Severus Snape: Character Analysis v.11

[silver ink pot]

Bscorp: Thanks for posting that essay, which is one of my favorites!

Originally Posted by Cathy

Thanks for posting that Bscorp! I agree with a lot of it. However there are other stories in which the main protagonist doesn't change. The one that springs to mind is Mansfield Park by Jane Austen, which funnily enough is not the most popular of that authors works! In that book the heroine remains true to herself despite being under intense pressure to do things that are wrong or against her nature. The result is that she is eventually proved right to have stuck to her guns.

I'm going to ramble a bit about Jane Austen and Snape:

I see Harry as more of an Emma, and I believe JKR even mentioned Emma as an inspiration. Harry is naive and sure of himself like Emma. And they both make mistakes have to eat some crow in order to grow up and gain wisdom. It's the people around them who have the drama although they do their part to set things in motion that they don't really understand.

And that's where the big difference with Snape comes in. He is also full of confidence as a boy when he gets on the train to Hogwarts, but unlike Harry he loses his best friend and gains alot of bad friends. And then Snape's life goes downhill from there.

You could say that Snape is something of an Eliza Bennett when he is young, even though she has a much happier ending.

In Pride and Prejudice, Eliza constantly finds herself at a social disadvantage due to her embarrassing family and their lack of money. People are constantly putting her down for reasons that have nothing to do with her own worth - just as Slytherins are dismissed as evil, or Snape is taunted for his nose or gray underwear. Eliza is brilliant, but only her father seems aware of it, just as Slughorn seems to be the only one who was aware of Snape's intelligence.

When Eliza holds her head high, she is thought to be getting above her station in life and bullies like Mr. Bingley's sisters have to put her in her place. Eliza is also very loyal refuses to believe all the bad things she is hearing about her friend Mr. Wickham, just as Snape won't believe what Lily says about Mulciber. So Lily plays the Mr. Darcy role in having this dark knowledge about Mulciber. But sadly, it's as if Darcy had already fallen in love with Miss Bingley and left Eliza standing there with no one left but Mr. Wickham. Yes, I think that analogy works. Lily had already fallen for James and left Snape without any friends except Mulciber and the other Slytherins.

Both Snape and Eliza Bennett have to learn from hard experience just what bad people their so-called friends can be. I think that's why Eliza is a more realistic protagonist than the girl in Mansfield Park who is never fooled by anyone, and why Snape is sometimes more appealing than Harry. Sure, Harry is misled by people, but he is blessed with friends who never let him down and never betray him. He also never has to prove himself to anyone - they just accept him, while Snape feels he has to impress people by becoming a Death Eater, while Eliza is pressured to act a certain way to "catch" a rich husband.

To wrap up my rambling: Of course, Eliza never sinks to the same level of Wickham, but then Snape also avoids using Unforgivables unlike Mulciber. Snape avoids prison thanks to Dumbledore, but I believe Snape also gave information that landed Mulciber in jail, which shows how much he changed from when he was a kid. The main thing is that both Eliza and Snape make a choice - Eliza refuses to either be a snob or to throw her life away like her sister Lydia, who runs away with Wickham. Something much worse happens to Snape when he tells the Prophecy to Voldemort and lives to regret it, but he also manages to redefine himself as a good guy while remaining the Half-Blood Prince from Spinner's End.

ETA: One more thing . . . Eliza is wracked with guilt over the shotgun marriage of Lydia to Wickham. She feels responsible because of secret knowledge she had of Wickham which she never told anyone. That's a nifty literary parallel to Snape. Eliza couldn't control what Lydia did, or what Wickham did, but she still blames herself and only confiding in Mr. Darcy solves the problem.

[TreacleTartlet]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

the only reason Snape helped Dumbledore was because Voldemort killed Lily. Before Lily was killed, Snape didn't have any reason to turn against Voldemort - he believed Voldemort would spare Lily.

According to Dumbledore, Snape was working for the Order before Voldemort's attack on the Potters.

GoF, The Pensieve Dumbledore got to his feet.'I have evidence already on this matter,' he said calmly. 'Severus Snape was indeed a Death Eater. However, he rejoined our side before Lord Voldemort's downfall and turned spy for us, at great personal risk. He is no more a Death Eater than I am.'

As JKR has said that when she wants to tell her readers something she uses Dumbledore or Hermione, I would rather take Dumbledore's word on this matter.

[halfbloodsnape]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

Well I believe there is misinterpretation of my statement going on in general. Snape didn't murder innocents when he was working for the good side. He was able to kill Dumbledore however, at Dumbedore's request. Dumbledore was on the good side, and not attacking Snape - he was innocent of evil. The point was that Dumbledore required a person who would kill him under those circumstances. He also required someone willing to deliver his message to Harry, informing him he was a horcrux and must sacrifice himself to Voldemort. Again, Harry was an innocent boy on the good side, who wasn't attacking good siders. So the messenger is required to be willing that Harry be killed by Voldemort.

Naturally Dumbledore didn't phrase it this way - it sounds altogether wrongful and horrendous. But in truth, that is what it was - and what he was asking of Snape. While Dumbledore left out all of the innocent, good sider stuff, that is what both he and Harry represented, imo. Snape said, 'so the boy must die' - so he understood Harry was to sacrifice himself - and Dumbledore told Snape he must kill him - so he knew he'd be personally taking that life also.

What I said was Snape's death was meaningless in relation to the Elder Wand. That is completely different. Voldemort didn't have to kill him at all because he was not the master. And in the end, Voldemort wasn't "fooled" into believing that he had power over the wand - instead, he chose to believe he might be and give it a go - perhaps because he felt his own power as a wizard would be effective with the powerful wand, whether he was master or not. We don't know because Voldemort didn't say. But Harry told him everything. So Snape's death was pointless - meaningless - relative to any advantage that the Elder Wand would garner Harry. Harry himself discredited that advantage when he revealed all to Voldemort, imo.


In my opinion, the idea was, Snape's love for one person allowed him to do some good things, but general compassion allows a person to rise to greatness. Dumbledore's obsession with bringing down Voldemort allowed him to do some good things, but again, general compassion in its truest sense, doesn't allow for this type of obsession, imo, because it won't agree to devaluation of the life of innocents.

I have the feeling, correct me if I'm wrong, that you place a certain blame on Snape being able to kill Dumbledore, or at least draw too great of a conclusion of it. I personally feel that there is a strong resemblance to the scene where Harry makes Dumbledore drink that foul potion Voldemort put on the locket. Even the description is similar, and I do not think for a moment that it was unintentionate: Harry was 'repulsed by what he was doing' when Dumbledore was moaning, and when Snape was moving forward to do the curse there was 'hatred and revulsion etched on his face'. It is the same, really. A promise they both made, because Dumbledore made them do it, because Dumbledore believed it was the right way to do it. One might argue that the potion didn't kill him, but to be frank he had no way to know that in advance. It seemed logical that VOldy wouldn't want to kill one who reached that point, but he couldn't really know for sure. If he knew it for sure it would've made much more sense to have Harry drink the potion, for Dumbledore had a much greater chanse to find his way out of the cave and bring an unconcious Harry back to Hogwarts, or to fight anything that came against them.
Snape is not less heartless or cruel to be able to do it. He didn't want to and he didn't enjoy it, but he accepted that it is Dumbledore's choise and it is the best choise there is. It doesn't mean he values life less than others.

[Daggerstone]

So it's the movie character fans she was referring to?

Originally Posted by Annie

I found Snape's personality, actions and motivations fascinating. I like complex characters that have shades of grey, and hidden depths under still waters (surface).

Exactly.

It's much more interesting to deliberate Snape's motivation (his love for Lily can only take you so far, especially after Dumbledore's 'confession') and dissect his personality (how exactly did he get from 'Half-Blood Prince of Hogwarts' to 'loyal DE reporting on the prophesy'?) than any other character in the book... IMO, of course.

Originally Posted by SIP

He is also full of confidence as a boy when he gets on the train to Hogwarts, but unlike Harry he loses his best friend and gains a lot of bad friends. And then Snape's life goes downhill from there.

Hmm... The losing of the best friend and gaining of bad ones comes a lot later than that, but I do believe the 'backstory' Jo gives us (a peek into Snape's childhood) sets the perfect scene for the downhill slide regardless...

Still, she must have wanted to keep him from reaching the absolute rock-bottom: we're never told of any torturing/killing perpetrated by him, he protests Dumbledore's 'assisted suicide' plan by raising the question of his soul (surely he wouldn't have protested if he already considered it damaged/split beyond repair, as Dumbledore seems to imply would be the case with Draco's soul after a single kill?), and I seem to remember Jo answering a question on Thestrals with 'He will have seen things that...' (why not "done", if that was the case? )

The more I think about it, the more I'm tempted to conclude Jo's just trying to be didactic instead of truthful in her interviews...

[silver ink pot]

Originally Posted by TreacleTartlet

According to Dumbledore, Snape was working for the Order before Voldemort's attack on the Potter's.

That's correct ~ here's the Snape Timeline from the Lexicon:
http://www.hp-lexicon.org/timelines/timeline_snape.html

Snape overhears Trelawney on a "cold wet night." It's either fall 1979 or Spring 1980.

Harry was born on July 31, 1980.

By August or September, Snape knows that Harry is the boy Voldemort has "chosen" and goes to Dumbledore, becoming a spy and getting the teaching job at Hogwarts.

It's over a year later that the Potters die, on Halloween 1981.

So for a year after coming back to the good side Snape is passing on information to protect the POtters.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by halfbloodsnape

I have the feeling, correct me if I'm wrong, that you place a certain blame on Snape being able to kill Dumbledore, or at least draw too great of a conclusion of it. I personally feel that there is a strong resemblance to the scene where Harry makes Dumbledore drink that foul potion Voldemort put on the locket. Even the description is similar, and I do not think for a moment that it was unintentionate: Harry was 'repulsed by what he was doing' when Dumbledore was moaning, and when Snape was moving forward to do the curse there was 'hatred and revulsion etched on his face'. It is the same, really. A promise they both made, because Dumbledore made them do it, because Dumbledore believed it was the right way to do it. One might argue that the potion didn't kill him, but to be frank he had no way to know that in advance. It seemed logical that VOldy wouldn't want to kill one who reached that point, but he couldn't really know for sure. If he knew it for sure it would've made much more sense to have Harry drink the potion, for Dumbledore had a much greater chanse to find his way out of the cave and bring an unconcious Harry back to Hogwarts, or to fight anything that came against them. Snape is not less heartless or cruel to be able to do it. He didn't want to and he didn't enjoy it, but he accepted that it is Dumbledore's choise and it is the best choise there is. It doesn't mean he values life less than others.

That was pretty heartless of Harry - and if he had known for certain that Dumbledore was going to die, he would be known as one who was willing to kill innocents - for whatever reason. But he's saved there by the fact that he didn't think it would kill him - he was repulsed, but not because he thought Dumbledore would die. Furthermore, this was not something Harry planned in advance, knowingly and willingly setting out to kill the innocent Dumbledore (innocent in terms of good and evil siders).

In answer to your question, yes there is a negative connotation associated with a person who would plot and plan and/or adopt plans that involve the death of innocents - then carry them out. I refuse to compromise my moral viewpoint to allow for this to be 'okay' - it is simply not okay to me. I don't see it as terrible as flat out cold-blooded murder, that is not what I am saying. But in my judgment, Snape had been a cold-blooded murderer as a death eater and and such, "killing" in and of itself didn't hold the same weight as it would with those who had not been involved in that sort of thing. So I feel that he still retained the ability to kill - if he felt the reason was good enough and that extended to innocents. He also retained the ability to watch others kill innocents (like Charity). We simply don't have examples of good siders purposely killing innocents, aiding in the manipulation of innocents to their deaths or watching them be killed without doing anything except for Snape, imo.

[CathyWeasley]

Love the Pride and Prejudice parallel SIP (It's one of my all time favourites) I also think that parallels could be drawn with Persuasion - a girl is persuaded not to marry the man she loves because he is beneath her. It makes me think of Snape effectively loosing his friendship with Lily because of the influence of other people in his life. Fortunately Anne Elliot gets another chance when she meets him again years later. Sadly Severus did not get a second chance.

[meesha1971]

Originally Posted by wickedwickedboy

Imo, the writer here was confused. They determined what they wanted the story to be about and then chastised JKR for not living up to their expectations. Snape wasn't written as a man struggling to define what was right and then do it. Snape was written as a man who was overcome by his own cruely, bullying and sacrcastic nature, imo, as such, he didn't struggle beyond the minimal when it came to the rejection of evil, imo. He was not written to be the "grand protagonist" - and not even the "grand antagonist" - JKR didn't want this style but a multi antagonist role doled out to Draco, Snape, Vernon/Petunia, Umbridge and Voldemort.

Snape's role was a personal antagonist, much like Draco or Petunia/Vernon. Snape never struggled to stop behaving in a malicious and petty manner toward the children, imo, he bullied them as well as his peers and got enjoyment out of it as written - with the malicious tones and sneers and spitting, etc. This is what JKR wanted, not some protagonist who is mostly evil till the end - that is Star Wars - she didn't want to pull a repeat. She didn't do that with any of these characters (Voldy, Snape, Draco, etc.). She wanted them to be unique and they were. If people don't like it, too bad - just as I think the epilogue regarding Snape is falsely written - too bad for me. That is what JKR wanted to write. Snape wasn't in the series all that much, despite people feeling otherwise - for some I understand he was always there "in the background" - but in actual page reading, he was not around much - and as such, we don't learn all that much about him on an real interpersonal level, imo. What foods does he like? How much time does he spend with Slytherin kids? What does he do there? What does he do in the evening when off duty? How often does he go to Spinner's end? Who does he talk to during his time off? What is his friendship with Lucius like as an adult? How often does he meet with Voldemort? With Dumbledore? Go to Order meetings? We don't know any of these things - just as we don't for many characters. But we know these things about Harry and the trio. Snape was just another character - and his role was to be antagonist trhoughout that was found to be on the good side in the end. The grand story arc that was wanted by the above writer was not a part of HP series - she should write her own novel.

I agree. As a character, Snape is fairly static in that he is essentially the same bitter, vengeful person at the end of the story that he was when we first meet him at the beginning of the story, IMO. We get some information regarding his past and certain events over the course of the series that factor in to why he's bitter and vengeful and explains why he agreed to help Dumbledore - to some extent - but we don't really learn enough about him for me to consider him a fully fleshed out character. Everything we are given in the text sets Snape up as a secondary character - a personal antagonist to Harry who does some good things for selfish reasons in the end. I don't really see anything more to it than that - though I do think there is some interesting irony presented throughout in how Dumbledore's plans and Snape's actions generally don't work as planned with Harry getting a lucky break instead that leads to him getting what he needs through another event or character that has nothing to do with Snape or Dumbledore.

I think what happened with the Elder wand is the best example because Dumbledore's plan there could have had tragic results for Harry. Voldemort was able to use the Elder wand fairly well even without being master of it. So if not for the lucky break of Draco disarming Dumbledore before he died and Harry getting captured and having to forcibly take Draco's wand to escape, Harry would not have had any advantage against Voldemort in that final duel. It was the unforeseen event of Draco managing to disarm Dumbledore before he died that enabled Harry to succeed. I though it was very ironic that it was Draco who gave Harry what he needed to defeat Voldemort in the end.

But, while I do enjoy the irony of those situations, it was rather disappointing that something like that seemed to happen every single time so, ultimately, it seems like all of Harry's successes come about through lucky breaks instead of Dumbledore having a well thought out plan that provided him with what he needed.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by meesha1971

It comes across to me that this was Dumbledore's intention all along. It was never necessary for him to set things up to make Voldemort believe that Snape was the master of the Elder wand. It would have worked equally well in regards to his plan to die without being defeated and render the wand powerless for him to have taken his own life. It would have been very simple for him to have consumed poison so it appeared that he died in his sleep after he'd given Harry all the information he needed and prepared him for the mission of finding and destroying the Horcruxes. Once Dumbledore was dead, Draco would not longer be responsible for carrying out Voldemort's plan to murder Dumbledore and Snape would not be necessary as back up.

In that way, Dumbledore's plan would have succeeded. The power of the Elder wand would have been broken, Draco's soul salvaged, and Snape still able to play his role as double agent with the Order still having some trust in him - even it was only because Dumbledore did.

Because there were other options - as well as other events within the story and Dumbledore choosing not to inform Snape of the risk involved - it comes across to me that Dumbledore intentionally set Snape up to die with Voldemort believing him to be the master of the Elder wand. Dumbledore knew that Voldemort would eventually seek out the Elder wand in his quest to overcome the connection between his and Harry's wands and, once he did, it would eventually be traced back to him. And once that occurred, Voldemort would believe that Snape was the master of the wand because he had killed Dumbledore. So, in asking Snape to kill him, Dumbledore signed Snape's death warrant. Since there were other options that would have allowed Snape to survive, the only reason I can see for Dumbledore wanting Snape to die is that he saw Snape as a potential threat after Voldemort had been defeated. So I would agree that this aspect of the Elder wand subplot is almost entirely negative.

I agree with the reasoning throughout. And I think the rationale you grant Dumbledore is entirely possible. But I do see another reason. Snape had agreed to the plan regarding Harry and I think that aspect of Snape - one that Dumbledore recognized in himself - was still a fatal flaw of character on Snape's part. That is, the willingness to literally use "any means", including manipulation, non disclosure, etc., to get people to act - and further, rationalizing one's way out of feeling remorse, not necessarily just for these things, but for other things as well that were shown through Snape's everyday interaction with others. I think Dumbledore realized that Snape would have to face death, one way or another, and he stacked the cards with the Elder Wand business, imo. I believe Dumbledore realized that it would take such a moment for Snape to reach these final realizations and truly understand the value of life and the consequences of not living on the Slytherin motto 'by any means'. I feel that Dumbledore thought if Snape managed to escape death somehow, these lessons would be invaluable in his subsequent life. Snape needed to make major changes with respect to his personal outlook which translated to his personal behavior as a good sider and I think Dumbledore felt that facing death was something that could jolt Snape into certain realizations that he would otherwise never reach - because he'd just rationalize and cast blame for ever otherwise.

Apparently it would not have worked as JKR said that Snape died the same man that he'd been in life (while on the good side). But perhaps Dumbledore thought it might.

I agree. The Order of the Phoenix was a voluntary service - none of them were going to be court marshaled if they refused to do something Dumbledore requested. And that is one positive thing with Dumbledore's character - he primarily made requests rather than giving orders. They were all capable of telling him no if he asked something that they were not comfortable with. If Snape had been genuinely disturbed by Dumbledore asking him to murder him or assist in ensuring that Voldemort murdered Harry, he could have said no.

Exactly - and he wouldn't have done the side deal (unbreakable vow) with Narcissa either, imo. You don't make vows that assure you will have to kill someone - I think JKR went a bit far with that. That activity was for pure personal gain in as far as Snape was concerned because he'd already told Dumbledore he'd kill him, already agreed to help protect Draco. And Snape had an easy out also - he could have simply said that he would not decieve the dark lord and agree to do it with Narcissa. Convincing Bella and Narcissa was immaterial - Snape had to convince only Voldemort and the dark lord wasn't even going to know about the vow (and would be angered if he found out they were doing it behind his back, imo). So it was purely for Snape to look better in the eyes of comrade death eaters and that is for his personal benefit, imo. That is not a good rationale for Snape to swear on his life - literally - to commit murder, imo. I think JKR took that too far because there is no real way to salvage Snape in that situation - the excuse "he was going to kill Dumbledore anyway" doesn't pan out, imo. The whole underlying rationale was that Dumbledore had "okayed" the plan for Snape to kill him - that lifts the matter from a strict muder of an innocent, into killing an innocent for the greater good, still not valid to me, but not as culpable as cold hearted murder. However, adding in the vow took things to a new level - what if Dumbledore had a change of plans? Too bad, because if Draco attempted to kill him but could not, Snape would have to do it or die. His choosing to die under the circumstances would also be wrongful, imo, so Snape was painted into a corner, imo.

Exactly. I can't see any of the others actually agreeing to Dumbledore's plan to have Voldemort murder Harry - which would be why Dumbledore never shared that part with any of them, IMO. Sending an innocent boy off to die - and effectively removing any choice in the matter by the means of doing it - was not a good thing to do. The necessity of that is debatable, but necessary and good do not always go hand in hand.

Right and Dumbledore knew Harry was a better man - he'd of likely chosen to do it anyway - that is the whole point to me. Even if Harry decided not to do it, Dumbledore and Snape had no right to force the issue, imo. That decision should have been left "freely" up to Harry - not presented when the cards were stacked so heavily against him that his choice was inevitable, imo. Its wrong to me.

Dumbledore's death is - at the heart of it - an assisted suicide. And while there have been many arguments in favor of why something like that would be necessary, I don't feel that any of that discounts the fact that you are killing someone.

I've never seen it as assisted suicide - in the legal sense of the term. It doesn't meet the requirements for the majority of jurisdictions. It was an agreement between Snape and Dumbledore for the greater good (as Dumbledore saw it). But that is less important than Snape being willing to do it at all. Dumbledore was an innocent man in terms of good and evil - he was on the good side. That Dumbledore was eventually going to die anyway is not a good justification for Snape, imo. That Dumbledore had made himself sick that afternoon also doesn't fly. We know from Kreacher's story that Dumbledore did not have to die from drinking the poison. So it all comes back to Snape being willing to kill an innocent - as a means toward some greater good. I don't think that is okay, it surpasses the boundaries of my moral sense of right.

I think it would have worked much better if they had discussed various options and ruled them out so there would be no doubts that there was no way that Dumbledore could survive.

This would not suffice for me. In my view, you can only participate in this sort of thing when the pain and suffering is too great to bear (and not self induced), that was not the case here.

I think that is one of the greatest ironies of the series actually - but also one of the most disappointing to me. They all believed in Dumbledore and had such great faith in him, but when it came right down to it, they couldn't really trust Dumbledore.

Precisely, I have been saying that for ages. Dumbledore cannot be held up as the example of all that is good and his words take on a lot less importance as a result. He did and said some very wise and correct things, but now one must scrutinize each remark and check for manipulation and non-disclosure, imo.

Love is not always a positive force and I think Jo did a great job in demonstrating that. Snape's obsessive love for Lily motivated him to seek revenge for her death and that led to him doing some things that helped Harry in the end. But it is not presented as a positive force on the whole, IMO because Snape's love left him a bitter and vengeful man who hated an innocent boy and willingly assisted in sending that boy off to die - permanently as far as he knew. For me, the negative far outweighs the positive in regards to Snape's characterization.

That is exactly how I see it. And it wasn't just Harry - those same emotions flowing through him didn't help him behave in a nice, kind, generous or even civil manner to most people. He was civil to a few - then only at times, imo.

I think Dumbledore's characterization is slightly better overall because he did at least know Harry could survive all that and he was man enough to apologize to Harry and ask forgiveness. So, in the end, I think it is still possible to see where he did have compassion for others overall - at least to some degree. I think what disappoints me most with all of that is that it appeared that Dumbledore never learned anything from the experiences of his youth. Secrets and lies caused the major tragedies of his life - his father being sent to Azkaban, his mother dying, his sister dying - but Dumbledore continues to keep secrets and tell lies throughout. It's very difficult to believe that a man so intelligent was not capable of learning his lesson from those events and not be so secretive and manipulative.

I could agree with all of that. I feel a bit more disdain for him than you do I think - but I like him and I agree that he did have compassion - just not always at proper levels, imo.

Snape and Dumbledore demonstrate love as a negative force with the emphasis on obsession, revenge, manipulation, and guilt, IMO. They were able to accomplish some good things, but they inflicted a lot of damage along the way with their secrets and lies, IMO. Everything worked out okay for Harry in the end, but the irony was that it turned out okay for Harry due to several lucky breaks rather than anything that Snape or Dumbledore did. So - overall - the negative aspects that were demonstrated overshadow what little good they managed to accomplish, IMO.

Precisely - but I would only add that we saw this type of positive in many characters - Hermione, Ron, Sirius, Lupin, Harry's parents, Molly, Kingsley, Arthur, Neville, Luna, etc., at various levels and in various circumstances. Harry nearly encompassed them all and I think he would be the most compassionate in the series.

I think Snape (with Dumbledore) provided a good contrast to this - as you pointed out, Dumbledore less so. But Snape was the good sider "Bella/Merope" in this particular area. His intent once he changed sides was to forward Dumbledore's goals, which would be good if Dumbledore's means had be on the up and up. But Snape knew they weren't and he went along anyway, driven by a love motivation that did only enough to assist him in reaching a state of minimal good. It wasn't enough though, the way it was characterized in Snape, to assist him in personally becoming a good person, imo, which is equally important. It also prohibited him from finding all of the remorse he needed to find, imo, which is why I feel he was left unredeemed.

Originally Posted by Daggerstone

Still, she must have wanted to keep him from reaching the absolute rock-bottom: we're never told of any torturing/killing perpetrated by him, he protests Dumbledore's 'assisted suicide' plan by raising the question of his soul (surely he wouldn't have protested if he already considered it damaged/split beyond repair, as Dumbledore seems to imply would be the case with Draco's soul after a single kill?),

I don't think the proposition is that Snape or any other death eater is damned for all time because they were murdering and torturing and kidnapping, etc. Otherwise there would be no point in having Harry offer Voldemort a chance for remorse. Regulus, like Snape, imo, engaged in all of the DE activities, but it didn't mean that they could never reject it and eventually find remorse and have their souls healed. Snape's problem was in finding that remorse for everything he'd done, imo, although I think he found it for Lily.

[ignisia]

Nice post, SIP. Austen loved to use narrative misdirection to fool readers, and JKR definitely used the same tool to fool many readers when it came to Snape.

I've not read P&P yet, so I can't add anything there, but I think there is definitely a similarity with Emma. Emma is slightly more arrogant than Harry, but they are both definitely naive and sure of their own conclusions.

So it's the movie character fans she was referring to?

I should hope so.
That Jo doesn't see Snape's appeal isn't surprising, IMO. She's always seemed more attached to the kids than to the previous generation. Plus, she wrote Snape as a positive character, but he's also very prickly, which may get on her nerves sometimes.

[wickedwickedboy]

Originally Posted by ignisia

That Jo doesn't see Snape's appeal isn't surprising, IMO. She's always seemed more attached to the kids than to the previous generation. Plus, she wrote Snape as a positive character, but he's also very prickly, which may get on her nerves sometimes.

I don't think so, or when given another opportunity to write, I doubt she'd of written about prequel characters - which is what she did. I think she doesn't see the appeal in Snape for the reason she gave when naming off the character's attributes (the spiteful, vindictive, bullying cruel, small man, etc.,) and only named brave as a positive. She said that bullying children was the worst thing a person could do. So from her point of view, she was creating a character made up of negative attributes and didn't see how people would find the character appealing on the fact that he could act bravely in moments, imo.

[The_Green_Woods]

Bscorp! That was a wonderful essay. Thanks.

Originally Posted by kittling

Thanks Dags, that's a really interesting moment imo although I find myself wondering what exactly Severus was thinking when her replied to Voldemort. To me it seems very clear that he has redoubled his occlumency – he has withdrawn more that we have ever seen him (& that’s saying something imo) but what is it he wants/needs to hide from Voldemort?

A few possibilities occur to me

• Horror at Voldemort robbing Dumbledore’s grave
• Realising that Voldemort would want to kill him if he wanted to be the master of the Elder wand
• Knowing that he had to get out so he could pass his message on to Harry
• That Dumbledore's plans had left him in an impossible possision

I certainly would not suggest that this list is complete - I'm sure there are other possibilities but what was going on in his mind, any of these, all of these?

I can't think of any other either, though I think Snape knew that Voldemort had robbed Dumbeldore's grave. He was there with Voldmeort that night, and though Voldemort sent him off before he split open the tomb, I think Snape would have known both as Headmaster that a grave on Hogwarts was split open and and because he would have spied on what Voldemort was doing IMO.

In the shack though Snape must have known what an impossible situation he was in. He actually lifs his wand, but then is fooled for a second, which I think costs him his life. Voldemort instead of attacking him, releases Nagini, who attacks Snape. Snape actually thinks that he has a chance here, before he realises what has happened and then it's too late.

DH - The Elder Wand 'My Lord!' Snape protested, raising his wand. 'It cannot be any other way,' said Voldemort. 'I must master the wand Severus. Master the wand and I master Potter at last.' And Voldemort swiped the air with the EW. It did nothing to Snape, who for a split second seemed to think he he had been reprieved: but then Voldemort's intention became clear. The snake's cage was rolling through the airand before Snape could do anything more than yell, it had encased him, head and shoulders, and Voldemort spoke in Parseltongue.

It's interesting that, in a way, by keeping Severus so ambiguous throughout most of the series the reader was invited to see both sides of him - the old him (i.e. when he was a DE) & the man who he now was, who had turned his back on that. Because in his charade, his attempt to play the man who would (& was) accepted back into Voldemort's fold we do see what he once was. But if we look past the word, past the charade we can see the actions that show us the man Severus now is - that's how it seems to me anyway.

[silver ink pot]

Originally Posted by CathyWeasley

Love the Pride and Prejudice parallel SIP (It's one of my all time favourites) I also think that parallels could be drawn with Persuasion - a girl is persuaded not to marry the man she loves because he is beneath her. It makes me think of Snape effectively loosing his friendship with Lily because of the influence of other people in his life. Fortunately Anne Elliot gets another chance when she meets him again years later. Sadly Severus did not get a second chance.

Persuasion is my favorite of all the books! I feel sorry for both Anne and Captain Wentworth.

That's similar because there's a social class problem when it comes to Snape because the Muggles look down on his family and so do the Pureblood Wizards because he is a Half-Blood. He has nothing going for him socially - and he's a neglected child as well. So compared to the Evans girls as well as James and Sirius, he has alot of strikes against him.

That's why I smile whenever I read this line in DH:

"... Snape ... even with his poorly cut hair and his odd clothes, he struck an oddly impressive figure sprawled in front of her, brimful of confidence in his destiny."

Maybe Harry is thinking of adult Snape there, but he is able to see the future possibilities of young Snape.

[wickedwickedboy]

I don't think Snape's half blood birthright posed a problem. The purebloods seemed to only hold them in disdain if they stood against them. Otherwise, kids like Snape and Tom could even get into Slytherin. And Draco did initially attempt to make friends with Harry, even after knowing who he was. Snape's clothes would also not be a factor in the wizard world because most of them dressed as strangely as he did. I do think that his being poor might be a factor for those who held poverty in disdain, but I don't think the canon shows that all Slytherin looked down on the poor - that seemed to be Draco and Bella's deal - and they were from rich, hoity toity families. But Snape's attitude toward muggles, his fascination with the dark arts, knowing some dark curses and his desire to get into Slytherin was enough for acceptance - as we saw by the behavior of Lucius when he was sorted into Slytherin, imo. I agree those latter factors would be strikes against him to good sider kids.

[The_Green_Woods]

I think there is a lot of similarity between Snape's and Harry's sorting. I think Harry got into Gryffindor, because he did not want Slytherin and Snape got into Slytherin because he wanted to go there. At that time, Snape's best friend was a muggleborn, one he was never ashamed to be seen with. So the Slytherin pureblood agenda of Slytherin House was not met by Snape at the sorting IMO. Snape was proud of his magic, and thought himself more superior than the muggles but that by itself would not have qualified him for Slytherin either IMO. Neither would the dark arts. Dumbeldore was a Gryffindor and he knew a lot of dark arts and knowing the dark arts or wanting to read about them, IMO does not disqualify a student from the other HOuses. I think Snape went into Slytherin because he wanted to be there.

[Moriath]

You guys, you know the drill. This is not the place to draw extensive parallels to other literature. Please do so in The Pensieve, a subforum that needs more love anyway.

[CathyWeasley]

Originally Posted by SIP

That's why I smile whenever I read this line in DH:

"... Snape ... even with his poorly cut hair and his odd clothes, he struck an oddly impressive figure sprawled in front of her, brimful of confidence in his destiny."

Maybe Harry is thinking of adult Snape there, but he is able to see the future possibilities of young Snape.

You know that line brings a lump to my throat, because despite his appearance Harry can see that he has the potential to be something great. How impressive would he have been with caring parents who gave him a proper hair cut and decent clothes? If Harry can see that potential there, then surely Severus must have been aware of his potential and was frustrated by the way others saw him as just "that Snape boy from Spinner's End." We see from his abilities as an adult that he is a very talented, creative and powerful wizard, and knowing he has the potential to be great I can easily understand the lure of the Death Eaters who would give him the opportunity to be great. He wanted to fulfill his destiny of becoming a great wizard and saw the Death Eaters as the means to that end. Unfortunately he adopted their more unpleasant beliefs and traits - but as a true Slytherin he was prepared to do what it took to achieve his ambition. I think his ambition blinded him to everything else. It was only when it threatened that which he truly loved and he learnt the lesson that achieving your goal by "any" means can cost you dear and that sometimes it isn't worth it. Snape did a complete U-turn then, and IMO ultimately he did become a great wizard - just not in the way he had initially envisaged.

[Daggerstone]

Originally Posted by CathyWeasley

Unfortunately he adopted their more unpleasant beliefs and traits...

I'd find it incredibly... unintelligent of Snape to adopt the pureblood belief, being a half-blood himself. And if he had adopted it - and by extension adopted the view that as a half-blood he could not measure up - where would the incentive for joining DEs lie in the first place?

Originally Posted by CathyWeasley

...but as a true Slytherin he was prepared to do what it took to achieve his ambition.

Cunning, ambitious, and willing to employ any means.... Yes, he's build around those three stipulations isn't he?

But he also serves as a rather fine example of the two extremes you can take those traits to, as well. Not that I approve, of course.

[CathyWeasley]

Originally Posted by Daggerstone

I'd find it incredibly... unintelligent of Snape to adopt the pureblood belief, being a half-blood himself. And if he had adopted it - and by extension adopted the view that as a half-blood he could not measure up - where would the incentive for joining DEs lie in the first place?

So do you think he didn't actually adopt it he just pretended to?

Because Tom Riddle was an intelligent lad, but he beleived all that blood status stuff and he was a half-blood as well.

Cunning, ambitious, and willing to employ any means.... Yes, he's build around those three stipulations isn't he?

But he also serves as a rather fine example of the two extremes you can take those traits to, as well. Not that I approve, of course.

No of course you don't approve

[Pearl_Took]

Originally Posted by Daggerstone

I'd find it incredibly... unintelligent of Snape to adopt the pureblood belief, being a half-blood himself. And if he had adopted it - and by extension adopted the view that as a half-blood he could not measure up - where would the incentive for joining DEs lie in the first place?

I find it puzzling as well, Dags.

Severus can't have been the only half-blood in Slytherin either!

Can I call this a plot hole? A half-blood guy signing up for the 'pureblood only' agenda? Pretty please?

I'm always intrigued by the title he gave himself: Half Blood Prince. Very interesting that he didn't deny his half-blood status, even if it was a private nickname that amused him.

And then there are the other two principal characters so closely linked to Snape who are half-bloods: Harry and Voldemort.

All three, as Harry himself thought of it, as he made his lonely walk through the Forest, 'the abandoned boys of Hogwarts'.