reasons.

  At the same time, Harry called him a coward twice - the first time for refusing to fight Harry, and no enraged response; the second for killing Dumbledore, and we get the enraged response. Why, if Snape is just an unstable guy who can’t handle being called a coward, would he have not reacted that way the first time?

  Maybe it just built up, and the second “coward” pushed him over the edge. Maybe not. Rowling’s tricky.

  Same thing with the “look of revulsion and hatred” on Snape’s face when he threw the AK. True revulsion and hatred at Dumbledore? Or hatred at having to end the life of the one who worked tirelessly for his redemption? And then there’s the matter of the look of revulsion and hatred on Harry’s own face when forcing Dumbledore to drink the poison. A clue? Or just Rowling using a repeated phrase (which she does a lot)? Can’t know. Rowling’s tricky.

  So it seems to me that seriously_black’s case against Snape is most definitely the strongest. Canon and Rowling interviews overwhelmingly support some version of Evil!Snape, though there’s plenty of room for nuance.

  I’m still convinced Rowling can pull off either good or evil Snape while remaining faithful both to canon and what she’s said in interviews.

• 67 seriously_black // Apr 18, 2007 at 8:35 am

  In post 64, Travis Prinzi commented:

  “I think Stoppered Death is more than interesting speculation. I think it’s the only reasonable way to pull of a Snape who is loyal to Dumbledore…

  I agree that some version of stoppered death would, at this point, be about the only reasonable way for JKR to pull off a Snape who is loyal to Dumbledore. But…

  …and I think Rowling can do it.”

  Rowling is a clever and accomplished writer, and I’ve no doubt she’d be capable (in terms of writing skills alone) of achieving this - or a good many other improbable feats. My argument is not with whether she *could* pull it off.

  For several reasons, I don’t believe that’s what she is doing (has done) nor what she intends. Let me give three of the lines of analysis which lead me to think in this way.

  1) As noted above, though there are many gaps and there is (deliberately, I’m sure) ambiguity at any number of points, there are many small details that point away (in my reading) from a stoppered death scenario.

  The relative importance of Snape’s undercover operation is but one of these. The focus post-HBP is on finding Horcruxes and on preparing Harry to use “the power that the Dark Lord knows not”. If Snape were to be of help to Harry in the time ahead, he’d be much more help back at Hogwarts in book 7, teaching Harry to close his mind (if in fact Snape is *capable* of teaching rather than bullying) or out hunting for Horcruxes, than continuing to impersonate a death eater, if that is indeed what he has been doing.

  The extraordinary inconvenience of the timing of Dumbledore’s death - in the middle of the hunt for Horcrux no 3 and with lot’s of crucial information only half imparted and various bits promised but not yet delivered. If Dumbledore expected or even planned to die, then it was a devastatingly sloppy plan for one of the brightest minds of the modern age.

  I could go through HBP and point to a few dozen other minor points that seem to me inconsistent with Stoppered Death theories. But I know that none of that is conclusive - it’s all dependent on how you read it and what weight you choose to put where. Nevertheless, in many ways, Stoppered Death continues to seem to me like a forced fit and a contrivance.

  But that is only the first of my reasons for reservations.

  2) I’m not inclined to view Rowling as a cheap trick stuntmeister. I do not think she either wants or needs to resort to misspeaking (lying) in interviews about essential plot points and characterisations, in order to throw people off the scent and create faux controversy around her storyline. On the contrary, I think integrity matters to her. She will withhold information or decline to answer on occasions, but I believe that when she does choose to answer she is sincere.

  Not only would stoppered death require what I view as an overly contrived reading of the text, but it also requires that one consider that Rowling has offered profoundly misleading answers (perhaps even outright lies in a couple of cases) in response to many interview questions.

  I do not buy this at all.

  3) Moral redemption in a literary sense requires a sense of balance - of the act(s) of atonement being sufficient to outweigh or at least match the acts of depravity and treachery that preceded them. Some stains (like, for instance, the abuse of children) are so deep and dark that it may take more than one wash to get them out.

  I sincerely doubt that the message Rowling wishes to give is that the bullying of children committed to the care of a teacher is a matter which can be readily enough set aside in light of an act or two