She says he's not a hero, yet some people vehemently disagree. Or does she possibly understand him far more than we do?

In the chat she says he is a hero, but a flawed one--an anti-hero.

I think she was just trying to point out that the focus should be on Harry, not Snape.

I quite agree Chocolatl, the series has many heros I feel. While Snape is certainly heroic to the point of scrifcing himself I however feel far more admiration for Neville and Ron not to mention Harry himself. I'm glad she gave us a second opinion on Snape as I feel Anti-Hero is very appicable to he former Potions master.

As he is her character I would say she does know him very well. Of course that won't stop some people loving him far more then Jo would expect them to, such is life with a variety of people having their own perspective and opinions. Snape deserves honors for what he has done, but certainly no more then anyone else who gave their lives in the book.

Hmmmm....beg to differ, Shard! (Hope you don't mind....... ) I thought that Severus was one of the few very nuanced "adults" in the series. He had more complexity, more intelligence, and more "light and dark" in him than anyone except Dumbledore (but that's a whole other thread right there..........) I thought that he was one of the few who made adult, intelligent choices about himself and the actions he decided to take. Yes, he was flawed and yes, long ago he made a terrible mistake. But I think there's no denying that he carved out a very difficult role for himself to atone for his mistake. (How many years did he risk his life in a double-agent role? 16, is it?). The self-made man aspect of Severus was very appealing. He was able to change himself......not all of himself, but enough to make us gasp. And Harry didn't really change all that much. In comparison with Severus, he was a bit.....static.

My read was that from time to time JKR sounded a bit piqued in interviews about Severus' popularity/hero status. Perhaps it's because characters often eclipse our expectations of them? Harry met our expectations; Severus exceeded them.

Difference of opinion is always welcomed here!

I have seen a few Snape fans state how crushed they are about Snape, that he was wasted and even some state how pathetic he was to obsesse over Lily like a stalker. I never said that Snape was a simple man, he's a bitter one though for sure and that's hard for someone like me to like. I see an eerie dark mirroring to Sirius in Snape, like they are two halves of the same coin.

The Reason I say Anti-Hero is the same reason that Spike from Buffy/Angel show is an Anti-Hero. He will do what is right but don't expect him to act like a Boy Scout.

She created him. Of course she understands him.

I think what Jo might have underestimated is Snape's appeal to her readers, but that was obvious early on. Or maybe she was exploring what about perfectly dastardly people inspires more love for the character or hope for their redemption than love for people like James, Sirius, Lupin, Arthur, Molly, Bill, who do the right thing for the right reasons?

Spike was everything a Vampire should be, until it became clear to WB--(hmmm, the same people who bought HP) that fans liked the actor and charactor no matter what he did, including rape Buffy. Fans will forgive bad boys quicker than they will a truly heroic character and that's the simple truth. We rather see a bad boy redeemed because it is more a message of hope than watch a good boy do what he is supposed to: the right thing.

Jo spoke a great deal "against" liking the bad boy, and gives the expected speech we learn in domestic abuse prevention classes, but she nonetheless created a classic Bad Boy. She put him in the classic position inspiring readers to have Bad Boy empathy, she made him fall in love with The Good Girl. She shows us the "good boy" Lily loves primarily through his interactions with his Bad Boy rival, so we are free to question the "Good Boy's goodness. How can anyone who loved Saint Lily after all be all bad? So he ran around five or six years with a bunch of killers doing we don't want to know what horrible things to other perfectly innocent people. He stopped, didn't he, when his girl was in trouble? See, he must be good.

Her tale of Snape and Lily is the very essence of the Good girl/bad boy syndrome. If a good girl loves/likes a bad boy and he loves her back--he's saved because of his affection, no mattered how flawed and twisted the love is, for the good girl.

Snape has heroic properties, but isn't a hero the way the trio, or any of the Order are heroes. I mean he acted bravely but it wasn't really for the good of anyone but his own emotions--to protect the son of the woman he loved, not because it was the right thing to do, but because he loved her.. I mean that's noble in itself, but I still get the feeling that Snape really was acting for himself, and his feelings for Lily were the only saving grace about him. An important one, but the only one.

I have to agree, Snape was always the most intriguing character in my estimation. I liked the greyness of him, it made him real. He was flawed, yes, but he was really a teenager when he chose to find friendship with the wrong crowd. Hmm how many teenagers make bad choices? The difference really is that Snape spends the rest of his life at great risk to himself atoning for those choices. He had an interesting split in his feelings toward Harry.(A psychologist would have a field day there) When he sees James in him, he can be cold, even cruel. But for a look in Lily's eyes he risks and loses his life.

I'm sorry but comparing Severus Snape's choice of becoming a Death Eater to the typical teenager's mistake is like comparing one of the Manson Family to a boy whose worst offense is dancing in the mud naked at Woodstock.

And herein lies the confusion of readers toward Jo's attitude towards Snape: she doesn't show us Snape at seventeen, a more willing and capable Death Eater than Malfoy, but only hints that he is, that he finds special favor with the Dark Lord.

Right now I'm watching Dusk To Dawn where George Cloony is the classic bad boy anti-hero. But we see early on what a POS George is. We are made to believe that Snape wasn't as bad a Death Eater as the rest, that his membership was somehow reluntant, but Jo, who created Snape insist this wasn't the case. She has Dumbledore say that Snape was "indeed" a Death Eater.

It is impossible to imagine Snape using the Septumsempra to harm someone--but we know if this is is signature spell then he probably used it as Death Eater in the first war--but when we see him he is trying save George and his hand slips.

We are not convinced that he was every as bad as the rest of them...

OTOH he still had a soul worth worrying about, at least in his own opinion. What did that mean? That he never killed anyone directly before killing Dumbledore? That he felt enough remorse to heal his soul from whatever damage his acts may have inflicted on it?

On the more general question - if a large proportion of the readership differs with Rowling's interpretation of her own character then perhaps the way he is written in canon can be legitimately be interpreted in more than one way.

Well I wasn't really equating Snape to a naked Woodstock dancer nor would I go so far as to equate him with the Manson crew. We see that he was friendless and mocked, somewhat sadistically. We know that his family life seemed to lack love. There is some degree of compassion I feel toward anyone who suffers that type of childhood and adolescence. Does that excuse his choice to become a Death Eater, no. But I think it informs my perspective that a lonely rejected teenager wanted friends and acceptance and chose to follow the wrong group in order to gain those. JKR doesn't directly tell us that he murdered or committed atrocities. We are left to draw our own conclusions. If she had included some horific scene of murder on Snapes part it would be very difficult to feel any compassion at all. She doesn't do that. She does leave some room for interpretation on our part. That is my humble opinion any way

JKR carefully wrote Snape's scenes so that they could be interpreted in more than one way, just to keep us all off balance. So it's not surprising that different interpretations still remain, and always will, even after the last book. It depends how the story played out in each reader's mind.

I agree, she purposely left a lot of ambiguity around Snape's words and actions in order to keep us guessing until the end. And it worked, sparking all sorts of speculation and debate along the way, and making him into a fascinating character, BUT now that the story has ended...canon is canon. He is JKR's creation, and exists only within the confines of the character that she has created for him. We all may interpret that character in slightly different ways, but the big picture has been painted, and there's no changing the brushstrokes.

What I tried to say was that if there are essential elements of Snape's story that exist in Rowling's mind but did not make it unequivocally into canon then canonSnape and the Snape in Rowling's mind are not necessarily the same character.

That's a very good point!
A teacher (himself a published writer) at a writing course I went to years ago said something that stuck in my mind: "Once you give a text up to be published it is no longer yours, but the reader's" (that is, to interpret).

When I first saw the question "Did JKR understand Snape" my reaction was that of course she did, she invented him! But Oryx is right, unless she wrote down every thought she ever had in her head about him, the Snape that we see is not the exact same person that she sees. She, for example, may know whether Snape ever actually killed anyone before Dumbledore (I mean directly), or not. We can only make our guesses from what's actually in the text, not from what might still be in "the restricted section" in the library of her mind...

hmmm
I like what you said Spectrespecs yet I gotta lean it bit more to the author...
I mean sure there will be events in Snape's life we may never know, and will remain trapped in JKR's mind..but that doesn't change the core of the character and how she wants us to interpet him. She wrote him to be either (good/bad) and let you know in the end he was both.
Everyone on the opposing sides of Snape will continue to agrue for their intrepetation, however it is THEIR interpetation not JKR's.
Therefore for me she absolutely understands him and it is our own thoughts we need to examine. IMHO

That is an excellent point (thanks for the clarification, Oryx). Will we likely never have all of the back story that JKR has in her own mind/ notes about Snape (exactly how detailed is the encyclopedia going to be??).

But if an author has done a good job of shaping a character, the reader should have a good sense of who the character is, without having to know every detail. What I'm trying to say is that although there's still room for different interpretations and debate about Snape's character, he is who JKR says he is. She created him.

It's an interesting thing to love a character created by a living author. I could be on the forum vigorously defending one interpretation of Snape's character one week, and then JKR could do an interview the next week completely contradicting everything I'd believed. At that point do I cling to my own interpretation or accept whatever JKR says? For me it's the latter, because she's the author.

You wouldn't? Frankly I don't think comparing Snape to one of the Manson crew goes far enough. Isn't what Snape choose do exactly what the Manson family choose to do? The Manson crew clung to an end of the World, we are superior race war philosophy, our leader is Lord and went into perfectly innocent people's homes and murdered them. Bellatrix reminds me of those girls--I remember the trials vividly. This is what Snape willing choose and particpated in until he found out that one of hundreds if not thousands of Voldemort's innocent victims would be Lily.

I must agree with the assertion that a text becomes the readers after it leaves the author's hands. One of the great things about reading (especially a character like Severus Snape) is that different people can come away with different "experiences" from reading.

I do think that JKR understands her character. I just don't think she banked on how much certain fans would come to love Snape. It has always struck me as a situation in which she might like writing him, might even pity him a little his sad youth and unrequited love, but just doesn't think too highly of him...and she doesn't understand how some of us can.

However, for me, Snape is an absolute hero. In fact, his downfall and then redemption makes him a bit more of a hero than if he were simply predictably "good" throughout. Redemption and remorse are not easy on a person - he is almost more appealing to me because he goes through that and emerges a person who is a faithful friend until the bitter end.

From very early on in the series, he became my favorite character - mostly because of how deeply flawed he was! I am a Snape fan, through and through. He has been a very interesting read from the very beginning.

Great topic. This was what I was trying to get to on my topic “Do the Seven Books Stand Alone? “ The role of the reader and the author. But I guess it doesn’t have a catching title.

I’ll go with what Spectrespecs said:



At this point I don’t want to go with how the author wants me to interpret. I want interpret just using the text.

I posted this somewhere else about how I feel about this issue.

It is a work of fiction which gives a reader the freedom to bring their own world into the work not just the authors, I think that the author does their reader a great dissevers when they what to define what the reader should think and feel. A piece of work that has allowed the reader to image to think and come to their own conclusion has succeeded at so many levels. I believe that JKR has done a wonderful job doing this with her 7 books.

I'm with you on this one, she could have gone a couple of different ways with the character of Severus Snape, Jo chose the high road, I think that end was as good as it gets with Severus Snape. There are many things yet unexplained about his back story which may be explained in the encyclopedia, we'll have to see. It could well be that giving the story of how exactly how the other Death Eater's came to fear him, how exactly he came to be such a skilled healer, and why Voldermort had such high (well, so far as it went) regard for him, might have been too much of a distraction from the main plot. I have a feeling he hasn't quite left his author's hand yet!

I think JKR used the Snape character to explain what happens when one thinks they can have 2 masters, DD (good) and Voldemort (evil).

He ends up losing ing everything he does, yet still needs to decide his loyalties at the end. Even though an argument could be made he was Dumbledores for quite sometime, he still hadn't made peace with the outcome of Lily's death. As he lay dying, he was forced to make that decision.
He gives Harry the means to fulfill his quest and also lets his love for Lily over take him by seeing her in Harry's eyes and accepting his fate.

She has said in interviews that Snape wouldn't have done anything for Harry without his love for Lily pulling out the little bit of good in him out. In the end this loves overcomes the evil, ala Star Wars, and he is redeemed.

Any thoughts?

Considering that over a century later Dumbledore hadn't made peace with his 2 months of dancing with Grindelwald (because of how they ended) it isn't really surprising Snape was still dealing with the aftermath of his DE days, especially as he had to deal with going back to be one of them.

I really hope she doesn’t touch Snape or many other characters. I think she has given us enough to come to our own conclusions. So if someone wants see him as a horrible person who raised hell with his fellow DE they can. Or if someone wants to see him as a young man forced into the DE camp because of his friends and skills and is the DE healer they can. I think there is enough text to support both arguments.

I know that JKR has a large fan base who want to know Harry’s great, great grandson’s name and all the back stories. But does she own her fans this? Will it hurt her in the long run making more contradictions and questions instead of answering them? Time will only tell if this series will become part of Literary Canon or a pop culture phenomenon.

I think your's is a good assessment.

I don't think because Darth Vader was redeemed in the end, we were supposed to backtract and view the slaughter of the Sand People or the young Jedi children as Anakin taking steps towards his redemption. And like Snape, Darth never sees his own choices evil, his own needed for power or need to control deah as the reason for his fall. Do I think he should have been allowed to go rescue his mother? Yes. Yoda didn't hesitate using whatever means available to rescue the Jedi--where is there any difference? But still Anakin allows himself to ruled by his darker passions, his fears. However, what makes Darth's redemption precious to us, is that he fell so far from grace. It works for Snape's as well.
The question is was Jo successful in showing her reading audience that Snape's fall from grace was a real one?

I was thinking that the reason the other Death Eaters were afraid of him may have been hinted at by Bellatrix at Spinner's End. Snape slithers out of taking action according to her. It's entirely possible that the reason the others feared him was because if any of them got into a dispute with him in front of Voldermort, Snape would make certain that he'd win the engagement regardless of the cost to the other party It could just be that he's smarter than the rest of them, but not smart enough to have kept himself out of that mess!

No I don't think Snape's fall from grace was portrayed in a way that many people can understand simply because we are given mitigating circumstances for his bad behavior and are shown throughout the series the post repentance Snape. We are shown his bad behavior toward students which is never so bad that Dumbledore would toss him out on his ear. We never see what he did as an unrepentant Death Eater and so we never see his fall from grace. All we get there are a few hints.

Okay, I need clarification of this: are you saying some readers can understand and dismiss--in lieu of the good and bad influences in his life--Snape's choice to become a Death Eater as nothing but a youthful indiscretion?

Not at all, I just don't think that Snape's fall from grace is ever portrayed period.

We know it happened because in book 7 we see the scene the wind whipped outdoor scene when he met DD, we later see the scene in DD's office where he expressed remorse.

Throughout the series we see the new and improved Snape that DD saved from prison and allowed to teach children.

We also see undercover Snape who doesn't allow people to die if he can save them.

We even see young and impressionable Snape-in-love

Nowhere in the books do we see the unrepentant Death Eater Snape doing his master's bidding.

Nowhere do we see Snape's induction into that group.

didnt JKR make Snape? its kinda hard to say she does not understand what she herself created

Thank you for the clarification...

I have to agree with you to a point. Jo makes statements in her Interviews, like "We (the readers) must not forget that Snape was a Death Eater..." but we are never given a clear picture of what Snape did as a Death Eater, and most people who love Snape seem content to believe he did nothing as a Death Eater stand around stirring the potions kettles and shaking his head with silent disapproval until Voldemort killed Lily.

She leaves us hints of what kind of person Snape was, that he always wanted to be in Slytherin, that he considers Muggles beneath his notice, that he sees the Dark Arts more as a different kind of power, not evil, and his treatment of Hermione shows a certain racist attitude about Muggle-born abilities: Don't talk about things you don't understand... or saying that Hermione only knows what she reads in books. He doesn't recognize the magic in Hermione.

Still:It may have been in the moment Hermione is standing there with her teeth hanging below her lips and Ron and Harry yelling at him, that he could see that Ron and Harry were not defending Hermione because she was Muggleborn, but because they could see no difference in Hermione and any witch there--or he was just being nasty because he couldn't stand her because she liked Potter. I think he might have been embarrassed by Hermione's teeth in a way only a person of blended heritage can truly understand, especially when society subjects one side of their heritage to demeaning stereotypes.

There was an excellent program on one of the talk shows about how some Black, Asian, and Hispanic women go to almost self-abusive lengths to make their looks more attractive to a Eurocentric community--then showed how European women also abuse themselves to achieve impossible standards of beauty.

But, one could interpret that scene as Snape using negative reinforcement: what was the point of having Poppy reverse the spell if she was going to let Poppy return her teeth to their large size to spend two or three years in braces to comfort her parents> There was no difference in Poppy correcting her teeth than reversing the spell.

The soft spot in my heart for the character always thought it was Jo's intention to show mixture of the latter two interpretations:
Snape meant to be mean, because he's a sadistic git--but I think Snape has sadistic behavior disorder; He doesn't enjoy hurting people as much as this is how he was taught to react. He was hurtful to a person whom he thought was strong enough to get past the hurt and see the practical side: there was no reason for Hermione to endure being made of fun of if she could take steps to correct the action.

The same with Neville. Except Snape possibly thought Hermione in helping Neville was enabling Neville--rather than his methods of teaching was just shabby. Snape is sadistic, threatening the boy that he would kill his pet, but maybe that is exactly how his mother taught him...and even some children from the worst homes have problems seeing that Mom or Dad's way might have been abusive and wrong--and then there's the little matter that most of us are required by law, tradition, religion to accept and love our parents no matter how abusive and sadistic they are to us.

We see that Voldemort trusts Snape, we see the Death Eaters, even the Werewolf is cowed when Snape steps up to the plate, and we don't consider that this is probably because they've seen Snape kill or throw a dark curse before. Of course Bellatrix is going to scoff at someone who fights in a pack and does general clean-up assignment--note this is what Snape accuses James of doing --attacking him three to one., because he knows this should bother Harry.

And because readers like Snape more than the like or know James we don't consider that when the DA go after Malfoy who is going after Harry whom Malfoy thinks is Harry is alone--this is possibly a mirror image of what Snape encountered when he never missed an opportunity to curse James--that James friends would stand beside him.

Because Jo doesn't show this, we don't consider that Mulciber like Lupin might have approached Snape about his behavior on the common. But Lupin probably told James and Sirius, that in spite of the fact Snape was a snoop, Death Eater wannabe, Lily was right.

But what on Earth did Mulciber or Avery, or even Regulus say to Snape about hanging around Gryffindor Tower with all those blood traitors and trying to make a mere Muggle-born girl to understand the power of Dark Magic and the Dark Lord's cause?

So I agree, because Jo has a huge back story, pages and pages of notes that we never see, she knows things about her characters that her readers never see. But the book is barely a month old. People have discussed images and nuances of most of the classics for decades and not come to any absolute conclusion about these books.

There is still a debate for example if Shakespeare's Merchants of Venice should be subtitled, The Tragedy of Shylock because today's audience views Shylock's dilemma, his daughter leaving her faith, her traditions for someone who is a part of their persecution, very differently than Shakespeare's audience, who would have left the ending at Shylock got what he deserved.

Lightningscar
I completely agree. To expand on that she has given us a picture of a redeemed character. She shows us that Harry has forgiven Snape to the degree that he names is son after him "Albus Severus" and has him note that he was the bravest man he ever knew. There is forgiveness for Snape's transgressions though she doesn't tell us exactly what they were. He is not the same as Bellatrix who is evil right up until the end. JKR has redeemed Snape's character, Harry has forgiven, why shouldn't we be afforded the same?

Right - not necessarily the same character to you, me or the next person. But I have to say that both canonSnape and the Snape in Rowling's mind are most definitely the same character, there is just more to him in Jo's mind.

She created him, she knows and understands him better than anyone - she is the author after all. Just because every minuscule detail that comprises the character of Severus Snape does not make it into canon, does not mean he is not precisely the Snape that enhabits Rowling's mind.

We just don't know the whole story, is all. He's not a different version of the same character to Jo, he's exactly the same, minus a few details.

Snape grew up in an obusive environment, where at an early age he learned to defend himself mentally, by blocking out others, and he generated a great jealously of people who had real friends. Thus, he loathed them. (Similar to Petunia's loathing of magic, since she couldn't do it, though she really wanted to.)

Lily was the soft spirit who saw past his physical appearance and vestigages of social combat. He saw a refuge from the fight. He yearned for it, though his circumstances forbid it. He made himself a master of fence sitting. He learned to deflect rather than confront. And, best of all he could do it with Voldemort, something no one else could. For this he was held in high esteem. Actually, Harry was the only one that was able to look into Snape's mind. This was an obvious shock.

When Voldemort killed Lily, he eliminated Snape's only refuge. Snape then used the only tools he knew to work against Voldemort. They were not immediately recognizeable as "good" because they were those of the dark side.

In the end his remorse did prove the flame of love can bring redemption.

Interesting analysis and I agree with some of it. However Voldemort went after Lily because of information provided by his loyal Death Eater servant: Severus Snape. Lupin had a dreadful childhood, he was attacked by a werewolf. Sirius was emotionally and spiritually abused by his family and their beliefs. Futhermore as his parents were Tom Riddles ages, both Blacks and in Slytherin it is very possible Sirius mother or father pledged the young Lord Voldemort their services and that of their children, before Sirius was born. (There is also a possibly that Eileen did the same..Scary thought that) But Jo shows us there are other young people of Snape's generation with similar or like backgrounds who reject Voldemort. We didn't expect Dean or Cho to take on the Dark Mark because they lost their first loves to Harry and Ginny.

I think the difference between Jo and some of her readers is that Jo doesn't believe Snape's unhappy childhood excuses his choice of evil. She readily shows us Ron's poverty, Harry's neglect and abuse, Neville's parents torn from him, Seamus tells us his dad was none to pleased to find out his Mum is a witch, and Hermione's parents clearly are more frighten on their daughter's new world and friends than interested in them. Still Severus willingly choose the evil which becomes his yoke and the reason he becomes a character in search of redemption.

His childhood absolutely doesn't excuse his choice to become a death eater. That was not what I meant earlier in the discussion. I merely include his choice to seek redemption separates him from Bellatrix and affords him some growth. I think it warrants some degree of mercy on the part of the reader

Snape gets mercy for seeking redemption. Jo Rowling wrote that. I don't recall any readers up in arms against Jo because she writes Harry as understanding and forgiving of Snape's, even honoring what he did give him in the end.

But I don't think Jo is as willing as some readers to absolve Snape from his own culpability in joining Voldemort as readers are ready to do. Forgiving is not the same as excusing or justifying behavior. She puts Snape in the position of seeing that his choice of Voldemort is wrong for a number of reasons, and she tells us that this character refuses to see his choice as evil because he wants the power and recognition of becoming a Death Eater more than he wants to do the right thing.

I must say I doubt all of the above. Orion's father had that Order of Merlin first class, and there is a chance he even earned it, or at least had the Ministry ties to know when he was likely to buy it. Mulciber's and Rosier's fathers were Death Eaters themselves, Orion and Walburga definitely were not.


This view freezes Snape at 16 and denies that he underwent any moral development since then. Though in his treatment of the Marauders and Harry he was indeed frozen then in other ways he did change. I don't see any sign of bloodism in the Snape we saw in his last 7 years. He treated pureblood Neville a lot worse than Muggle-born Hermione. (I do wonder whether Snape stopped mistreating Neville once the latter started producing better work or was it that Harry stopped paying attention to Snape-Neville interactions, but I can't remember anything of the sort after POA.)

The dichotomy between choices and explanations for behavior is a false one. We make choices (or appear to do so), but not all choices are truly equally available to everyone. There is a reason people can make rough predictions about how other people might react to situations. Behavior isn't random, each person is, for whatever reason, inclined to react in certain ways more than other ways.

"You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing." - Schopenhauer.

If people were truly capable of making any choice at any time behavioral sciences could not exist. Our choices are already tilted. People who make choices against their natural inclination and stick to those are rare. If they manage to make better choices against their inclination over time I find them more admirable than people whose even better choices come to them naturally.

Not so much as a reply to anything said in this thread as such, but hasn't Jo now decided that he is a hero of sorts? See below from Bloomsbury live chat.



I would certainly say that his actions are heroic, and if that seems too far, we can't deny his unbelievable bravery to have placed himself in mortal danger so often.

I will continue to maintain for a long time that no matter how unorthodox his methods, however skewed his motivations, Snape is the, until the end, unsung hero of these series. He works as tirelessly as Harry to achieve his goal, which as it turns out is quite a noble one; protecting the son of someone for whom he holds an undying love.

That doesn't make him any less culpable in his choice to become a Death Eater. He clearly has less than the desired level of blood prejudice required for the post of Evil Overlord's henchman, and his concern for his soul shows in his interactions with Dumbledore in the Pensieve. He obviously has enough compassion in him to clearly see the wrong in his actions. He should have known better. That said, the sudden separation from Lily during the sorting and his tender age and the vulnerable position his upbringing had put him in makes his behaviour at least a little understandable. In other words, he is not, like Voldemort, beyond redemption. Snape's bullying is never forgivable, but my mind just can't deny him the redemption he so desperately seeks in his dying moments.

Yet we know from Kreacher that Regulus parents were supportive almost expectant of Regulus choice to become a Death Eater. The Blacks could have been high born sponsers of Voldemort as was the Wagner family for Hitler. (Those history lessons are pretty helpful) We know Orion was in Gryffindor as wasWalpurga, and the first name of the Death Eaters was taken from Walpurga's namesake. And what do ministries ties have to do with a bunch of young boys making pledges to take over the world when they become of age? Dumbledore and Grindlewald anyone. We see that group of admiring older boys sharing their private joke about Voldemort's mysterious roots...how do we know Orion or Walpurga was not the person who helped Tom discover who his family was?

On the contrary; Snape as a young boy had just the right blend of confusion and resentment towards his non magical heritage for Voldemort to exploit to his ends. Bellatrix and Malfoy were purebloods, they had no Muggle relatives or friends to betray in choosing to follow Voldemort. Snape cannot claim the same thing

We have to agree to disagree on Snape as the unsung hero of the series, because I think the Snape in SS/PS was far enlighten, redeemed and less heroic man in nature and intent that he became by the end of the series. Jo's description of anti-hero because although it is hidden from readers, Snape's chracter grows to care, not for Harry but for others more than his self by the end of the series. I think the Snape in SS/PS would have and truly the SNape of OOP would have taken the opportunity in the chase where he wounds George to wound Lupin and claim it was for the greater good--keeping his cover. But as Voldemort grew in power I think Snape could see more clearly how warped all of his choices were including his romance of the Dark Arts.

Blasphemy! ;)

Really, I think that, as the originator, creator, and maker of the HPverse, Jo understands Snape more than any of us.

I have found myself wondering if JKR really did resent the fact that so many HP fans were Snape fans as well. I definitely feel like she wanted the focus to remain on Harry, which might explain her being a bit touchy on the subject of Snape in certain interviews. However, she did write his character in a way that would make us want to know more about him. make (at least some of us) care about him.

I disagree with many fellow Snape fans who were extremely annoyed at the Snape/Lily ship. I absolutely do not see him as some 'pathetic, loser stalker type'. Was he in love with Lily? Yes. Was it obsessive love? Most likely. But i also believe that his 'obsession' with her, had a lot to do with his childhood & feelings of being an outsider. And i firmly believe that Lily loved him as well...he was not a stalker. Sometimes relationships aren't always black and white.

In the end...i think that Jo could have given us much more in the way of Snape's story in DH, but then again, this is and always will be, Harry's story.

I think the context of JKR's answer, at the time, is important. If I'm recalling it correctly, she was on a television program and was asked by a child if Snape was a hero. I think her response was justified, and shouldn't be seen as "waffling" on the subject of Snape. Should Snape be, in the eyes of a child, a hero? In other words, is he someone who should be idolized, his behavior lauded and emulated? Should his name appear at the top of essays entitled "Who I Want To Be When I Grow Up"?
The sound-bite, TV acceptable answer to that question is: Most certainly not.

I agree, this was the right thing to say to that young person.

Snape's journey to heroism began with Snape embracing evil instead of friendship. His journey to his final heroic acts may be a more interesting read, but you certainly don't want your children to have find themselves at the cost of hurting others as Snape did.

Uh--about the stalking:



Had he been about six years older he would been arrested--but he was only a child himself. A lonely child in a dysfunctional household who saw Lily as wonderful and sharing a heritage with him. And Lily seems to have loved Severus and all he taught her. She even forgave him for hurting her little sister.
But Severus didn't hurt Lily's sister because Petunia was unplesant, but he hurt her because she was a Muggle and couldn't fight him back. He used the fact that she was "only a Muggle" to hurt Petunia. Imagine you have a blended family: one of your children is fair skinned the other dark and you live in a society where the fair skinned child is thought inferior because they looked mixed. And the little boy down the street who plays with your darker skinned child takes every opportunity to put down the fairer child because of her skin color. The neighbor grows up and wants to date your child--would he be welcomed, knowing his feelings towards your other child, in fact other members of the family.

Lily grew away from SNape, and even without Voldemort, if all things stayed relative she would have grown away from him. His attitude towards Muggles would sprang up the first time in a romantic relationship they had a serius disagreement or she thought to gainsay him about something in the Wizard World. She would have been like Hermione: a stupid girl talking about things she didn't understand because her parents are Muggle. He certain not learning how to fight fair at home.

So, to me, it is not a matter of stalking that makes the relationship unhealthy, it is that as they become older Snape is not at all interested in how he makes Lily feel, but how Lily makes him feel. Lily makes him feel intelligent, and attractive and special. So he placates her, humors her by telling her it makes no difference that she is a Muggle, when his choice of friends and of leader say something very different about his feelings.

Exactly. He takes no pleasure in teaching Lily, he takes pleasure in holding her attention.

When did Snape hurt Petunia? He called Petunia a "Muggle" upon first meeting her, but isn't she a Muggle? And is Muggle not an acceptable word and classification for someone? Dumbledore says "Muggle," doesn't he? And doesn't Tonks say, "Right clean, aren't they, these Muggles?"

If you are referring to the branch breaking and coming down to hit Petunia's shoulder after she insulted Snape (unprovoked), then surely we have to be just as angry at Harry for what happened to his Aunt Marge. At the point where the branch breaks, Snape is terribly angry and humiliated, but he doesn't even have a wand! He is still underage! Petunia insulted him with no provocation at all, and he is a magical kid. Like Harry, strong emotions sometimes cause things to happen.

Nope, Snape is not a bad kid in this situation, not in my opinion. In fact, Lily immediately jumping to the conclusion that Snape did it on purpose may prove more revealing to her character than to his. She certainly seemed to want to believe the worst of him, with no evidence to support that opinion.



Lily never got close to Snape in the first place, in order to grow away from him. The entire scope of the friendship is written as such that we see Lily angry with Snape about...well...just about everything! She is dismissive, petulant, unreasonable, and the relationship's clear leader. She never had to grow away from him...she didn't care about him enough to be close to him in the first place.



Snape is not interested in how he makes Lily feel? He seems to be very interested in this. It is actually the other way around...Lily doesn't seem to care how she makes Snape feel. Throughout the friendship, she has been bossy, insensitive, willing to blame and punish Snape for things which are her own fault (her reading Petunia's letter to Dumbledore), judgmental, and uncaring. Where Snape carefully protects Lily's feelings by telling her that there is "no difference" in being Muggle born, she doesn't return the same care to him. His feelings seem to matter very little to her. If they have a disagreement, she dismisses his arguments or opinions before he even has the chance to make them, and she is quite adept at simply walking away if he doesn't agree with her.

Finally, when he breaks down and makes the unforgivable mistake of calling her a terrible slur (which is more than awful), he only does so after the girl who claims to be his friend has been "twitching her lips" trying not to smile at his humiliation! She has run this boy ragged for years, and now she is getting amusement out of his torture, all the while pretending to be his friend? What he said was not at all excusable - but I think that we can empathize with the level of pain and heartbreak he must have been feeling at that moment, and that perhaps he was simply trying to lash out and hurt her as she had already done to him - countless times?

Then, she tells him later, as he comes back to beg forgiveness, that she will not even hear him. On top of that, she insults him further by saying, "None of my friends know why I even talk to you."

She didn't say "None of my other friends..." Instead, she made it clear that she did not, and had not for some time, considered Snape a friend.

Snape was duped into thinking someone was a friend who wasn't. Lily isn't the victim here, and Snape is not the one who is guilty of behaving in an "unhealthy" way.

You know what? Things do not occur in a vacuum. The Death Eater's were well known within the wizarding community for breaking the law by killing and torturing innocent people. I don't think that Voldermort's agenda could possibly appeal to any decent human being, yet Severus Snape found their allure to be too much to resist. Think of Lily's position, would you want to be mixed up with a member of something like this? Especially if your entire family is comprised of the very group they are vowing to exterminate?

Been reading your all's postings with fascination.....and had a quick thought to add.

Recently I read an article about a Hollywood party which a group of famous actors and directors attended. Later in the evening, a formerly famous director entered. He hadn't produced a box office hit in some time and had been lying fallow for some time. The actors and some others began to deride him amongst themselves as a "has been" and a "loser". Then, a well-known director quietly named the master film which the venerable director had done. The group fell quiet. The director then went on to say that everyone is as good as the very best piece of work they had ever done, which made the venerable director a genius.

Perhaps the same is true of Severus. The spectrum of his actions is incredibly wide. Severus is a flawed as his worst action - embracing an ideology which calls for the extinction of mudbloods, as LighteningScar notes - and as heroic and brave as his very best actions. Perhaps that's part of his appeal - his operational range is so broad and so believable.

Personally, as an unabashed Severus apologist, I find his story to have more growth and motion than Harry's (and that's saying alot!) Many people never go beyond having remorse for past misdeeds; shame and guilt shut them down. Severus went well beyond that. He laid down an incredibly dificult road to redemption for himself and stayed the course for many, many years. And in the process, he turned himself into a heroic character. Now that's range.

Besides, I read that JKR found Severus to be the most fun character to write, although she noted that she wouldn't want to meet him. My money's down on the fact that his range of growth had alot to do with the fun of writing him........

I don't think any girl should be slammed for cutting ties with a boy who throws in his lot with a gang that tortures and kills innocent people and whose members engage in other acts of terrorism. No girl should ever feel pressured to put up with people she is afraid of, no girl should be derided for acting on her beliefs by drawing the line on unacceptable behavior. That is exactly what Lily did and I'd like to point that out.

Severus, was not making movies my friend so the analogy doesn't quite fit. Now if for some reason Jo decides to write a series of lacklustre novels (as IF!) I could see pointing out the brilliance of the Potter series and the ever enigmatic character of Severus Snape who still has us all guessing after the final book has been read!

Snape's opinion and usage of the word Muggle is much different than Dumbledore's. Snape says the word with clear derision, indicative of strong dislike. Dumbledore does not.



Oh please, Snape had just told her that he was a wizard and she knows what she can do. He had just hurt her sister.



Really, because I see Snape as the bossy one trying to control the relationship, Snape initiating, Snape doing all of it.



First of all, when someone uses a slur to refer to you, especially after you were trying to help said person...you don't remain friends with that person, especially after Snape was hanging out with Death Eaters and such.

I'm banging on my keyboard in frustration, because "quotes" just won't work for me! So, I am including the quotes in blue text.

QUOTE(Danny266 @ Aug 10 2007, 08:18 PM) [snapback]1383197[/snapback]

Snape's opinion and usage of the word Muggle is much different than Dumbledore's. Snape says the word with clear derision, indicative of strong dislike. Dumbledore does not.

Agreed. Snape was certainly being offensive. Petunia, however, did "start" this squabble. I don't really blame Lily for snubbing Snape here. I just think that everyone got off on the wrong foot.

QUOTE

Oh please, Snape had just told her that he was a wizard and she knows what she can do. He had just hurt her sister.

Yes, he did. I personally think he did so accidentally. I think he was angry, he was offended (remember, Petunia had just insulted him, and this was after she had done so before, and after Lily had just been telling him that Petunia says he is a liar when he is not around). He was mad. He was also underage, with no wand. We have already seen emotions getting the better of Harry (Aunt Marge, anyone?), but we forgive Harry for this because he was provoked. Snape was in the same situation, but people are vilifying him for it.

QUOTE

Really, because I see Snape as the bossy one trying to control the relationship, Snape initiating, Snape doing all of it.

Snape loved Lily. This being so, she had power over him. Anyone who has loved someone who does not love then back can attest to the fact that it strips you of your power. Yes, Snape is socially inept, he bumbles and fumbles, and he can be prickly. Does this make him the relationships leader? No, it makes him a kid who is desperately seeking some form of power in a relationship in which he has none.

QUOTE

First of all, when someone uses a slur to refer to you, especially after you were trying to help said person...you don't remain friends with that person, especially after Snape was hanging out with Death Eaters and such.

Again, agreed. I am simply pointing out the fact that Snape was not the only one who ended the friendship with disrespect. Lily may have been trying to "defend" him in your eyes, but she was trying not to smile at his humiliation in mine. Lily ended the friendship then and there, when she found amusement while he was being attacked, assaulted, and hurt...before he called her a Mudblood. She showed her true colors in this situation, and they were not the colors of a friend. He reached for something which would hurt her as she hurt him. He was wrong, terribly wrong, but I still have empathy. Then, she retaliated by reaching for a nickname for him which would hurt him the most, too! She called him "Snivellus," a name which has with it the connotations of the constant teasing and torture the Marauders put him through. She was wrong. I have empathy for her, too - she was reacting to being offended by someone who was supposedly a friend...just like Snape was. I think they are both very guilty of disrespecting each other in this scene.

As for Death Eaters...Snape wasn't hanging out with Death Eaters. Voldemort doesn't take 15-year old kids. He was hanging out with future Death Eaters...nothing to be proud of, but not exactly killing Muggleborns and lining up to get the Dark Mark, either. Also, seeing as how he was sorted into Slytherin, he could hardly help being put into a common room and a dormitory with these kids. His life would have been even further hell if he had not tried to get along. I would be willing to bet that Snape took more heat for his friendship with Lily the Muggleborn than Lily took for her friendship with the creepy kid Snape.

Finally, after Lily's betrayal of her true feelings for Snape, he is the one who approaches her and apologizes for his behavior. She makes no attempt to do the same. In true gentleman's fashion, he doesn't even try to explain himself by saying, "You were trying not to smile when they attacked me, and I was so angry at you." Nope, he just says he is sorry (several times), that he didn't mean it, with no attempt to make an excuse for what he said. She cuts him off, refuses to listen, and uses the opportunity to berate him further.

Lily is supposed to be kindhearted, brave, and bright, yet she thought her "friends" suffering was amusing.

I just get heated when people try to create a saint out of Lily and a bad guy out of Snape. They let each other down. They are both guilty of not being a good friend.

*fixed the quotes for you!* ~Fawkes28