Snape, the Bully

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

“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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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-

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.

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.

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.

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!

No problem, Matthew,

And your difference of opinion with NCMcGonagall is duly noted.

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.

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?

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’.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 of apparent heroism or sacrifice.

Bullying from a position of power and trust *is* one of the most cowardly and unconscionable acts. It is not just unloving but anti-love, it is callously self-serving and it is a litmus for deepest depravity. Rowling has referred to sadism on more than one occasion and I do not think she spoke lightly. Do we really want the message to be that treachery and depravity of this order can find absolution in a bit of grandstanding and a semblance of selfless sacrifice in the closing action sequence? Even if *we* are comfortable with such a message, I doubt that Rowling will be.

As I remarked earlier, Rowling stated in 2005 that Snape may be seen as:

…more culpable even than Voldemort.”

I put it to you that that makes an ending with absolution and goody-after-all laurels at least as probable (if not more so) for Voldemort as for Snape. Frankly I do not think we will be seeing a Good!Voldemort ending either.

In response to Reyhan’s comment that:

“Also, of course, the focus of the action has moved away from Hogwarts, perhaps permanently. School is over.”

Heh. That’s yet another point we disagree about, Reyhan.

I’ll be rather surprised if Hogwarts is not featured in Deathly Hallows. In any case, there’s no “of course” about it.

I daresay Hogwarts won’t be the *only* focus of action, but your confident assertion that “school is over” underscores how very differently we read the books.

Agreed, but will Harry be there? More specifically, will Harry be attending as a student?

He might come back one day, to complete his 7th year and get his NEWTs but right now, he’s got more pressing business to take care of.

I’m a little less certain about some of his friends. Hermione, I feel, was made for a life in academia (although she sees her future in fighting for civil rights). And Neville for some reason strikes me as the next professor of Herbology. And Ron, I sense, is not long for this world.

Who do you think will be the next Headmaster? McGonagall is the obvious candidate. But Lupin, lunar issues and all, would be my dark-horse candidate.

Sometimes I think we give Dumbledore too much credit or overestimate what he knows goes on in Hogwarts. I know I have. I have felt that he would be aware of how Snape behaves in his dealings with students even if he had not directly witness them.

Reading PoA again show me that Dumbledore is not omnicient in Hogwarts. The marauders were able to hide their abilities from him. “Dumbledore not aware of a werewolf roaming the halls of Hogwarts?!!”

This gives a lot of latitude for Snape to be doing his own thing.

Matthew

Actually, Reyhan, you are both right and wrong.

First let me clarify that while I do *not* think Dumbledore is omniscient, I do nevertheless think he had at least a reasonable idea what kinds of things might be going on in Snape’s classroom and chose not to act (for the most part – he does intervene on a few occasions). And I agree it was his job to know. So far, we are on the same page – but there is more…

As it happens, I have in fact been in something analogous to Dumbledore’s situation and I would not (and did not) handle it the same way as he has done. I can confidently tell you I would have made a different call. So I suppose you might say that I consider Dumbledore’s failure to intervene as a mistake on his part – an error of judgement, and in fact one which is closely aligned with the “emotional mistakes” which we have seen and which JKR has confirmed he is capable of.

So, yes I think Dumbledore is flawed and has committed errors and those errors have had consequences, sometimes quite unfortunate ones – for him as well as for others. But whilst I may not always agree with Dumbledore’s judgments, I do believe he meant well and that he struggled with what he saw as competing imperatives.

I’m not going to suggest that a mistake is not unfortunate. He got a few things catastrophically wrong. However a well meaning mistake on the part of one who struggles to do right is a world away from calculated cruelty, so the “logic” that leads you to assert that “Dumbledore himself would be tarred with the same brush” could not be more wrong, from where I stand.

I should also say that you significantly misrepresent my opinion when you say that I think Snape’s treatment of his students “all but prevents his redemption”. Rather, I would say two things:

1) The consistency of Snape’s cold cruelty points to a depth of depravity and calls into question the sincerity of any *apparently* good acts to date. If he is as depraved (incapable of self-restraint or of loving care) as his open sadism throughout six books makes him appear, it will not be easy to accomplish a convincing redemption (a counterbalancing weight of good) in the one remaining book. One act of heroism or sacrifice is not adequate to atone for decades of deepest depravity.

However my point here is *not* about redemption per se (ie it is not a theological point) but about literary symmetry and the poetic rendering of justice (perceived or otherwise) in a work of fiction. In a work of visual art, you cannot paint a character deepest black, then turn him white with a single stroke – he merely ends up smudged and gray, his image unresolved. So it is also in a work of fiction.

2) I think Rowling is aware of the larger moral framework of her story. In fact she has said so. I do not think she wants a set of books in circulation – with her name on them – that make an ultimate hero of a sadistic and chronic abuser of children. I do not suppose that she wants her books to spread the message that it is okay to visit decades of unremitting cruelty on helpless victims – that all that can be set aside and made null by a decent act or two as the curtain closes.

Real life and death is a whole different discussion. Perhaps the most hardened criminals of all time, guilty of heinous atrocities, may have been fully absolved in a single instant of genuine repentance on their death beds. Perhaps not. The feasibility of redemption is not the matter on which I’ve been offering an opinion. Let’s not confuse a discussion of the literary resolution of the Harry Potter series with a treatise on theology, lest we fall prey to the same errors as a certain woman in Georgia.

In response to Reyhan’s proposition that:

“And I’m right. He’s a devil who fights on the side of the angels.”

Yeah right – and kills them when they get in his way.

But that aside, I have to say that your new theory is as plausible as many I’ve heard – and more plausible than some!

To which, Boggart, I say again: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

So why do you think Dumbledore said “Severus … please…” on the Astronomy Tower, S_B?

What was he pleading for?

And speaking of the Astronomy Tower, has anyone answered the question of why the Death Mark was already above Hogwarts that night when Harry and Dumbledore returned? Who had died?

Reyhan, you have asked: “So why do you think Dumbledore said “Severus … please…” on the Astronomy Tower, S_B?”

You’ll find the answer to that question in the final paragraph of post number 60 (above).

:0

I started this line of conjecture here and continued it on the Harry Filter thread, since it was Shadowquill’s suggestion there that Voldemort might have another spy at Hogwarts, which got me thinking.

So yes, my first suggestion – or conjecture – is whether someone else might have set the Death Mark. The passage I quoted above implicates Gibbon. But there is enough ambiguity there that things could have happened differently. Gibbon might have gone up to set off the Mark, but come back down quickly because someone had already done it.

Which is why I said I wanted to see a Priori Incantatem on his wand.

If he didn’t do it – big if – then who else?

McGonagall says she told Flitwick to get Snape. Hermione says that they saw Flitwick going into Snape’s office. Heard a thump. And Snape came out. They found Flitwick unconscious on the floor. She concludes “it seems obvious now, Snape must have Stupified Flitwick …”

Well, my question is, why? Why would Snape feel it necessary to stupefy Flitwick?

I don’t see that either Good Snape or Bad Snape would have needed to stupefy a Good Flitwick. Bad Snape was in a hurry to go kill Dumbledore, and didn’t pause to take part in the battle inside the Tower. Why would he pause to stupefy Good Flitwick? Good Snape was also in a hurry, and would have no need to stupefy a Good Flitwick.

But Good Snape and Bad Flitwick?

Could Flitwick be Voldemort’s spy – willingly or otherwise? Could he have set off the Dark Mark? And a more chilling possiblity, was he already dead and someone else had taken his place?

Sorry for importing the conspiracy theories to this thread, but everything somehow seems to return to Good Snape and Bad Snape.

In response to Reyhan’s:

“Well, my question is, why? Why would Snape feel it necessary to stupefy Flitwick?”

I’d have thought it was obvious.

If Snape knew he was going to do battle with members of the Order and staff of the school, it would be dangerous to arrive with Flitwick – because to do so might draw fire from the Death Eaters. Moreover if he were to attack other Order/Hogwarts defenders with Flitwick by his side, Flitwick woudl naturally move to stop him.

Strategically, a far more sensible move would have been to stun Flitwick when he was off guard and alone – and use it as an excuse to distract the students standing guard outside his office. And Snape is nothing if not a strategist.

The way that the Death Eaters responded to Snape on the tower shows that Snape is still a power broker amongst them. They seem cowed by his presence. This seems to be indicative of his standing regarding if he’s good/ bad. But they way Snape deals with Harry on the way out of the grounds seems to speak volumes also. It seemed to be passive resistance against Harry and active resistance to the other Death Eaters.

I also wonder about Buckbeak’s attack on Snape. Snape seemed truely dismayed by the rampaging hippogryph and also shocked. Do you have to be truely evil to have a hippogryph go on the offensive? Or maybe it was Snape’s pride that led to that. We know that a hippogryph expects mutual respect or humility from someone to touch or mount them. Buckbeak may have been defending Harry or defending a friend of Sirius but I feel that Buckbeak attacking Snape really brought home to him that he was now considered to be on the enemy’s side. A moment of clarity that was very unwelcome.

Anyway, we know that Snape knew his time at Hogwarts was up. He only had one year left as soon as he took on the DADA professorship.

Matthew

I just had an interesting idea while I was rereading GoF. I don’t think Snape meant to kill Dumbledore. In HBP there is a great emphasis on Non-verbal spells and In Gof i remember Moody(Barty Crouch) talking about how if you didn’t really mean an unforgivable curse (or was that Bellatrix?) nothing would happen. Well, in all the places that we have seen the Avada kedrava curse performed, everyone just crumpled and died. No one flew back or floated in the air for fractions of a second, the spider and Cedric just died instantanieously and crumpled before they knew what was going on. If Snape didn’t really mean the curse and used a Non-verbal spell of moderate power,just to say he did something (like Stupefy) but then he accidentally used too much power and sent DD off his broom hurtling to his death, would he really be a killer? :@ Plz share your thoughts on this one. Travis?

Boggart, make sure you take a look at Felicity’s essay where she addresses that very question.

As I was reading “Felicitys essay” a thought struck me.How is it that Wormtail could pull off an AK if it’s supposed tyo be very hard and Voldemort himself mentioned many times the magical incompetence of Wormtail? I dont know where I’m going with this, but it just struck me as weird.