So what if Snape really is nasty?

[sweettalkeress.livejournal.com]

This 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).

Comments

No one's commented yet? Huh...

[librasmile.livejournal.com]

...usually I'm Johnette come lately :^)

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.

[germankitty]

There are a lot of good points in what you say.

I still believe that Snape let a childhood grudge (however justified) influence his behaviour towards Harry to an excessive degree (and initially it was based on nothing but physical resemblance and preconceived notions), which -- as the adult, and as an educator/authority figure -- he shouldn't have done.

That aside, I've had a teacher who was ... let's say less than ideal, and almost universally disliked. Granted, his behaviour didn't reach Snape-like proportions, but I know his sarcasm (often slipping into cynicism), strictness and high demands were difficult to take for most of my classmates, especially the more rebellious or contrary-minded ones.

He taught my favorite subject, I was one of the best students in his class, so I got away with some lip and a certain (very limited) amount of casualness that never went into outright disrespect. Others, who couldn't be bothered to pay attention or put in the work, yet still mouthed off at him and showed their dislike of him and his methods, paid for it with lower grades ... which admittedly didn't help matters, because now they felt treated unfairly and whatnot. Talk about a vicious circle ...

Strangely enough, students who had to repeat a year because they'd failed his class almost invariably went from the second-lowest grade to the second-highest (in a 6-grade system) within half a year under different instructors ... and those of us who'd been top in his honors class were better schooled as undergraduates at university than fellow students two years ahead of us. Such was the quality of teaching of a man who had in all honesty a not-very-pleasant personality and let personal likes/dislikes influence at least part of his demeanor in class.

On the other hand, my other honors-class teacher was universally beloved, perfectly friendly and pleasant ... and he drove me up the walls. There were no edges and spikes to rub against that would've spurred me on, I didn't (and still don't) get this type of guy who was always understanding, always forgiving, always NICE to everyone at any time. I did well in the class, but I knew I wasn't doing my best, developed a certain indifference towards the subject and everything about it generally lacked passion.

Twenty-five years later, my son had a similar experience with two other teachers, justly known as the strictest and/or most demanding in school, if somewhat more pleasant in character. All the kids agreed (albeit grudgingly) that despite some personality clashes, they learned the most in those classes.

So, honestly? Give me the not-so-nice, demanding guys anytime -- as long as they know how to teach. If nothing else, dealing with them will prepare someone better for the real world outside of school, where personal likes and dislikes don't matter and only the quality of work counts.

[sunnyskywalker]

There were so many missed opportunities here. Like much of the rest of the series, JKR set up something really interesting, and then wimped out on following through.

For instance: if Snape is so horrible, then shouldn't Harry eventually grow to the point that he notices McGonagall is actually quite similar overall, but isn't specifically focused on Harry? (Neville might have noticed more similarities...) That plenty of people Harry likes say just as many thoughtless or nasty things, or have prejudices, or hold grudges? This would require actually interrogating what all this means. Decide to let everyone off the hook, including Snape, because turns out everyone does it? Decide to condemn everyone as lost causes? Try to work out the exact proportions of each person's guilt? Try to figure out what actually does the most harm (e.g., not just "am I the target or not," but "is this action actually worse/aimed at a more vulnerable target/etc.")? Decide since everyone's hopeless, he should just judge based on whether he likes someone or they're nice to him personally?

And if he decides at least some of this behavior is truly harmful, whether perpetrated by Snape or by his friends... then what? We never do get that next step in the series. I mean, it's not like I expect to see Harry researching child psychology and developing a new Hogwarts teacher training program (...though someone really should), or dedicating his life to preventing school bullying. But it sure would have been nice if he'd really, truly noticed that he'd unfairly overlooked McGonagall's flaws as a teacher and administrator because she didn't focus much on him personally, or that maybe the Twins were just as awful--or worse--to someone else as any Slytherin bullies ever were to Harry. And if he'd at least felt a little differently about people once he realized these things. And if this had influenced the plot, which by DH dearly needed something other than "it's in the script" to keep it going and didn't get it! Remember how supposedly the Aurors got as cruel as anyone on the "dark side" in the first war? What if Harry had to face up to members of Team Harry, people he liked, being just as cruel and harmful as anyone he was fighting? What should he do then?

But he never had to face such a dilemma. And he kept his double standards well intact. JKR just wimped out in so many ways at the end of the series. She raised issues like the Marauders just maybe being awful people, and wizards treating other intelligent species and Muggles like second-class citizens (or worse), and Dumbledore being ridiculously untrustworthy, and Harry learning to enjoy causing pain enough to Cruciate properly, and then just... dropped them. Not in a way that implied life was complicated and not everything could be fixed instantly, just as if these problems never existed in the first place, were were retroactively no big deal. So disappointing.