Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows
discussion
Am I the only person who didn't really like Snape?
It's possible for a character to be sympathetic and still be a nasty person.
Jeanie wrote: "."Let me appeal to my own authority as a school psychologist who spent thirty years working with students.I am talking about Snape, the fictional character from the book. Meanwhile you took him out of fictional world and looking at him as a real person.
And those are two different things in my opinion. In fictional world, there are different rules, which are not applicable in our real world, in our reality.
So to take Snape's character, treat him by our reality's standards and say he is bad, is simply wrong. You need to keep him in fictional world and treat him as such.
That's why I dont agree on the level of hate he is getting. Of course we would hate his guts if he was our kids teacher.
But in made up world? That is whole different story. From the description you are giving, if I were to take it into our reality, his treatment would result in Neville becoming deppressed wreck.
However in the book he turned out to be a hero, did he not?
So treat Snape by fictional standards and see if you come up with same opinion.
Veronika wrote: "Mitali wrote: Note Neville's terror, and Snape's heartlessness. Not only does he threaten to kill Neville's toad, but he's disappointed that Neville got the potion right, so the toad doesn't die. H..."Ugh, this is deluded fangirlism at its insane best. So you're so determined to claim that Snape is a great guy that you're actually arguing that a teacher is right in terrorizing his students. I have no response to that, since obviously there's no rational argument anyone could make that could change your mind.
Re: Dumbledore - as a matter of fact, I think he was a terrible educator, primarily because he allowed teachers like Snape to run amok in his school (and also because he allowed other useless teachers like Trelawney and, yes, even Hagrid to waste students' time and put their lives in danger). But as Jeanie points out, this poor judgement on Dumbledore's part is not the same thing as Snape's malice, so I don't really hate him.
Well, you just made me 15 years younger, thank you :) No, I am not fanatic fangirl. I just dont agree on the points. If you cannot agree to disagree, you are the delusional one...
And I never said he was good. I only said, he was not pure evil, as you are describing him. And doesnt deserve the hate.
I loved Snape. He was cruel to Harry but in the end it worked out in his favour. If Harry had liked Snape the whole betrayal plot could not have worked. Voldemort would not have trusted him. Snape sacrificed himself in a way. He never had his own life because he was so in love with Lily and protected Harry because Lily was his mother. Snape saved Harry during the quidditch match when Quirrell tried to kill him. Snape sent the doe that led Harry to the sword of Gryffindor. Snape gave Harry the memory that let him know that he had to die because he was a horcrux. James was cruel to Snape and Lily chose him over Snape so can you really blame him for being a bit mean to Harry?
I am the type of person who distinctly realizes hurt and pain amidst bitterness and meanness. If I had known him in real life I would not only have pitied him, I would've longed to help him, heal him be a friend to him. Judge me. I am a very empathetic person and I will remain so always. Snape is not downright good nor downright evil. But he loves. He is redeemed, in a sense. Yes, I would like to slap him. But I would empathize also. He is insecure, lonely, a bully, but has also KEPT HIS FEELINGS HIDDEN AWAY AS SKILLFULLY AS CAN BE POSSIBLE. Can you imagine how that would feel? Can you imagine keeping all that in? Can you imagine the self-loathing he had? Can you imagine his haunted memories? Can you imagine his dysfunctional childhood? As it has been noted, bullies are often bullied in their homelife and have dysfunctional families/lives. He is a heartbroken, shredded person... and he clings to his only salvation--love. Why his fascination with Dark Arts? Who knows. Maybe he felt accepted by his Death Eater friends, perhaps a second home? His mother probably was in favor with Slytherin as can only be guessed by his eagerness for Lily to be in Slytherin too. And I'm fairly sure that he didn't want to kill Dumbledore; after all, here was the only man who trusted him and he HAD TO KILL HIM; talk about more trauma!But all I can know is, is that, Snape is not a "good" character; but he is a heartbroken one and a heroic one. And I empathize with him. Yeah, I don't admire him from afar. No. I can see inside him and hurt along with him, in a sense.
Veronika wrote: "Well, you just made me 15 years younger, thank you :) No, I am not fanatic fangirl. I just dont agree on the points. If you cannot agree to disagree, you are the delusional one...
And I never s..."
We can certainly agree to disagree about Snape's degree of evilness. I've never claimed that he was pure evil - he certainly had his good points. I was specifically trying to demonstrate that he was a terrible teacher and far too cruel to his students. Yet you are trying to claim that in a scene in which he acts like a monster his behaviour is actually justified. That's where we part company, because I cannot even begin to comprehend how anyone can defend behaviour like this.
to put it simply: snape is trash
You people all focus on the external things. How he treats others and all the other surface things. But I focus on the internal. I look deeper. (Almost) every villain is a heartbroken human being. I would object to the idea of Voldemort or Bellatrix or Umbridge; they lived without love or simply loved being horrid. I'm not justifying his behavior towards some of his students... but his character is shredded and broken; and I like him for that. You people who don't like him focus on the surface things; I look at him and see the inside. That broken, messy inside. Do you remember his promise to Narcissa to protect Draco? Voldemort, a thoroughly evil person (if you could call him that) would never do that; he'd never dream of protecting another for the purpose of love. But Snape had loved and known love. Everything you people do is focus on how much of a jerk he was instead of thinking about why. He hurt. He hurt like hell. Some people have the reasoning that people who have been hurt so much would want to be kind to others; and there are some people who are like that. But not everybody's the same. I understand how you can take your anger and hurt out on someone else. You might say that how Snape took out his anger was immature and it was; but HE STILL hurt. There are all kinds of people who make a world. All it just comes down to is that you hate him for his surface, outward acts (which I think is rather shallow; but that's just me) and I love him because he is hurt and broken and becomes something of a hero for a strong, incredibly deep love. No guys, not obsession. Some like to say he had this creepy obsession with her; well, guess what? You don't know what obsession is. Obsession is when being in love is all for your own benefit; you may think you're in love with the other but really it's all for you personal pleasure. To get pleasure from another for your own enjoyment. But Snape couldn't get anything in return when he turned double agent. He could get absolutely NOTHING from Lily. Nothing about his love could gain him anything that he truly desired. No, I think we're looking at pure, incredibly deep love. The kind of love that we as a culture have lost sight of. His love isn't about getting somebody's clothes off (obsession) but rather for the pure love of someone's soul. He loved who she was; not for what she was (her beauty, body, etc.).
Mitali wrote: " I was specifically trying to demonstrate that he was a terrible teacher and far too cruel to his students."I dont just agree with that. Umbridge was cruel and terrible teacher (if you can even call her that). In comparison to her, Snape was cute puppy. You are simply making him something he isnt.
Some Deatheaters we convinced Voldemort would be back. Just as Dumbledore and through him Snape. Lessons were mixed, so in lessons with Snape, there were students from each house. Can you imagine Snape being nice to Harry and others who werent Slytherins, and then having Draco coming home blabbering about it to his daddy. How credible would Snape be then? Snape would be first to be doubted. Which they could not afford. Not ever since he promised to help.
I have said, he did enjoy it in a way, but he was not as cruel as you claim. He was just mean enough to maintain his credibility. He never tortured students, he never really put anyone into hospital. (Or if he did I dont remember, and apologise in advance...)
And by the way, there were far too cruel things happening at school ever since Harry got into school, that were more traumatic than Snape's behaviour...
Gabriella wrote: "Hannah wrote: "You people all focus on the external things. How he treats others and all the other surface things. But I focus on the internal. I look deeper. (Almost) every villain is a heartbroke..."I agree that it's an opinion... but still, it is a surface look at things. I see Snape as someone who is starving... Yes, he did hurt Neville... I'm not justifying it. And yes, I did like Neville.
BTW I'm not going by stupid dictionary meanings... I'm going by what obsessive "love" and real love are. When real, deep love that gets nothing in return is called a "creepy obsession", it just proves to me how ignorant we people have become of what the word "love" means. How could a love so true, so deep and so loyal be called "creepy" or "obsessive"? If it had been obsessive, his love for her would have just died out. No, I'm not confining the word obsession to the dictionary's definition of it. It is more of a human definition.
And also, that's one of the questions I want to have answered "Why the interest in Dark Arts?". There can be guesses, but nothing final. Besides, trying to figure out why he wasn't nicer to people because of Lily is practically questioning why some people aren't like others; some people express their pain in different ways. NO, I didn't say that all the ways they do it are justified; but I UNDERSTAND what it's like to carry bitterness with you or take it out on others.
Yes, it is your opinion. I don't think I can change it. But somehow, to me, it seems as if it makes me special to see all the ugliness and see beauty within it. I like mysterious people, I want to redeem the broken, shredded hurting ones... and I have always been misunderstood for it. The reason I say "shallow" and "surface" is because it seems so ordinary and in the grain of things to view a character that way.
I give you your opinion. In fact, I praise you on it. Be yourself. But know that I'm not correcting you on why you don't like him, but rather on how you don't see the other side of him.
Gabriella wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Gabriella wrote: "Hannah wrote: "You people all focus on the external things. How he treats others and all the other surface things. But I focus on the internal. I look deeper. (Almo..."I know how Snape and Draco fangirls are... sometimes they have the silliest reasons for liking them.
Yes, Snape doesn't really have empathy for others. I don't justify that. I don't like him for being a bully. But I don't focus on that. I just don't. It's hard to explain to a person who's so justice oriented. The human psyche is complicated. I guess I just love mysterious characters who despite their faults have some redemptive quality... You see someone who could have easily changed his ways just because he hurt in his past life and knew what it felt like; but I just see a normal human being's reaction to pain... only something drastic can change something like that. The truth is, it comes down to what you and I perceive. I don't ignore his behavior, but I don't linger on it. I see the big picture, you see the details.
I don't really understand why this person criticized some girls for liking Draco. Draco is not evil. Misguided, yes. Now, I don't like him nearly as much as Snape but the way I see it he was a total coward. His bullying of Harry was entirely out of jealousy; jealousy of Harry's bravery and all those other virtues. I really don't see how he's a anti-hero, or all dark. After all, he couldn't bring himself to kill or stand to see another killed (the Muggle teacher instance, for e.g.); he also didn't reveal Harry's identity in the Deathly Hallows when he was all stung up. Personally I see people (mostly girls of course) liking Draco because they want to save him from himself; they have compassion on him... the boy with no choice. When having compassion on a broken person becomes an unhealthy fantasy, it speaks to me how judgmental we have become. Now, I'm not saying in real life that you should try to date a guy out of his faults; it just doesn't work and girls should be quick to notice; but the intention behind it, to want to help and love another person because they are messy and hurt is pure.
I don't quite understand why you have such an ethic on how Snape treats the students... but I guess I don't see things that way. When it comes to villains, I can't really say I hate them. I USUALLY have no opinion. My exceptions to this rule are Voldemort and Umbridge or even, Bellatrix... There is a difference between Voldemort and Snape's cruelty; Voldemort is cruel because he has no heart, no true feelings, whereas Snape's cruelty speaks of him having a heart, his emotions are so strong and his only way of expressing them is hurting others. Now again, I didn't say this is good. But we can't merely say, "If he hurt so much in his past life why can't he just treat others as if he understood?" Guess what? The human psyche isn't that easy. Sure, I know some people who are super nice cuz they know what it is to be hurt but I know of plenty of others who hurt so much they take it out on others. That's our broken, messy world.
Another thing that people like to criticize about Snape is: would he have helped Harry or been on the good side if he hadn't loved Lily or Lily hadn't died? This is a silly question. That's like asking me if I would be the same person if I grew up with different parents and wasn't a pastor's child. Of course I wouldn't be! I wouldn't be me without those things. And the same goes for Snape; loving Lily makes him what he is; he wouldn't be the same person if he didn't love Lily and she hadn't died. Our circumstances and loves make us what we are. I can only imagine that he hated Voldemort very much after that and also Peter Pettigrew (who I personally think is MUCH worse than Snape). His love for Lily made him what he was, and because of his love, he became what he was: a double-agent. So lets not judge on what he would if Lily hadn't died or he hadn't loved her,etc, because it contradicts itself. Now, all of that said, I'm not saying that he wasn't selfish in his love for Lily. I'm not praising it. But in its own way it has a tragic beauty about it. A rose among thorns. Beauty in the ugliness.
Also, another thing is that everybody hates Snape because he's a bully and bitter and is interested in the Dark Arts (for reasons unknown). But the truth is, is that all people are equally as bad as the other; no one is better than the other. This is putting the DA aside; no I am looking at hearts. No one is truly better than the other; we are all broken, messy and selfish (and much more). I could compare Snape to the much loved character of Sirius Black. Comparing the the conditions of their hearts in its selfishness, they are the same. Both are bullies, insensitive and bitter and yet we rush to Black's aid because he isn't interested in the DA. NO! I'm not saying that an interest in the DA is good! In no way am I doing that! But we don't know exactly WHY Snape was interested in them; so who are we to judge? At the heart of it all, Severus and Sirius are just as bad as the other. In no way do I hate Sirius Black; in fact, I quite like him. So I am not pitting a character I love against someone I don't. AT ALL.
I see beauty in Snape, and you don't. You see external, you are justice-oriented. I am mercy oriented and internal.
In the end, I like Snape because the text seems to tell the reader that Snape is by nature good, by nature full of guilt, but most importantly because he loves Harry at the end (not just Lily). When Snape begins to risk his life to save Harry (he brings Harry the sword of Gryffindor, watches him through the mirror, etc.), there is no way as a reader that I can dislike him. In a lot of ways he cares about Harry much more than Dumbledore did. Snape is an amazing character because he evolves and learns to love Harry. He then becomes fiercely loyal to him.
Hannah wrote: "Gabriella wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Gabriella wrote: "Hannah wrote: "You people all focus on the external things. How he treats others and all the other surface things. But I focus on the internal. I ..."Yours are all good points. But the question is do we "like" Snape, not "love" him. Like implies behavior as well as internals. In fact, the internal person can only be inferred from what we observe of their behavior and speech, none of us is a Legilimense. We are supposed to love everyone... that doesn't mean we must like them. It is always important to speak of "bad behavior", not a "bad person"--we rarely have enough knowledge of a person to make that judgment--Christians are specifically told not to judge anyway. We can only make assumptions about people's true motives--once again, based on what we observe and what they say.
Was Snape's a redemptive act at the end? It seems so to me. But it didn't make me find him any more likeable. I pitied him, but that's something else.
Jeanie wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Gabriella wrote: "Hannah wrote: "Gabriella wrote: "Hannah wrote: "You people all focus on the external things. How he treats others and all the other surface things. But I focus on t..."Yeah. I do know what you're talking about... perhaps I wouldn't necessarily like him in real life. But I do love the character for what I see he is.
Veronika wrote: "Some Deatheaters we convinced Voldemort would be back. Just as Dumbledore and through him Snape. Lessons were mixed, so in lessons with Snape, there were students from each house. Can you imagine Snape being nice to Harry and others who werent Slytherins, and then having Draco coming home blabbering about it to his daddy. How credible would Snape be then?"I didn't claim that Snape should have been nice. There's a large range of behaviour between being 'nice' and 'tormenting people'. All I am arguing is that Snape could have refrained from doing the latter, without ever getting remotely close to the former. He could have continued to be mean and sarcastic to all non-Slytherins - while that's hardly ideal behaviour for a teacher, it would be understandable/excusable (from both the students' and the Death Eaters' point of view). Instead, Snape went miles out of his way to terrify students, and essentially ensured that they learnt nothing in his classes except to be scared of him.
Frankly, I find the excuse that Snape was just trying to maintain a facade of evilness to be untenable. Let's compare his behaviour to that of an actual Death Eater who taught at Hogwarts: Barty Crouch Jr., aka Fake!Moody. Barty was undeniably evil, and unambiguously a Death Eater. Yet, while maintaining his cover as Alastor Moody, he managed to be a fairly good teacher at Hogwarts, and even exhibited sympathetic behaviour towards his students. For example, after Neville is traumatized by seeing the Cruciatus Curse in action, Barty takes him aside and comforts him and gives him a book that will interest him. Of course, we later find out that Barty is one of the people who tortured Neville's parents into insanity, and that he gave the book to Neville in the hope that Neville would help Harry with the second Triwizard task. But as far as his behaviour at the time goes, he's pretty nice. Yet you don't see Voldemort getting angry at him for being nice to a student. Voldemort understands the need for maintaining appearances. So why would he - or any of his Death Eaters - get suspicious if Snape didn't go out of his way to torture his non-Slytherin students?
Veronika wrote: "And by the way, there were far too cruel things happening at school ever since Harry got into school, that were more traumatic than Snape's behaviour... "
Uh, yes. And your point is? Just because there is something bad that is also happening doesn't mean that psychological abuse of the kind Snape heaped on all non-Slytherin students (and not just Harry) is acceptable. That's like saying it's ok to break someone's legs, just because there's a serial killer on the loose who may kill them anyway.
Not to mention that Snape had been teaching in the same manner for a decade before Harry arrived at Hogwarts, during which time he was probably the worst thing happening in the school.
Gabriella wrote: "I think it's important to point out that Barty Crouch liked preforming curses and spells on his students in his lessons. Like, throughout the whole year not just with the unforgivable curses. I don't know which quote it is but he definitely did. It was freaking creepy and though I see your argument I don't think his taste for cruelness should be downplayed."Oh I agree. As I said, Barty was definitely evil, and clearly had a sadistic side (a person who tortures others into insanity is by definition sadistic). However, his penchant for performing curses on students wasn't in order to punish them, but to teach them what those curses felt like and how to avoid them. That was his official reason anyway. No doubt he got a secret thrill out of performing Unforgivable Curses openly. But he had a - somewhat justifiable - excuse that he was trying to teach the students some important lessons about curses. And, unlike Snape, he did manage to teach the students something.
I only liked him the last few pages, after he died and we found out who he really was
Mitali wrote: " Instead, Snape went miles out of his way to terrify students, and essentially ensured that they learnt nothing in his classes except to be scared of him."That is what I dont agree with. Can you please explain, how is it possible, that ANY student was able to pass potions tests, if Snape didnt teach them anything? Did students managed to learn all by themselves? You can argue Harry had his special potion book. What about the students before him? If he was that bad of a teacher wouldnt students fail his class? How is it possible they were able to pass his class for a decade? I am not a teacher, but usually, if teacher isnt teaching, kids arent learning and failing tests...
Mitali wrote: "Let's compare his behaviour to that of an actual Death Eater who taught at Hogwarts: Barty Crouch Jr., aka Fake!Moody. Barty was undeniably evil, and unambiguously a Death Eater. Yet, while maintaining his cover as Alastor Moody, he managed to be a fairly good teacher at Hogwarts, and even exhibited sympathetic behaviour towards his students. For example, after Neville is traumatized by seeing the Cruciatus Curse in action, Barty takes him aside and comforts him and gives him a book that will interest him. Of course, we later find out that Barty is one of the people who tortured Neville's parents into insanity, and that he gave the book to Neville in the hope that Neville would help Harry with the second Triwizard task. But as far as his behaviour at the time goes, he's pretty nice. Yet you don't see Voldemort getting angry at him for being nice to a student. Voldemort understands the need for maintaining appearances. So why would he - or any of his Death Eaters - get suspicious if Snape didn't go out of his way to torture his non-Slytherin students?
So evil person acting undercover like a good person is good. Good for your point of view. But (fairly) good person acting badly for evil undercover is wrong? That really doesnt make sense.
Barty was being Moody. So any BAD behavior would become suspicious to Dumbledore and other teachers. He was undercover in Hogwarts as good person. Of course he had to be nice! Anything that wouldnt Moody do, would become suspicious. Of course Voldemort didnt argue... it got Harry where he wanted him!
But Snape maintaining his cover is a bad thing? I just dont get the logic in this.
For me, if you are evil, and you pretending to be nice, and you do something bad= blown cover.
If you are good person, pretending being bad,and you behave nicely= blown cover.
Also, it is much easier for bad person to act nice, then good person act evil.
I already said that Snape obviously enjoyed being mean, but I am certain he for example didnt enjoy killing Dumbledore even though he was dying. He didnt enjoy tormenting Harry in occlumency lessons. But he did it, because it had to be done.
That is a point of switching sides, and becoming double agent. Snape switched sides. He became good the night Lily was killed. He pledged his loyalty to Dumbledore. However, in order to maintain his cover he had to act like he didnt change at all.
But it doesnt mean he didnt change. Of course it is easier to be mean if you are prone to it, if you were bad once, but that is the whole point of character development in cases like his.
You could argue your points, if last books werent written yet. But now, that we know all of this... it changes everything.
Veronika wrote: "That is what I dont agree with. Can you please explain, how is it possible, that ANY student was able to pass potions tests, if Snape didnt teach them anything? Did students managed to learn all by themselves? You can argue Harry had his special potion book. What about the students before him? If he was that bad of a teacher wouldnt students fail his class? How is it possible they were able to pass his class for a decade? I am not a teacher, but usually, if teacher isnt teaching, kids arent learning and failing tests..."There's a HUGE difference between students learning to pass a test and students actually learning anything of substance. This is a problem in the real world as well. Look up the phrase 'teaching the test' if you like. It's a massive problem in real life throughout the world, and everything I have seen of Snape suggests that he's a fictional example of such a teacher.
Veronika wrote: "So evil person acting undercover like a good person is good. Good for your point of view. But (fairly) good person acting badly for evil undercover is wrong? That really doesnt make sense."
You missed my point entirely. I am completely aware that one was evil pretending to be good and the other was (supposedly) good pretending to be evil. My point was that from Voldemort's point of view, or that of his Death Eaters who knew what Barty was up to, the two were not different. As far as they knew, Snape was also evil pretending to be good, i.e. pretending to be on Dumbledore's side. But while Barty pretended to be nice to fool people into thinking he was a good guy, Snape was just acting as if he wasn't pretending anything at all. If anything, Voldy should have been annoyed that Snape wasn't even trying to maintain a cover.
Veronika wrote: "He didnt enjoy tormenting Harry in occlumency lessons. But he did it, because it had to be done."
Oh please, he enjoyed it a great deal. Who was he trying to fool during Harry's Occlumency classes? He and Harry were the only ones present.
The bottomline is, you seem to have an either-or view of good and evil (admittedly, the HP books themselves have such a view). Snape does not become a shining example of goodness in the course of one night - or even in the course of several years - just because the woman he loved died. He does try to turn his life around (and I give him credit for that), and tries to do some good. But he also does a lot of bad when he's following his baser instincts. And unlike you - and unlike JK Rowling for that matter - I don't think that just because Snape did some good, it cancels out every bad thing he did, or makes him an overall good person.
I just have soft spot for guys like Snape :) I think we can agree he was the most complex character in HP universe. For me, turning point really is the sacrifice he made. And I am not talking about just his death. I am talking about his decision to become double agent. Because he punished himself by this. He could have become a good guy, because Lilys death was turning point for him.
By deciding to become spy, it was punishment, because he knew he would have to continue doing horrible things. Thus, never redeeming himself.
And this is the point where we part in opinion. You just say, oh he was bad, he enjoyed it etc.
For me, it was not so. For me, him sacrificing his life after that night, even though he could have decided to be good and get on with life... Was indeed erasing everything. Because there has been more to that.
I am re-watching movies at the moment, and while its a poor work in comparison to book (I have constant feeling there is something missing,lol)
Alan Rickman does excellent job, and you can clearly see the pain behind his eyes. I dont think you could convince anyone of Snape being evil, if they only saw movies and didnt read books, because he was not portrayed that way in movies at all. (But I did read books couple times before final movies were out...)
Mitali wrote: "Veronika wrote: "That is what I dont agree with. Can you please explain, how is it possible, that ANY student was able to pass potions tests, if Snape didnt teach them anything? Did students manage..."I find it hilarious on how you think we like him because you assume we think he's a "good guy". I love him, and I don't think he's an overall good guy in the sense that he's not kind, per se. He's a flawed, messy, broken, mysterious character who happens to love very deeply, does something about it, gets nothing in return for his love, and ultimately dies for it. We're just the kind of people who have a soft spot for that kind of thing... the tormented, half-bad guys as I like to call them. Is that so bad?
I honestly don't understand why Rowling doesn't like that some love him. When you have a character like that, there are just going to be people who love him. Broken souls stir pity and compassion in a person... we can relate to them. At least, I certainly can.
@Mitali- After our discussion I found this curious page on Snape. Feel free to disagree, but it pretty much confirms all my points. Snape NOT being cruel, NOT being bad teacher, pretending all these years etc...http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Sev...
I think that in this it is comparing the underlying difference between evil and cruel, because you can be a complete douche but not be evil. Which is kind of where I sit with Snape. However, that could be also argued against because he is also doing all the behind the scenes stuff with Dumbledore, and then there is of course his love for Lily.
All in all it's probably just an act, which is hard to analyse due to so many conflicting variables that it makes it relatively difficult to work out what was actually going through his head. Maybe he was just insane, or schizophrenic or something :)
Nope. You aren't. And I wasn't happy at all when I read that he is good at the end. He was mean to Harry despite his love for Lily.
Gabrielle wrote: "Nope. You aren't. And I wasn't happy at all when I read that he is good at the end. He was mean to Harry despite his love for Lily."And also the fact that he was in Slytherin, no good wizards ever come from slytherin ;)
Gabriella wrote: "Toby wrote: "Gabrielle wrote: "Nope. You aren't. And I wasn't happy at all when I read that he is good at the end. He was mean to Harry despite his love for Lily."And also the fact that he was in..."
And I suppose eventually Malfoy kind of redeemed himself :) Well at least he wasn't quite as evil as we thought he was
Malfoy wasnt as evil as HE thought he was :) All Malfoys in fact.
Veronika wrote: "Malfoy wasnt as evil as HE thought he was :) All Malfoys in fact."I think Draco was trying to perform for his father, because it was like a family tradition that he felt forced to continue. Whereas with Lucius I believe that he was evil, but then sort of saw the errors of his ways and kind of picked up on the fact that family was more important than their ridiculous crusade.
He was terrible to harry. lets put it like this:
James Potter was yes terrible to Snape, but the thing is he changed for lily. Snape had loved her but he wasn't ready to let go of the dark arts at all for her!!!
And one more thing: i don't ship lily and snape. she didnt deserve him.
Hannah wrote: "I find it hilarious on how you think we like him because you assume we think he's a "good guy". I love him, and I don't think he's an overall good guy in the sense that he's not kind, per se. He's a flawed, messy, broken, mysterious character..."You've misinterpreted my arguments entirely. First of all, I don't care if people like the character of Snape. Heck, I myself think he's an interesting character (though a nasty person). Liking or disliking a fictional character has little to do with what kind of person they are. For example, I like Slughorn a lot as a character, though he's definitely a slimy human being (and I wouldn't want to know him in real life).
If you personally like 'broken souls', then by all means, continue to like him. I have no problem with people having different reasons for liking someone or something. It's only when people start trying to claim that Snape was 'really' a good guy that I have an issue. All I have been trying to show is that Snape's actions were not all good, and that he deliberately hurt people, especially his students, just because he liked doing so.
Veronika wrote: "@Mitali- After our discussion I found this curious page on Snape. Feel free to disagree, but it pretty much confirms all my points. Snape NOT being cruel, NOT being bad teacher, pretending all thes..."
It's a very long article. Can you point to the specific section where it says this?
Jeanie wrote: "Snape was a complex character and very interesting, but not likable to me--even by the end. I understood him better and felt some pity, but I'll never like him. It wasn't just Harry that Snape to..."Very well said! Agree with you all the way.
I'm sure other's didn't like Snape (me not being one of them except for the first book).
No i really didn't like him, I thought he was part of * you can't say his name* clan so..
To me, it's important to distinguish between liking someone as a literary character, i.e. liking to read about the character, and liking the role they play in the book, and liking them as a person. I like him as a literary character, because he is interesting and complex, and I respect him for protecting Harry for so long, even though it was incredibly painful for him, but no, I don't think he was a nice person, and the way he acted towards Harry and other students he didn't like, was obviously not okay. I think people who like him as a person, not just as a literary character, are missing the point - Snape was never supposed to be likeable.
message 138:
by
Tana Lovegood of Dumbledore's Army✞~
(last edited Jan 03, 2015 12:43PM)
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
I don't like him either, I do pity him though! Though thanks to him now I know not to judge people to easily but he was a mean teacher and a big bully but he was still human and had feelings. To me he seemed a bit..what's the word I'm looking for...obsessed with Lily? It was a little creepy and he humiliated students, sure the Marauders bullied him but that was years ago to me he was being a little bit of a hypocrite because now he's a bully to the students. He's a very complex character and there were times I hated him, felt sorry for him, and times I started to like him. But when he died I couldn't help but cry...yet here I am talking about how I don't like him..
Eric wrote: "I think a more critical reading of the character might explain why some people "like" him. He is certainly interesting, and while I wouldn't invite him to tea, I would listen to his advice."yes!
Hulda wrote: "rachel nicole wrote: "Before I start, let me just say that I liked him, but that was where it ended. While yes, I understand that he was tortured by the Marauders, he was desperately and irrevocab..."Gold. Absolute gold. Those are my thoughts exactly... except for the naming thing lol.
You are DEFINITELY not the only one. Even though he had a tough childhood and I can somewhat relate with that, my level of pity for him can only go so high.
Huh...are you the only who hated Snape?Honestly...I don't know the answer to that...
Ida wrote: "Snape was an absolute prat, but I can't help admiring him for what he did for the good side, even if it was for selfish reasons."I think all of us do good things for the good side for selfish reasons...
I don't think we were meant to like him.
Robin wrote: "I don't think we were meant to like him."I'm not sure if we were meant to "like" Snape, but Rowling definitely felt he had redeemed himself to the point of deserving admiration. Harry named his son, albus Severus, after him for crying out loud. When I first read this, I found it to be one of the jarring notes at the end. Harry had spent eight years with the memories he had been given by Snape before naming his son, but we had only a few pages. I wasn't there yet. To be honest, I'm still not.
In the memories, Rowling implied that Dumbledore felt Snape would have been a Gryffindor if the sorting had come later. While I question Dumbledore's rationale for this, it's clear that Rowling was signaling she felt Snape deserved to be regarded more highly than what we already knew of him warranted. If she hadn't found something to like in him, along with a few things to admire, she wouldn't have let Harry forgive him and understand him to the point of honoring him by naming a son after him.
Regardless of the author's intentions, I don't see Snape quite the same way. But as a reader, I'm allowed to draw my own conclusions, especially since the author went out of her way to show that even Harry and Dumbledore were flawed and sometimes got it wrong. Other readers will have a different take, but that's okay, too.
I felt like Harry purposefully antagonized Snape though. I mean, yes, Snape started it and he holds a grudge against James but Harry didn't exactly do anything to ingratiate himself to Snape. I mean James was an awful person, imagine you had to teach the kid of the guy who made your life miserable in school and took the love of your life away. And now you have the product of that union in front of you every day. Poor Snape.
I understand he was a hero all along, but you are totally right. All the other 6 years he was with Harry he was just... basically GRRR!!! I mean, he did come out in the end, but the over all picture he was just crappy to him all the time.
AND HE WAS RUDE TO HERMIONE!! Which I was soooooooo not happy about.
Jeanie wrote: "Snape was a complex character and very interesting, but not likable to me--even by the end. I understood him better and felt some pity, but I'll never like him. It wasn't just Harry that Snape to..."Snape hated Neville because if, instead of Harry, Neville had been chosen, Lily never would have been killed. He looks at Neville and that's a reminder of what could have happened. If there was somebody you loved and that person had a 50% chance of being chosen, and they were, wouldn't you hate the person who was able to live and who had no idea what pain they caused you? This doesn't justify his actions but remember that he had a reason for doing these things, even if they weren't good reasons.
I liked Snape but I wish there was somebody that could have been his friend. After he drove Lily away, he didn't have any real friends, there was nobody to steer him on the right path. I think that if Lily had stayed with him even when he was being cruel then he wouldn't have felt so powerless and wanted to be a Death Eater. Lily gave up on him and that was ultimately the event that made Snape choose the dark side. He thought taht if Lily couldn't help him, who could? If he had somebody to help him he wouldn't have been so cruel to everyone else. Look at James, he had Lily and he changed to be a better man. I also think that he really didn't care about the students and he was trying to take out his anger on them, which obviously was very wrong on his part. He probably thought that they had such an easy life and no serious difficulties at all.
Let me appeal to my own authority as a school psychologist who spent thirty years working with students. Fear at the level Nevill experienced prevents learning, it does not in any way facilitate it. All he learned in Potions was to fear Snape more than anything else in the world. McGonnogol was strict and allowed her students to learn from their mistakes, but she was respected as well as being slightly feared. There is a difference between the natural fear we experience around a strict authority figure versus the trauma inflicted by Snape. If your child was in Snape's class and was frequently brought to tears through insults--like Hermione--or trembled at the sound of the teachers name--like Nevill--would you think that teacher was the one you wanted for your own child? Trust me, much of what Snape did to specific students qualifies as abuse. It is emotional abuse rather than physical, but even Madame Pomfrey recognized that thoughts can leave deeper scars than anything else.
As for Dumbledore, that's a whole different discussion. I think we all wanted to admire all the good characters unconditionally, but Rowling made sure to include flaws in all of them. I loved Dumbledore, but my admiration of him as a school administrator took some hits over the course of the series. We might understand that in the circumstance where Voldemort was gaining ascendancy again, Dumbledore would be more focused on ensuring the wizarding world never fell under that oppression again rather than how well any individual teacher was doing. But that doesn't mean the strategies he used were in the best interests of his students. Tralawney was given sanctuary in Hogwarts to prevent Voldemort from getting hold of the full prophesy, not because she had anything to offer as a teacher. Even Dumbledore admitted in OotP that his strategy of keeping Harry in the dark had been a mistake. But the unintentional harm done by well-intentioned mistakes is vastly different than the targeted malice of someone like Snape. I think Dumbledore should have supervised Snape more closely and worked with him on how not to induce trauma in students. It doesn't matter that Snape wasn't abusive to all students; even one student scarred by a teacher is one too many.
So Snape was working against Voldemort and, since Voldemort is the worst of all evils, any strategy employed against Voldemort is acceptable? In an ethos based on good, the ends do not justify the means. It never has been possible to make two wrongs equal a right.