Snape, Hogwarts Teachers, Umbridge: Who’s the Real Bully?

I believe that S_B will want to respond to this. I will wait upon his comment.

Ak! No! I spelled “know” as “no”! (I never should have taken 5 APs…)

This post suggests a warped view of how a teacher should behave, I believe. I also believe that the definition of bullying here is so mild that any real teacher might as well give up and go home.

“Professor McGonagall said the following to Neville in GoF in front of the Transfiguration class: “Longbottom, kindly do NOT reveal that you can’t even perform a simple Switching Spell in front of anyone from Durmstrang!” (GoF 15). What a demeaning thing to say to him! She singled him out as an incompetent boob who would embarrass the school. Isn’t that the sort of thing that Snape would say to Neville?”

I completely disagree. Neville, through lack of application or foucus cannot perform a spell that she obviously assumes is a simple task for a student of Neville’s age. What good is a softly-softly approach. We don’t know- she may have been gentle for many attempts. It’s not bullying to say it how it is. This may be the only approach she feels she has left in getting Neville to apply himself.

To equate this lousy definition of what constitutes bullying or abuse with bad or evil teachers is seriously misguided.

Matthew

Well, Matthew, if that’s the case with McGonagall, then Snape is no worse for calling Neville an idiot boy when he doesn’t follow clear directions when making a potion that students of his age ought to be able to make. Following your reasoning, Snape isn’t behaving badly to Neville at all.

Mia, as for the argument that Snape could be nice to Harry and maintain his credibility as a loyal Death Eater, I don’t buy it.

For one thing, Snape has saved Harry’s life behind the scenes, and those actions were difficult enough to justify when he returned to Voldemort even with Snape’s public abuse of Harry.

Two, Snape needs to stay in the good graces of the sons and daughters of Death Eaters he teaches to win their confidence, both to know what the students are planning and to pick up information from them that they might have heard at home. Children are petty (especially the pureblood Slytherins), and I doubt those DE children would be very understanding if Snape appeared kind to Harry or encouraging to Hermione or sympathetic to Neville.

Three, Snape would be expected to show his loyalty via favoritism to Slytherin pureblood students and disdain for the children of “blood traitors” like the Weasleys and Longbottoms. Moreover, Neville’s parents were aurors who fought against Voldemort; Bellatrix, Rudolphus, Rabastan, and Barty Crouch, Jr. were all alive and prisoners in Azkaban because of what they did to Neville’s parents, and if Voldemort returned, they would surely be freed at some point. Snape couldn’t afford to go easy on Neville for that reason alone; also, Neville was the possible other child the prophesy could have referred to.

And Snape couldn’t allow Hermione to shine in class because Gryffindors and Slytherins took potions together; he couldn’t allow a Muggleborn to show off her knowledge and make the pureblood Slytherins look bad by comparison.

Moreover, there’s no reason to believe that Snape only has it out for Harry, Ron, Hermione, and Neville. We never heard any of the upperclassman (like the Weasley twins) say that Snape had become surprisingly nasty since Harry started at Hogwarts. We can infer that he had been nasty for the years before Harry got there although he does appear to single Harry out for criticism.

I see your point that he could have given a rational explanation for being fair to all students, but I also think that strategy would have cost him in his role as a spy and would have drawn unwanted questions about his loyalties. We’ve already seen from his conversation with Bellatrix at the beginning of HBP that the other Death Eaters do not trust him despite his having explanations for his actions over the years and his clear dislike for Harry et al. “Making nice” to students he was expected to hate would only have made things worse.

Anyway,

What kid doesn’t get singled out by a teacher at some point? Unless you went to a different sort of school where it was all 1:1 teaching, discipline or reprimand is done infront of the class to help re enforce discipline to the others. This doesn’t mean a situation of abuse. If McGonagall said “We don’t want anyone showing Durmstrang how little we know.” where’s the personal application? It’s a soft comment that is easily disregarded by students. By making it personal for Neville she has made it personal for everyone to perform to the best of their abilities.

Anyway, I was making the same point Felicity is making here
http://swordofgryffindor.com/2007/04/11/snape-the-bully/

post 7

I couldn’t get anyone to bit on it then.

Matthew

I was waiting for the big guns to step in, but S_B is oddly quiescent, and I’m getting impatient.

First of all, my bad behaviour is not made more defensible by your worse behaviour. Your making children carve letters onto their hands doesn’t make my repeatedly telling them they’re incompetent and destroying their work in front of their eyes any better.

Second of all, my bad behaviour isn’t justified by the fact that we’re all acting badly. Hagrid wanting to turn you into a ferret and McGonagall’s sarcasm do not somehow make my sneering at the size of your teeth more acceptable.

All that bad behaviour does do one thing, however. It normalizes demeaning, abusing, threatening and humiliating students. It makes the abuse of power the norm.

The only one exempt from it is Lupin, God bless his increasingly tattered clothes and greying hair. He is the only one who treats his students with compassion, and concern and respect.

And BTW, when did Severus Snape ever give a tinker’s damn for what anyone thought of him? All the children of all the Death Eaters in the world could go hang for what he cared about the stories they brought home to Papa and Mama DE. Snape isn’t just pretending to be a sneering, sarcastic s.o.b. He is the genuine article.

Felicity wrote Mia, as for the argument that Snape could be nice to Harry and maintain his credibility as a loyal Death Eater, I don’t buy it.

For one thing, Snape has saved Harry’s life behind the scenes, and those actions were difficult enough to justify when he returned to Voldemort even with Snape’s public abuse of Harry.

Felicity, but there’s a huge difference between being nice to Harry and saving his life! We didn’t see Snape justify that in Spinner’s End, he only explained why he hadn’t killed the boy. But actively saving his life? This, he couldn’t possibly have justified in front of Voldemort, so I assume that Voldemort isn’t aware of the fact. Like you said, Snape did it behind the scenes.

Being nice to Harry, this he could have explained, I believe, with the same argument he had for Bellatrix: He wanted to deceive Dumbledore, not raising his suspicion. And what about Lucius’ statement, that it was imprudent to appear less than fond of Harry? As a Death Eater, Snape could have pretended to be fond of him, and any DE would have bought that. Yes, I think he is genuinely sarcastic and unjust.

I wouldn’t equate him to Umbridge, and I wouldn’t equate him to McGonagall, who is normally strict but just, though her remark to Neville did make me cringe. Do his actions identify Snape as a Death Eater? No, I think not, if he was, he would probably have been nicer to Harry and not have saved his life.

Felicity, great post–and thanks for the links to Helen’s essays. It’s too bad that we don’t have all the discussion that surrounded those essays. They were thought-provoking and very insightful.

When I think about the teachers at Hogwarts–as a former teacher–I find them all appalling, with the exception of Lupin and Flitwick. Those are the only two who manage to teach and to treat the students with dignity, even while correcting them. I’d have to search for it, but I think there was even one time that Sprout made some remark to one of the students that was humiliating. (Maybe it was in the movie, instead.) Well, and Grubbly-Plank seems to be able to teach without any cruelty of any sort.

Travis, I agree–I cringe every time I read that line from McGonagall. If she wanted to caution Neville, she should have done it privately. Humiliating him, especially given his feelings of inadequacy, was bang out of line. That was not acceptable where I went to school or where I taught, and thankfully, it was not acceptable in my daughters’ schools either. Guess we were all just lucky.

And none of the rest of the Hogwarts staff will get Teacher of the Year either. I’ve always wondered what point Rowling is really trying to make about teachers by having most of them be so harsh. Is that the way she really sees them, or is she using the Hogwarts staff to point out the teaching methods that need to be corrected? I certainly hope that she’s not implying that that’s the standard for teachers in most schools.

Pat

I’m surprised I forgot about McGonagall’s comment to Neville. I don’t believe it is any better than some things Snape has done at all, but I think McGonagall probably later regretted saying it. She was nervous and jittery about the other schools visiting and wanted to make a good impression and unkindly singled out Neville. I remember her saying how she wished she’d been a bit nicer to Pettigrew while he was at school after hearing of his “heroic” death.

Snape, on the other hand, would probably not regret many of his comments to Neville, believing (incorrectly) them to be the best motivator to make the kid work harder. Well, they’re probably part “motivator” and part frustration with someone that Snape (incorrectly, again) considers to be incompitent. Snape is narrow minded as a teacher, only has one method, and finds Neville’s repeated lack of improvement to be Neville’s lack of effort, concentration, or emotional stability. Not to assert what Snape does or does not think too much, since I don’t think anyone can be sure of what he truly feels at this point, but I believe that his philosophy about fools who wear their hearts on their sleeves applies, in his mind, to students who can’t overcome their fear of being reprimanded for their mistaskes. (Ha. “reprimanded”. What a euphamism.)

It is important to understand that the exercise of authority and the meting out of discipline is not bullying. There seems to be a good deal of confusion about that on this thread. Even if we’re not impressed by the words chosen or the methods used, there is nevertheless a huge and crucial distinction between the use of power and the *abuse* of power. This is one of the key things that Felicity has got badly wrong.

With the notable exceptions of Umbridge and Snape, all of the cases cited by Felicity are of teacher’s using authority and discipline in response to academic or behavioral issues – in other words doing their jobs. We may not admire their methods, but they are doing their jobs.

The misuse/abuse of power is when power granted for one purpose is used for another. In the context of teachers and their exercise of discipline and authority, that is what is at issue – and one of the forms such abuse may take qualifies as bullying. Umbridge is in fact not doing the job of a teacher at all, but is pursuing a ministry agenda – and doing so in the guise of education is certainly an abuse of power. She is a sadist certainly – and a nasty piece of work, but her motives and actions are at least partly those of a political zealot, organizational aggressor and opportunist, rather than being in line with what would generally be termed bullying. Snape alone clearly hijacks his role as teacher for revenge, aggrandizement and personal gratification.

In amongst some other (quite worthwhile) observations, shadowquill noted:

“…Not to assert what Snape does or does not think too much, since I don’t think anyone can be sure of what he truly feels at this point…”

Actually, there *are* a few conclusions we can reasonably draw. I believe it is quite sane to conclude that Snape’s agenda of malice with respect to Harry has more to do with Snape’s unfinished business with Harry’s parents and their friends than it has to do with Harry himself.

Snape has tried to represent his vitriolic malevolence as being proffered in the service of his responsibilities as a teacher and educator, but that is transparently false – he in fact abuses the power and privilege of his position, using it to gratify sick (and sickening) personal desires. In case we didn’t notice this for ourselves, Rowling has made reference to this (sadism and abuse of power on the part of Snape) on a number of occasions.

We therefore know that his motives are *not* what he represents them to be. That in truth he has no illusions that his actions are justified or that he is engaging in good teaching. There are some other things he may think, about which we are uncertain, but not this.

This, in turn tells us several other things. By its nature, bullying is extraordinarily cowardly – one of *the* most cowardly actions possible. Bullying from a position of unassailable power – such as teacher and head of house – and bullying of the young whose defenses and personalities are still forming – qualifies as the most deplorable form of this extremely ugly kind of cowardice. Again, we don’t have to guess about Rowling’s views on this – she’s stated them openly (“the worst, shabbiest thing a teacher can do…”).

In case we did not notice that Snape’s abuse of power is set starkly apart from the teaching of other staff at the school, Rowling has taken the trouble to point it out on not just one, but several occasions. We do not need to speculate about it.

…Which brings me to the key point, which is as Travis has said “is Snape’s behavior adequately explained by his need to maintain a good standing with the Death Eaters?”

No, not remotely. Snape has the perfect excuse/alibi, which he invokes in various other causes whenever it suits him and which would readily justify any apparent acts of fairness, kindness or even favoritism toward Potter and co. He claims to be doing the Dark Lord’s work by ingratiating himself to Dumbledore. He has depended on that excuse to cover a multitude of other dubious (from the point of view of the DEs) actions and it would as readily cover an absence of obvious malice towards Potter or Longbottom.

In other words, if Snape was not going to be able to talk his way out of being a teacher in the service of Voldemort’s enemy then his treatment of Potter and the Gryffindors generally was not going to help him at all – and if he *was* then it was going to be explained away with all the rest. At no point can he reasonably have thought that his treatment of particular students was relevant to his ability to lie his way in or out of favor with the troupe-de-mort. Moreover he is arrogant enough to be well aware of this fact (that his abilities as an occlumens are sufficient to allow him unprecedented latitude with both Voldemort and Dumbledore).

But in any case, if Snape’s bullying behavior were an affectation and merely a part of his cover – the subterfuge of his double-agent role, then we would have to conclude that JKR was mischievously disingenuous on each of the numerous occasions when she has confirmed that he is a sadist who enjoys bullying students. We have been *given* the reason, folks, so we really don’t need to go looking for another one in its place.

Firstly, yes, Snape really is that bad. We’ve seen it repeatedly, but even if we hadn’t Rowling has herslef confirmed it repeadedly. You can’t get much clearer than that – at least not until 21 July.

Meanwhle, yes it is hard to accept Dumbledore being so very wrong. Rowling was asked this same question and here is how she responded:

JKR:Well, there is information on that to come, in seven. But I would say that I think it has been demonstrated, particularly in books five and six that immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that. In fact, I would tend to think that being very, very intelligent might create some problems and it has done for Dumbledore, because his wisdom has isolated him, and I think you can see that in the books, because where is his equal, where is his confidante, where is his partner? He has none of those things.

Not only does this contain the explanation you seek, but also, by implication, it confirms that Dumbledore did indeed make such mistakes.

I think that most of Dumbledore’s mistakes are probably related to his efforts to protect people, not his efforts to trust somebody that is suspiciously untrustworthy. Dumbledore’s greatest concern is the welfare of his students, and while Snape is frequently abusive of his power, I doubt that Dumbledore would have given him a teaching position without completely trusting him. He never gave Voldemort a position, knowing full well, even with Voldemort’s cleverness and gentlemanly airs (and you have to admit he has charisma), Dumbledore was never fooled. From Harry’s perspective, and therefore from our perspective, all we know of Snape’s past, except for his supposed repentance, is so similar to Voldemort’s past. How then could Dumbledore trust him? Supposedly, assuming Dumbledore was hoodwinked, Snape told a sob story. For a man like Dumbledore, I doubt that was enough. He’s forgiving, but he isn’t a fool. He clearly felt compassion for Snape, but… I think he somewhat pitied Voldemort and what he became too. Pity isn’t enough. There is a line between sympathy and belief.

Ah. (And now I’m going to second guess myself, as always with the Snape debate.) But Voldemort, unlike Snape, never asked for forgiveness, did he? And that is perhaps the most significant difference.

But I think I agree (tentatively, of course) with Doug that, knowing full well Snape’s disposition, Dumbledore had to have had good reason to allow him to teach at Hogwarts. (Although personally, I think his classes have been more beneficial to most students, apart from Neville, than classes like Trelawney’s. Then again, not all benefit at school is intellectual. Trelawney was a kind mentor to Lavender and Parvati.)

Shadowquill wrote I think that most of Dumbledore’s mistakes are probably related to his efforts to protect people, not his efforts to trust somebody that is suspiciously untrustworthy.

I think that, too. Dumbledore would protect even his worst enemy from Voldemort, like Lucius Malfoy. But would he offer him a full-time job as a teacher? No. I believe Snape wasn’t Dumbledore’s “emotional mistake” and his trust in Snape wasn’t based on emotions. Dumbledore had a very good reason to trust him, obviously.

I like Doug’s idea, that Dumbledore’s not telling Harry the truth about that reason on the last night of his life was his mistake. Would that truth, that was good enough for Dumbledore be good enough for Harry to trust Snape? Probably, and though he may still have hated Snape he would at least have known that they’re on the same side.

Dumbledore also made a mistake in thinking that it was impossible for Draco to introduce Death Eaters to Hogwarts. He left the school at the wrong moment in spite of Harry’s warning, which led to the following tragic events. In order to protect Draco, Dumbledore gave him a free hand, even after two attempted murders.

S_B,

Yes… but Rowling is known for being very elusive in her replies and seemingly tries to interpret a question in such a way as to give a misleading but not untrue response. Being so protective of her storylines, I find it unlikely that she’d drop the bundle here and reveal her intention with the certainty that you suggest.

It’s possible that her response could be interpreted in very different ways.

Matthew

Here is the excerpt from the interview that S_B refers to in support of his evil Snape / emotionally mistaken Dumbledore theory. I took it from Accio Quuote:

“MA: OK, big big big book six question. Is Snape evil?

JKR: [Almost laughing] Well, you’ve read the book, what do you think?

ES: She’s trying to make you say it categorically.

MA: Well, there are conspiracy theorists, and there are people who will claim -

JKR: Cling to some desperate hope [laughter] -

ES: Yes!

MA: Yes!

ES: Like certain shippers we know!

[All laugh]

JKR: Well, okay, I’m obviously – Harry-Snape is now as personal, if not more so, than Harry-Voldemort. I can’t answer that question because it’s a spoiler, isn’t it, whatever I say, and obviously, it has such a huge impact on what will happen when they meet again that I can’t. And let’s face it, it’s going to launch 10,000 theories and I’m going to get a big kick out of reading them so [laughs] I’m evil but I just like the theories, I love the theories.

ES: I know Dumbledore likes to see the good in people but he seems trusting almost to the point of recklessness sometimes.

[Laughter] Yes, I would agree. I would agree.

ES: How can someone so -

JKR: Intelligent -

ES: be so blind with regard to certain things?

JKR: Well, there is information on that to come, in seven. But I would say that I think it has been demonstrated, particularly in books five and six that immense brainpower does not protect you from emotional mistakes and I think Dumbledore really exemplifies that. In fact, I would tend to think that being very, very intelligent might create some problems and it has done for Dumbledore, because his wisdom has isolated him, and I think you can see that in the books, because where is his equal, where is his confidante, where is his partner? He has none of those things. He’s always the one who gives, he’s always the one who has the insight and has the knowledge. So I think that, while I ask the reader to accept that McGonagall is a very worthy second in command, she is not an equal. You have a slightly circuitous answer, but I can’t get much closer than that.”

If we assume that JKR is indeed referring to Dumbledore’s trust in Snape as one of his “emotional mistakes” then she would indeed, as Matthew said, have given away the whole works.

Reading the passage again, with an open mind, i.e. not assuming that she’s talking about Snape as Dumbledore’s “emotional mistake”, it strikes me that she might have been talking about Dumbledore’s disastrous – and self-admitted – tendency not to tell people what they should know, in an effort to save them from the ramifications of the truth.

Which makes me wonder what else he didn’t tell Harry, particularly about Snape, and James and Lily.

The more of Jo’s interviews that you read, the more apparent it is that she is a master of controlling the interview. She seems to be forthcoming in her answers, but she has repeatedly refused to answer things that give away the story. Other times, she seems to answer a question, until you really read back through it, and then it turns out that she didn’t answer at all, or only answered part and ignored part of a question. Then she will sometimes come right out and say that the speculation is going down a wrong track and not to waste our time.

When it comes to Snape, however, she is so guarded. And if he really is the evil git that many assume from his actions in HBP or even his actions throughout, then why wouldn’t she just acknowledge that he’s an evil git if that’s the only point to his character? She certainly makes that acknowledgement where Voldemort is concerned. At one point she even went so far as to say that Voldemort is beyond redemption–that’s pretty apparent, I’ll agree, but it’s also a blatant statement by Jo. With Dumbledore always willing to give people a second (or third or more) chance, it’s clear that even he has made that distinction with what he sees in Voldemort.

I know that interview that Melissa and Emerson did after HBP came out is quoted a lot, as being definitive. But the more I read it the more frustrated I become. They asked a lot of good questions, and she gave a lot of information–it was a long interview, it’s hard not to come away with something. But whenever they touched on a subject that was really crucial to understanding what happened and what’s coming, they backed off or gave their own slant on the events in the book instead of trying to get Jo to give hers, or just plain failed to follow up with questions that would really clarify anything. No, Jo likely wouldn’t have answered, but they should have asked anyway–especially since Melissa is a journalist. That interview was way too chatty to be really helpful in figuring out what’s going on in the books.

The old interviews that Jo gave when she first started out, were so much more informative–before she realized that she might be giving too much information and learned to be more cagey with her responses.

I’ve noticed that she is being so incredibly silent now while we are all waiting for Deathly Hallows. And I’d suspect, since she’s chosen a new fan award recipient, that she’s been wandering through some of the HP sites and has probably found that there are people who have figured out what’s going to happen in the last book. By being silent, she avoids the risk that she will give one hint too many and we’ll all head down the right path. And I don’t have a problem with that.

I want the last book to amaze me like all the others have, so I don’t want to know how many people die (I’d already assumed there would be deaths even before she said that); I want to have those moments where my jaw drops because she has done something that I didn’t see coming. But I still want to have a few “yes, I knew it!” moments with some things happening just the way I’ve imagined.

I think that’s what makes Snape so interesting as a character. From the first several books, most of us have assumed that Harry, the hero, is going to defeat Voldemort, the villain. And Harry’s best friends are going to help him as much and as long as they can. Even Dumbledore’s death was not a surprise, as it fits with many hero stories where the wise mentor isn’t there for the final battle. But Snape is the character that is still enigmatic in the books. I know, not to everyone. But to a lot of us, and so discussions about Snape are on every forum I’ve ever visited.

Somehow it just doesn’t add up to me that Rowling spent five books very carefully making us trust Snape, so she could shoot that all down in book 6 when there’s still book 7 to go, and according to her, another confrontation for Harry with Snape. If he’s going to be evil, then why not save that big revelation for the last book. Having it in book 6 was too soon, unless she had killed Snape off–but she didn’t, and she said Snape and Harry will meet again. If he’s truly evil, then there’s no big jaw-dropping moment to come between the two of them. And I’m back to Snape and Harry needing to find a way to work together to defeat Voldemort, or Snape sacrificing himself for Harry–but none of that will work if Snape is just the evil cardboard baddie that he seemed to be in the first two books. If that’s all there is to him, then it seems a waste of everyone’s time to have his character developed beyond that. After all, Filch is still pretty much the same, even after we learned that he’s a Squib.

Now, even if Harry and Snape do find some sort of resolution to their feud, I certainly wouldn’t expect Snape to turn out to be a nice person. He’s not. I don’t see Harry and Snape (if both survive, and that’s pretty iffy) being friends, getting together later in life for a nice friendly evening of chess or meeting in the Three Broomsticks for a butterbeer. But isn’t that something that we find in real life? There are people who come into our lives who will never be a friend, but with whom we must work to accomplish whatever task is set before us. It’s one of the lessons that Rowling set before Harry when the Sorting Hat said they must all work together or they would crumble from within. Harry immediately assumes that means he has to work and be friendly with Draco–but I think it’s more likely that it will be Snape with whom he must work to achieve his goal.

Pat

S_B,

You write that not even an eyebrow would be raised if it turned out that Snape wasn’t so bad.

Wouldn’t yours go stratospheric? And those of the 35% of voters on the poll who believe him to either be bad or following his own agenda, as you suggest?

I, on the other hand, assert with confidence equal to yours, that in the final book, Snape will complete his journey: from frightened child to resentful adolescent and sinning wretch, through forgiveness and hope for redemption, and years of being a bitter warrior for the good, to his final redemption through an act of supreme sacrifice.

Regarding Snape’s ability as a teacher, while I in no way defend the negative events referred to, I do believe there is more to Snape as a teacher than Harry’s perspective in the books. For example, Slytherin won the house cup for seven years in a row before SS/PS. While it’s true that Snape unfavorably biases his own house with regard to points, other teachers do that as well, and I don’t think it’s fair to say that Slytherin won the house cup so many years by cheating or as a result of bias. For that matter, even in SS/PS, they were ahead of Gryffindor by 150 points, and I found it a little unfair for Dumbledore to suddenly grant 160 points to Gryffindor right at the end.

Secondly, Snape’s students apparently tend to do well on their OWLs. It may have been Snape himself who said that, but it can’t be an empty boast, because the scores themselves would testify to the truth.

Again, I’m not saying this in order to justify Snape’s bullying behavior, but I do think there is a larger picture of Snape as a teacher that we do not see very well in the books.