So what if Snape really is nasty?
Oct. 23rd, 2015 06:22 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sweettalkeress.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
deathtocapslockThis is an idea that came to me as I was tearing apart a children's book for another comm.
We all know that it's common in the Harry Potter fandom to portray Snape as mean, morally-degenerate, creepy, cowardly, and pretty much any other negative you can come up with. We on this comm have also spent large amounts of time debunking these assertions, insisting that actually, he's not as bad as he's commonly made out to be.
Here's the thing, though: even if you DID accept that Snape was just that nasty and evil and horrible, that's not his fault--it's the fault of the series. And it doesn't actually paint the series in an especially good light, because it implies that teachers who you don't get along with must automatically be evil or morally backwards. Remember: Harry takes an extreme dislike to Snape from their first meeting, just because Snape was generically snide and intimidating to him. It's one thing for Harry to dislike a teacher, because that happens to the best of us (particularly at the age Harry is). But to portray the teacher as evil because of it?
But that is pretty much the trend in the series. Teachers Harry likes, or who are nice to him, are generally portrayed as heroes or at least reasonably pleasant, whereas those Harry takes a disliking to are nearly always presented as villains: Lockhart, Umbridge, etc. And even when they're not (see, for instance, Trelawney and arguably Slughorn), they're generally treated as rather pathetic, so Harry doesn't have to take them very seriously. The overarching pattern this creates implies that if you don't get along with a teacher it's because that teacher is evil or morally weak-willed, or that it's generally all the teacher's fault that they're not bending over backwards to please you. And while you could argue that this is all the Harry filter, it's never really challenged at any point in the story.
Now, I am all for the notion that teachers should look after the well-being of their students; but the fact of the matter is, students can't always expect that to happen. It's great when it does, but sooner or later every student comes upon a teacher who for whatever reason doesn't click with them, either because that particular teaching style just doesn't work with that particular student, or the institution is corrupt, or the teacher is careless. I know it's happened to me a couple times over. Some of the teachers I've had bad experiences with were careless, but I wouldn't say I thought any of them were evil.
And remember: this is a series that targets children and young teenagers. It doesn't do them any favors to be presenting them with a narrative that states that any teacher they don't get along with is evil. The notion that Snape must be a horrible person suffering from trauma and acting out of some misplaced selfish desire is a testament to the story's inability to portray anything Harry doesn't like in a positive or even a neutral light, not a convincing portrayal of a disagreeable character (and I have many, MANY convincing potrayals of disagreeable characters that I could use as a baseline).
We all know that it's common in the Harry Potter fandom to portray Snape as mean, morally-degenerate, creepy, cowardly, and pretty much any other negative you can come up with. We on this comm have also spent large amounts of time debunking these assertions, insisting that actually, he's not as bad as he's commonly made out to be.
Here's the thing, though: even if you DID accept that Snape was just that nasty and evil and horrible, that's not his fault--it's the fault of the series. And it doesn't actually paint the series in an especially good light, because it implies that teachers who you don't get along with must automatically be evil or morally backwards. Remember: Harry takes an extreme dislike to Snape from their first meeting, just because Snape was generically snide and intimidating to him. It's one thing for Harry to dislike a teacher, because that happens to the best of us (particularly at the age Harry is). But to portray the teacher as evil because of it?
But that is pretty much the trend in the series. Teachers Harry likes, or who are nice to him, are generally portrayed as heroes or at least reasonably pleasant, whereas those Harry takes a disliking to are nearly always presented as villains: Lockhart, Umbridge, etc. And even when they're not (see, for instance, Trelawney and arguably Slughorn), they're generally treated as rather pathetic, so Harry doesn't have to take them very seriously. The overarching pattern this creates implies that if you don't get along with a teacher it's because that teacher is evil or morally weak-willed, or that it's generally all the teacher's fault that they're not bending over backwards to please you. And while you could argue that this is all the Harry filter, it's never really challenged at any point in the story.
Now, I am all for the notion that teachers should look after the well-being of their students; but the fact of the matter is, students can't always expect that to happen. It's great when it does, but sooner or later every student comes upon a teacher who for whatever reason doesn't click with them, either because that particular teaching style just doesn't work with that particular student, or the institution is corrupt, or the teacher is careless. I know it's happened to me a couple times over. Some of the teachers I've had bad experiences with were careless, but I wouldn't say I thought any of them were evil.
And remember: this is a series that targets children and young teenagers. It doesn't do them any favors to be presenting them with a narrative that states that any teacher they don't get along with is evil. The notion that Snape must be a horrible person suffering from trauma and acting out of some misplaced selfish desire is a testament to the story's inability to portray anything Harry doesn't like in a positive or even a neutral light, not a convincing portrayal of a disagreeable character (and I have many, MANY convincing potrayals of disagreeable characters that I could use as a baseline).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
No one's commented yet? Huh...
Date: 2015-10-24 02:25 am (UTC)I know I've commented somewhere else before that being a Catholic alumna gives me a certain view of Hogwarts. I'm used to the uniforms, the corporal punishment (even though they don't have it there) and the strict, traditionalist instruction. Heck, even Snape's robes remind me of a nun or a priest, lol. And yes even the girls wore ties with their uniforms.
What I remember very much are the different teachers. I was a teacher's pet everywhere basically because I was trained to sit down, shut and pay attention. And I did my homework and was a little bit of a Hermione in class. Yes I had to learn not to put my hand up for every question (although honestly when NO ONE else is answering it's kind of hard to listen to the sound of crickets). Anyway the best teachers were the strict ones. Why? They were very clear in their expectations. They meant what they said and they did what they said they would do. If you crossed the line, you paid for it. And you had no one to blame but yourself because you were told in clear language what was allowed and what was not.
By those lights, if Snape has any fault it's that he's not as clear as he could be. He lets students stumble into the traps when he could warn them ahead of time. On the other hand, I never had any sympathy for students who were stupid enough to think they DIDN'T have to pay attention or sit still or follow orders. I especially didn't respect students who though they could mouth off. Really? And then you want to call life unfair? REALLY?
But then Harry is not the kind of child I would like anyway in reality. I'm one of those Briggs-Meyers, David Keirsey personality theorizing folks. To me Harry is an Artisan pure and simple. Artisans are rebels. They love to push the limits just to see how far they can get away with things. It's their nature. And it gets them in trouble time and time again and they don't really learn a thing. Moreover they are what Keirsey calls utilitarian in the way they accomplish things. Meaning they don't care if what they do is right or wrong just as long as it gets them what they want. Following rules is for idiots and they have no respect for authority.
But there is no good reason behind the disrespect. It's just a temperament. Every temperament has it's place in my mind. But there's also a place for character. If you have a hot temper you need to learn how to control it quick or you're going to get attacked by a lot of people and cause yourself untold misery. Harry needed to be taught to LISTEN and actually FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS from people who knew better.
But children who aren't taught to do that tend to consider the adults who rightly try to make them do as they are told (in the normal scheme of things) are branded as evil. Morons. Snape's not evil. He just should have been teaching at Catholic school. At least then he could have whacked Harry once or twice to get his attention.
Anyway, just a few thoughts from a Catholic school alumna, lol.