Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (novel)/Headscratchers/Severus Snape: Good or Bad?

Please check JK's FAQs before asking a question that may have already been answered.


 * How is Snape a good man? From what I could tell, he was a sleazeball who was bitter because he didn't get to marry Lily. From what I gathered, he planned to let Voldemort kill James and Harry so Snape could comfort her and possibly be her new hubby. Harry's too much of a male Pollyanna.
 * ...Wait, what? When did he ever indicate that he planned to let Voldemort kill Lily's husband and son? Are you referring to when Snape goes running to Dumbledore and begs him to protect Lily and Dumbledore's all "OMG, why didn't you also specifically ask me to protect a man you hate and a baby you've never met despite the fact that it's highly unlikely that if I did agree to protect Lily I wouldn't bother to so much warn James"? Snape quickly replies with a "Yes, yes, protect them, too. Does this mean you'll help?" He was only particularly concerned about saving Lily, yes, but Lily was the only one he had a personal connection to, and if saving Lily involved saving James as well, he was okay with it. Him asking Voldemort to save Lily also was just an insurance measure in case Dumbledore failed (which he did). He couldn't ask to protect James as well, as that would look suspicious (since they hate each other). He definitely couldn't ask to protect Harry, since killing Harry was why Voldemort was going after the Potters in the first place.
 * Probably because it's been smashed into our heads time and time again that Snape despises James and especially the product of Lily and James' union, Harry, that it wouldn't be ridiculous to assume he particularly asked to spare Lily. And only Lily. Even Dumbledore realizes how sickening it was of the wording. When Dumbledore 'corrected' him, Snape obviously agrees to protect the entire family at the last minute. He doesn't give a rat's ass (Heh, heh Pettigrew humor), about James or Harry. Just Lily. He only went with it because he pissed off Dumbledore, something he wasn't looking to do. I don't agree that he's looking to be 'hubby to a widow Lily', (no doubt Lily would hate Snape severely if she found out). He just wanted her ALIVE and safe, that's it.
 * It's because when Dumbledore asked Snape why didn't he ask Voldemort to spare Lily and kill James and Harry (it's phrased differently; can't find the quote), Snape said he HAD asked him that. To which Dumbledore responds with, "You sicken me".
 * It's more a matter of Snape trying to do penance for his mistakes. He's forced to do certain things because of Dumbledore's grand plan, but he also works very hard behind the scenes to ensure Harry wins. Yes, he started out very selfishly trying to get Lily for himself, but after she dies, he realizes exactly what he'd done and works hard to protect Harry, despite not liking him at all, for Lily's sake. He's not a good man, but he's a decent man who tried to make up for his perceived greatest mistake.
 * So wait... Nothing Snape did counts as "good"? Putting his life on the line as a spy, protecting a whole school full of children from the most evil wizard in a century, making sure an innocent (broadly-speaking) kid didn't permanently damage his soul by committing a murder, and oh yeah, dying for that person he hated so much... None of that matters in the end? Way to miss the point on that one, OP.
 * I don't think that Snape was a good person, but he was still on the side of good, if that makes any sense. It's not even a Good Is Not Nice situation; he wasn't cruel or ruthless because of tough love or because it would make people stronger, he was cruel because he was a dick. He regularly bullied children and psychologically tortured Neville to the point that, despite knowing the face of the woman who tortured his parents into insanity, Snape was his worst fear. He didn't abandon Voldemort's cause because he stopped believing in it, he left because he loved Lily obsessively. He was brave, yes, and loyal to Dumbledore and Lily's memories, but he was still an asshole, actively sabotaging the attempts at happiness of Harry and anyone close to him. He was a bad person, but he was a good guy.
 * You apparently missed the part where I said "nothing he DID..." And um, yes, it is a Good Is Not Nice situation. From the Good Is Not Nice page: He never kills anyone if he can help it, nor will he allow people to come to any sort of harm by ignoring them. He's always willing to go out of his way to save the town and complete strangers. When the call comes, he will answer it, usually with very little protest. He will often help people in need with little promise of reward. In almost every way, he acts like the typical hero. Except that he's antisocial and sometimes downright abusive toward most people he meets. He may refuse to explain anything. He may actively repulse people who express gratitude, friendship, and love, as well as offers of support if he's got a problem. ...Good Is Not Nice is... a character who is morally slanted toward the good side, but is rude, unfriendly, and mean. If that isn't Severus Snape to a T, nothing is. (It's usually a good idea to read the trope pages before making an example of them, yanno?)
 * Yeah, except it's not Severus Snape to a T. In exchange for turning coat on Voldemort, Dumbledore provided him with immunity from prosecution for his crimes while under the Dark Lord's employ, the promise of Lily's safety (which obviously didn't take), and a position at Hogwarts. He has, in the past, actively sabotaged Harry (and friends') ability to receive an education, despite knowing for a fact that he (and friends) would be faced with dangers far beyond those that an undertrained teenage boy (and friends) should be faced with. He attempted to effectively murder Sirius. He is not unfailingly good. He is, perhaps, failingly good. And the reason that he is currently on the side of good is not because of his own moral code but that of Lily's, and while the strength of his loyalty, bravery, and devotion are worthy of merit, his morality isn't. He's not Good Is Not Nice, he's Greyish Morality Is Not Nice. But you're right: I did fail to address your original point, which was your refuting "nothing he did counted as good." Because I agreed with it. He did good things. He also did hateful, malevolent things that would easily push him out of the Good column and well into the Neutral.
 * "He has, in the past, actively sabotaged Harry (and friends') ability to receive an education..." I'm sorry, but what series did you read?! Allow me to point out here: everybody in Snape's potion classes passed their O.W.L.s! Ron, Hermione, Harry, and even Neville "can barely stand a cauldron up straight", all passed it. Snape never actively sabotaged anyone's ability to receive an education. Let me point out also that Harry was never particularly active or attentive in Potions until HBP, and that he bore as big a grudge against Snape as Snape did against him. You're talking to a future teacher here, and I am telling you with absolute certainty: The burden of educating cannot rest entirely on a teacher's shoulders. The student must be willing to learn, and Harry actively refused to learn anything from Snape, even at the cost of mastery in his best subject, Defense Against the Dark Arts. Hermione was just as subject to Snape's personality, but she didn't suffer much for it (and it's not because she's Hermione and she's the Author Avatar; it's because she's mature enough to realize that "this dude's an asshole, but he also knows what he's talking about; it would be in my best interest to listen and learn from him"). Don't act like Snape is to blame entirely for Harry being an Idiot Hero; Snape did his best to teach him (even if he didn't have the best attitude), but Harry's own stubbornness was his downfall when it came to learning the necessary skills.
 * I remember a scene in the third book where the kids were supposed to be making a Shrinking Solution, and Neville messed up badly and began to redo it in the middle of class. A good teacher would have explained to Neville what he did wrong the first time and how he could improve. A bad teacher would have left him alone and failed him for the day when he messed up his second potion. A dick teacher would have left him on his own, then force-fed the potion to his "beloved" pet, fully expecting the stupid toad to die. Guess which one Snape did.
 * While it's true that Harry was unwilling to learn from Snape, Snape was, from the very start, unwilling to teach him. He began by bullying him (relentless pop quiz on his first day of school, and his first introduction into magical education). Harry should have tried to rise above this abuse for the sake of his education, as Potions is important for later life and the career he wishes to attain - but is it really fair to ask a 15 year old boy (as he was during his OWLs, for example) to be the bigger person? Or to try hard in a class where (as we see one day when Harry thinks he might have actually done well) the teacher will actively sabotage your efforts and fail you? Not good for motivation. Hermione learns from Snape because she has a thirst to learn and do well, but for an average student, why would you work hard if you're guaranteed to fail? As for DADA, I think the mutual hatred was basically ingrained, although I don't think it was particularly mentioned that Harry didn't pay attention. He probably did. He just still hated Snape and Snape continued to bully him. He should have been more open to Snape's lessons, but I can easily see why he wasn't.
 * I agree. Snape did "actively sabotage" them on several occasions: at least once, because Harry hadn't made a potion perfectly (and, as he had mentioned, there were many in the class whose potions had turned out worse than his), he gets a 0 for the day. Later, when he makes sure that he had followed every step, Snape intentionally drops his flask, ruining the potion, and gives him another 0. It isn't restricted to Harry: Neville is bad at the subject, yet Snape never tries to correct his mistakes, only bullies him. He basically presents the material and expects mastery, rather than helping students when they encounter problems (I've had teachers like that before -- I know that students need to make the effort to learn, but the teacher needs to actually care about them learning, too). What really irritates me is that the end of the series basically Hand Waves all of his considerable shortcomings and outright cruelty because he did a lot to help the good guys. It feels like the readers are supposed to forget how nasty Snape was throughout the series because they're deluged by an onslaught of him being a somewhat decent person.
 * Like the posters above, I read the books where Snape deliberately gave Harry failing marks unfairly and bullied his students without correcting their mistakes. I would also like to add that SNAPE IS A TEACHER. I fail to see how some people do not understand what a teacher is supposed to be. If students are meant to sit down with a list of ingredients and just figure things out themselves like in Snape's class, then the class is little more than self-study and the students should be applauded for passing their OWLs with nobody to teach them. That would put Snape on the level of a poor teacher like Binns, who drones in monotone straight from the textbook. When Snape doesn't teach anything and also bullies the students, then his class is worse than a self-study session with no teacher. He is actively sabotaging their learning.
 * Re: the OWLs, it is specifically mentioned in OotP that the main reason Neville did as good on the test as he did is because Snape wasn't in the room. If your students experience a quantum leap of improvement in their skills from your not being there, then you must be the worst teacher ever. Also, I don't think its coincidental that the one time Harry's Potions skills were graded by independent evaluators not named Snape, he got a higher grade from them then he ever did in Snape's class.
 * Another point: Harry Potter is a child. Snape is an adult. Why should Harry have to be the one who keeps having to mind his manners? Why can't Snape ever mind his own? In a confrontation between an adult and a child don't we usually expect the grown-up to be the one who has less excuse for acting pettily, not more?
 * People are not "good" or "bad". People can do good things or bad things or both, sometimes to the extent that it is impossible to weigh the one against the other in any meaningful way. Isn't that the whole point of Snape's characterization and story?
 * Yeah, I agree with you, for the most part. The problem is how the material about Snape is presented. One critic of The Great Gatsby had said that the ending basically relied on the reader forgetting everything unpleasant that they'd learned about Gatsby up until that point, so that his death is portrayed as tragic and sympathetic. It feels the same way with Snape: the readers are supposed to forget everything nasty about Snape (of which there is a great deal) and place him firmly in the "good guys" category. I can't really say why it feels that way, it's just that the series undoes his supposed villain status by showing that he was a double agent, and from then on Snape is presented only in a positive light, by everyone.
 * Gotta disagree with the above categorizations of "good guys" versus "bad guys." As the comment above the one above mine states, it isn't always the case that there are "good" or "bad" characters; rather, they are defined by their actions and choices rather than clear-cut morality labels that indicate on which side of the good/bad scale that the characters stand. Morally speaking, even the supposedly "good" characters clearly perform certain actions that violate an unspoken set of standards that "good" characters must adhere to (Harry Potter and Albus Dumbledore quickly come to mind). Though there are some characters who clearly define anything but "evil" in the series (i.e. Bellatrix Lestrange, the Big Bad Tommy Riddle), many of the others aren't so conspicuous, which is what Snape is supposed to represent.
 * What bothers me is the fact that he never intended to repay his life debt to James. I know he did eventually, by looking out for Harry, but since Harry was supposed to die, Snape fully intended to let James die without the debt ever being repaid. Also, the fact that he wanted to save Lily for his own selfish reasons without any regard for what she may have wanted makes him an ass. What if his plan had worked? Did he really think she wouldn't loathe him when she found out that he'd been completely fine with Voldemort killing James and Harry? He's a selfish prick who decided his own happiness was more important than Lily's. Otherwise he would have wanted her to be happy with James, and would've asked Voldemort to spare him too. I realise that asking Voldy for two favours probably isn't the smartest thing to do, but if he were even a halfway decent person, his conscience wouldn't have let him NOT at least try. And didn't it even occur to him that maybe Lily wouldn't have wanted to live if James and Harry had died? He was basically saying, "I couldn't give a fuck that you're going to be miserable over the husband and son you're losing, I only care that I don't have to lose you."
 * I honestly find this completely in character for him. He loathed James for seven years and couldn't see James doing anything for his sake, and probably never believed that James saved him out of the goodness of his heart, but only to get out of trouble. Personally, I could never see Snape beg Voldemort to save Harry or James, as he could care less about them. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that Voldemort was going to kill James for defying him three times and kill Harry for being the prophecy child and only really believed in sparing Lily because Snape begged selfishly (Voldemort probably would have killed Snape for trying to beg for all three lives). He loves Lily, but that doesn't mean he wants her to be happy with people he hates. It's meant to be portrayed as a very selfish love in my opinion.
 * I agree, but as noted above, and as you kinda noted too, there's really no way Snape could have begged for all three lives. Now, when Snape came to Dumbledore and asked him to help save Lily, that was selfish and Dumbledore called him out on it. But with Voldemort, Harry was the whole reason he was focused on the Potters, and James had drawn Voldemort's wrath anyway. The only person Voldemort might conceivably spare, if properly begged for by a loyal Death Eater, is Lily. Snape asking Voldie to spare her was effectively a backup plan if the Order of the Phoenix failed to protect all three, and it was the most he could expect from the Death Eater side of things. It's still selfish, but it's also the only thing he could ask from Voldemort without getting exposed as a traitor, or at least sounding like he's gone completely mad ("Um, say, Voldemort, could you just forget all about that baby prophesied to destroy you? And his father, the one who's defied you three times, we can spare him too, right? Oh yeah, and the boy's mother, let's just make it three for three. So, we're all done with this Death Eater meeting about how to deal with the prophecy, right? Who wants tacos?").
 * What makes you think that Voldemort felt more wrath towards James than Lily? The prophecy said that Harry was born to "those" who had thrice defied him, not "he who had thrice defied him and she who is a pretty face but completely neutral in the matter". I always assumed that Lily and James had both gotten themselves in bad situations with Voldemort three times and defied him.
 * Then he already personally wants to kill them both, which makes Snape trying to bargain with Voldemort for all their lives even more impossible.
 * This is somewhat moot, as Voldemort did do what Snape asked, giving Lily a chance to save herself. She did not. This was the entire point of the 'love' protection, that she could have just walked away and been safe, but choose to die. Presumably, without Snape's request, he would have just have killed her immediately.
 * Not exactly any less evil, but he could have tried to change Voldy's mind into going after Neville instead. Still a dick move (which is in character for Snape), but at least it would've been an attempt at repaying the life debt to James. Seemed to me that he was happy that James (and probably Harry too) were going to die, otherwise he would have tried (and probably failed, but still would've been worth a shot) to get Voldy to take the option that would keep Lily out of danger completely. Also, on the matter of James's motives for saving Snape, you're probably right that they were less than pure, but Snape's obviously far more capable of killing/letting someone die (hence the whole Death Eater thing), so I tend to think James deserves to be cut a little slack there.
 * Here's a thought. What if Voldemort had decided to go after Neville? Snape would have been perfectly fine with that. While I will admit Snape did good things and was ultimately on Dumbledore's side, he's still an evil bastard. He was inexcusably rude to his students. As a teacher, his role is to teach the students how to do what they need to do, and to help them when they are struggling. A teacher's role is not to write instructions on the board, then sit back while everyone does it while occasionally assigning them homework. And it is NOT MAKING FUN OF STUDENTS WHEN THEY DO SOMETHING WRONG. I have teachers that have done both of these things and it is completely inexcusable. Neville was scarred for life by Snape. Snape was a man who joined the Death Eater regime solely on his own. He wasn't someone like Wormtail who joined Voldemort because he was scared of what would happen if he didn't. He was a person who fully and truly believed in the pure blood supremacy (and still does, seeing as he calls STUDENTS the Wizarding equivalent of the N-Word). And he only left that particular group because they killed the only person he truly loved. This is one of my big problems with the book. It seems to be based on the theory that the only thing different between good and bad is capability to love. While I will admit that someone incapable of loving would generally be considered evil, almost every human on this planet has loved someone; it's a natural part of life. Severus Snape is not a Hero, Anti Hero, Villain, or Anti Villain. He's just an evil asshole who happened to be on Dumbledore's side.
 * I feel that Snape was poorly developed after a certain point -- personally, the point where everything he does is because of a girl he liked in school who didn't like him, as it seems rather pathetic and out of character -- and that's why it's so difficult to pin him down. I always read Snape as being protected at Hogwarts, but also being trapped at Hogwarts too. He can't go against the headmaster, he's stuck teaching, and Snape himself all but admits he hates teaching and is there because Dumbledore wants him to be. Going on his age, many of his earliest students were probably at school with him and remembered him being bullied and humiliated on a daily basis by the Marauders - wouldn't that be a brilliant environment to work in - with members of staff who remember the people who bullied you as heroes (with the exception of Sirius Black) and a subject that you've always been good at (if you go off his textbook in the sixth book). People who are brilliant at subjects tend to find them very difficult to explain because they don't understand why others can't get it the same way they do. All this before The Boy Who Lived comes to Hogwarts, and when he does, within two months he's chased after a mountain troll (putting himself and others in danger) rather than getting an adult, managed to get the school rules bent so he can be on the Gryffindor team even though it's not allowed - let's face it, anyone else would have gotten detention, and who paid for that broom anyway? Either McGonagall and Dumbledore paid for it themselves (showing blatant favouritism), or the school did (and that's probably worse, as it's not like the school would have paid for some random Hufflepuff's broom, even if they were a good flier; they'd be given a school one). And that's before Xmas! I always figured that Snape decided that Harry's spoiled by his other teachers and that he'll make up for it to keep his feet to the ground. As for Neville, some of the potions ingredients probably do have adverse reactions, and would you want to be the person teaching children who might poison everyone in the room?
 * Let's just make one thing perfectly clear: Snape never used the term "Mudblood" intentionally after his major screw-up with Lily. That needs to be said. Maybe he used it half-heartedly at a DE meeting or something, but he never referred to his students as such. Where are you people getting that from? Fanon? He actually calls out Phineas Nigellus Black in his Pensieve Flashback when the portrait uses that term to refer to Hermione. It's clear that he felt he crossed the line that time, and hadn't "used the magical equivalent of the N Word on his students" as the above posts seem to claim. I get it, the man is a Jerkass. A flawed, ultimately on the side of good, Jerkass. But let's not go overboard here. Otherwise, you're just as bad as the ones who try to squeeze him into the leather pants. Besides, from how I interpreted his past, he seems to have been driven to the Death Eaters more by his fascination with the Dark Arts than his feelings of Magical supremacy. Oh, I'm sure he paid lip service to the concept, and had his fair share of prejudice, but he said himself in his memories with Lily that blood status really doesn't matter (right before Petunia stumbles in). The Death Eaters are basically a mixture of Supremacists and Dark Arts users, most of whom likely aren't all pure-blooded. Severus could simply switch sides specifically because he didn't believe in the pure-blooded hype any more than he believed in Dumbeldore's equality for all beings. Lily was pretty much his entire motivation. Creepy? Yes. Selfish? Yes. But at least he had the capability to feel love, unlike his former master.
 * I think there's some truth to this -- Snape thought that Harry was being given special treatment, and yeah, he kinda was. Minerva gave him breaks from class so he could practice for the Quidditch team and even let him on the team when he was underage, but that was because he was damn good at Quidditch. The problem is that Snape didn't see Harry's special treatment (or Harry himself) for what it really was -- he saw Harry as a miniature version of James. Beloved by everyone, treated special by the teachers, and good at sports. He never even considered (as Dumbledore pointed out to him at one point) that personality-wise, Harry isn't the least bit like James was at school (that is to say, an egotistical Jerk Jock). Yes, Harry hated Snape too, but that's only because he was an unlikeable, bullying dick. If he'd shown up that first day (with no knowledge of James and Severus's history) and Snape acted like any other teacher, he wouldn't have thought twice about it. Snape could've treated him like all his other students (which is pretty crappy, but could've at least not singled him out) and let the grudge end there, but he was too petty to be the bigger man and just went to tormenting Harry as some twisted form of revenge against James. It kind of makes this weird cycle of hatred; James bullied Snape, Snape grows up and bullies Harry, than as Harry grows up, he outright hates Snape because of it. As for Snape being trapped at Hogwarts, I've always felt that way myself; why else would Snape ever work there willingly? But even if he's angry at his job, that doesn't make it okay to take out on the kids he's teaching. All that said, I think Snape was a man who did wrong in the past and redeemed himself over the course of the series, but I, like a lot of other folks on the page, just hate how the last book seems to sweep everything else that was wrong about him under the rug and expect us to forget it.
 * I don't think the last book expects us to forget about his wrongdoings. Once you finish the second-to-last book, it feels like Snape is the irredeemable "bad-guy," and the last book clears it up (if you can call it that, since 'clearing it up' means leaving you in the dark as to whether he was a so-called "bad guy" or "good guy.")
 * I never got the impression it was making it look ambiguous. Harry naming his son after Snape in the epilogue implies that Harry totally forgave everything Snape ever did to him, no matter how petty and cruel. You could argue it's a sign of Harry forgiving Snape and moving past his hatred, which I wouldn't mind. But the way it's presented and the level of fondness he shows seems to imply that Harry looks back on Snape with admiration and affection; it's a little absurd. Admiration, maybe, but you don't look back on someone who dragged out a schoolyard grudge and bullied you every day for 6 years with affection. Likewise, I just read The Prince's Tale, and it puts a lot of emphasis on Snape's reactions to Lily breaking off ties with him and getting picked on, which is fine, but it also totally skives over the stuff Snape did to deserve it. We heard it mentioned everywhere else that Snape did bad stuff at school as well and acted like a git to everyone besides Lily, but the last ending of the series decides to totally cut this out and look at his positive qualities. That's what bothered me, not that Snape was a flawed character, but the book's seeming insistence that he was a victim of circumstance. Freudian Excuse or no, he made his own mistakes.
 * Odd, I thought that Snape's character zigzagged between the side of "good" and "evil" multiple times, until near the end of the book 7 where it's finally revealed that he's in the "good." I think one of the main differences in this book that distinguishes Harry's side and Voldemort's side is reflected upon in their own individual characters; Harry understands and appreciates the value of friendship and the ability to love, while Voldemort cannot. As such, Voldemort is capable of astonishingly "great but terrible" deeds, while simultaneously this trait leads to Voldemort's ultimate downfall in the end of the series. So we've got the extreme "evil," clearly in the form of Voldemort, while on the protagonists' side we've got a bunch of characters bordering/flat-out on the moral gray zone (Neither the titular character nor the series' wise mentor Dumbledore was exempt from committing some morally questionable acts). That is, there's really no single character who accurately portrays the extreme of "good" as well as Voldemort does for the extreme of "evil" - there are no morally perfect characters even on the protagonists' side, while there are morally incorrigible characters on the antagonists' side. Anyway, so wherein this spectrum does Snape lie? Snape did have character flaws; this Troper notes that this is more clearly so noticeable than other characters because Snape was so closely associated with Voldemort, the ultimate representation of how evil that one can possibly get (in this series, I mean, though some would argue that Umbridge is pretty high up there for this position as well). Despite his critical mistakes, Snape did attempt to make amends - one thing that stood out the most for this Troper was that Snape, in essence, absolutely forbid Dumbledore to tell anyone about his personal motive and involvement in Dumbledore's plans. If at the very least Harry had known about Snape earlier, Harry's viewpoint about Snape may have changed considerably towards a much more positive direction than it actually was in the series. This Troper is in no way trying to shove Snape into a pair of leather pants by dismissing all of his flaws as trivial. Snape's overall jerkass attitude during Harry's time in Hogwarts is, at the very least, justified. By meeting Harry, Snape is painfully reminded of his unrequited love for Lily (via Harry's eyes, which remind Snape of Lily's), of his crappy school days (via Harry's similarity to James), and of his own desire for amends (via his promise with Dumbledore) which actually won't change anything about his past. He's a conflicted dude, and I'm surprised he was able to pull off his jerkass attitude so subtly as to hide his true motives and reasons. Basically, this Troper found that he sympathized with Snape's character - James Potter, even to this day, is such a dick...
 * An interesting note: If you erase the way he treated his students, it's easy enough to imagine Snape as the Not Evil, Just Misunderstood guy. In fact, to me, the way he treated his students seemed both out of character and something that had been tacked on as a redundancy. I take it with a pinch of salt, the same way I do with the Dursleys' treatment of Harry. In real life, even if the Wizarding world did exist, there would be a few things that remain the same anyhow: a) the Dursleys' treatment of Harry would not be tolerated; and b) Snape's treatment of his students would not be tolerated. So I see both of these as carefully tacked-on exaggerations meant to reinforce readers' hatred of Snape before we realize his actual backstory.
 * Continuing on this line of thought, though I'm not excusing any of the actually bad things he did, which was mostly how he taught his students, consider that he did have a Freudian Excuse, and a major one. Again, I am NOT saying that we should completely cut him slack, but do take into account that his childhood and life was enough to turn a saint into a psychopath. I think it's the fact that he was still able to cling to a degree of love and in his last breath aid the hero he hated so much, that makes me have some faint affection for him, as long as I take his terrible teaching abilities with a very large pinch of salt.
 * He doesn't get a pass because he had a bad childhood. He's a thirty-odd-year-old man. It sucks that he came from an abusive household, it really does. And maybe that can at least give him some slack for joining up with the Death Eaters, though not a lot. But by the time Harry hit Hogwarts, Snape should have gotten over it, or at least learned to deal with it enough that it shouldn't be informing every action he takes. The fact that his father yelled at him doesn't mean that it's okay that he terrorizes Neville so much that a boy who knows the face of the woman who tortured his parents into insanity still has Snape as his worst fear. Whatever else he did that may have made him heroic, he treated those children appallingly and has absolutely no excuse for it.
 * Why is everyone using "Snape is Neville's worst fear" as evidence against him? This troper always assumed that most of the boggart scene relied on Rule of Funny; otherwise, the whole scene doesn't make sense. Would Neville really be more afraid of Snape being snide than a madman running towards him with a knife? Would Ron really be more afraid of a spider than watching his entire family die while he was helpless to react? No. They're just throwaway, easily illustrated phobias that the reader could connect to a plot point. If Rowling showed Neville's parents being driven insane, the audience wouldn't know what the heck was going on, because that plot point hadn't been explained yet. Even his classmates laughed when Neville admitted what his "worst fear" was. Now, that's not to say that Snape isn't a serious jerkass, especially to Neville, and that's not to say that his teaching skills don't need work. He's a dick, but i would hardly call anything he ever did to his students "appalling". There are people like him that get off on abusing their power everywhere in and out of the school system. He's actually better than most; seeing how almost every single one of his students passed their O.W.L.s without much fuss, including Harry who has neither natural talent nor interest towards the subject, he must not have been trying at that "obstruct their education" thing very hard. Considering some of the teachers this troper knows of, Harry is lucky that Snape is the only jerkass teacher he has to deal with every day.
 * I don't see how Snape's treatment of his students is at all "Out of character." Not when the first two books had his treatment of his students be one of his defining character traits (before stuff got serious and the Death-Eater background came out). Even when you hear his backstory, Snape is only working as a teacher because he's serving Dumbledore, and doesn't seem to want the job. Also, as an Insufferable Genius, it's unsurprising that he'd see anyone not on his level of intellect as incompetent asshats, even if they're only eleven-years-old (this is a common occurrence for people who are really good at something -- experts in a field don't always make great teachers).
 * "If you erase the way he treats his students..." Well, yes. If you ignore all the genocide, Voldemort was pretty okay, too. If you ignore the attempt to murder an eleven-year-old girl via a Horcrux and service to the aforementioned genocidal fuckhead, Lucius Malfoy was rad. I know why you would want to ignore the way he treats his students: it's sadistic. Literally sadistic, as in he takes pleasure from causing their suffering. And while we don't know just how far Snape went in the service of Voldemort or how far he was willing to go, we do know that he has worked for the rest of his life to atone for it. For all his faults, I don't doubt that he was sincere in his efforts to make up for working for the man who murdered Lily. But we also know that he was never apologetic for the way he treated his students. For all we know, he never saw anything wrong with it. And that's why you dismiss it: because it's indefensible that a grown man would be so gleeful in torturing children. But the fact remains that he did, and you can't just say that it doesn't count just because he was otherwise loyal to Lily's memory. Snape is a deeply, deeply flawed man, and you discredit the character to just ignore the parts of him that don't fit with how you'd prefer to imagine him.
 * What this troper believes is that everyone wants to see Snape's character as "good or bad", and that's not how it works. You're forgetting that the books are written in the biggest part from Harry's POV in a third person focus. While the objective thing was to present evidence about Snivellus's good/evil status for us to debate (It was done, just not in the same row), this dude, being Harry, decided to overlook the bad things and just let the dead guy's memory rest in peace. This also serves as a "better than you" moment, since Snape didn't forgive or at least forget his grudge against James, EVER, and look what it did to him. The aesop about the power of love and the self-destructive nature of hate was drilled in Harry's skull with every single experience he lived. And as a very wise old man said, "If you cannot forgive, at least forget, because hate will destroy you from the inside... and you wouldn't want to give the one who made you suffer that pleasure, right?". So yeah. Harry forgot Snivellus's jerkass moments and decided to like him for his anti-heroic sacrifice. Even Voldemort died as a pitiful man; Harry faced him without hate or revenge's desire, just to finish the job. That's what he was feeling and thinking, that's what the book showed us. Snape being an ass is up to the reader, so subjective that it doesn't have an absolute answer.
 * If Snape was a good guy, then when was he planning on telling Harry he was the last horcrux? Its almost like Snape knew he was going to be killed so he can finally tell Harry the truth.
 * He did ask Voldemort to let him look for Harry moments before he was killed, and he didn't exactly have many oppertunities before that point. Though that does raise another question: how would he have gotten Harry to actually listen to him?
 * Disarm and tie him up, obviously. Harry was still no much for Snape in combat.
 * Some of you seem not to understand the difference between "being good" and "doing good things". Barty Crouch Jr. taught a lot about DADA. Was this a good thing to do? Yes. Was he good? No. But he did good things for several reasons. Same could be said about Snape. Now, I'm not saying Snape was a bad person like Crouch Jr., I just want to demonstrate that you could be a Bad Person and still do good things. Being good or bad is about motivations and morals, and this Headscratcher is about whether Snape was good or merely did good things because of some reasons, even though he didn't believe in it.
 * Which is what bothers me when people call the protagonists gray,save Dumbledore,Harry, and James I'd argue everyone else is pure white.It's practically like Lord of the Rings with outright Black and White Morality.Save Snape and the three above I'd argue that no else is Grey at all,oh sure they've all made mistakes.It still doesn't excuse Snape,and frankly it's all too easy to see his death as an Author's Saving Throw for his character and the book. He bullies the non-Slytherins,and actively looks down on everyone who is in a position he "deserves" whether the glory of James Potter and Co.,the charisma of Harry,the love of Lily,or the DADA position. If it wasn't for him,Barty Crouch never would've taken over because Lupin wouldn't have been forced,all because of a grudge.Yes he did good things but only further get what he wanted which was after Lily died,revenge on Voldemort. He's Lawful Neutral at best as I can see only caring about himself and the rules for Hogwarts.
 * I will never understand why so few people seem to get that Snape is a Byronic Hero. Don't try to make him completely evil. Don't try to make him completely good. He is a tragic, deeply flawed hero, guys.
 * That's because he isn't a Byronic Hero at all. Of the five listed traits on that page... Snape only matches one. He's cynical and jaded. He doesn't produce conflict because he's determined to follow out a personal philosophy, it's because he's just a Jerkass. He sees himself as subordinate to Dumbledore. He's not isolated from society, he's in a position of power and flaunts that power as much as he can.
 * Oh, really? Let's check the traits of a Byronic Hero. He actually is isolated from society, just not when he's at Hogwarts. He's introspective and dwells on the pains of his life. He is The Atoner and an activist, working for the Order, and is very passionate, rising above the Slytherin values..
 * Isolation: nope. He is introverted, and doesn't like making friends, but he's not isolated. He's still friendly enough with his "old crew" well before Voldemort's return. Introspective? not at all, or else he'd be able to recognize his own biases, and he has plenty of biases. We don't even get to see his thought processes, anyways. Dwells on pain- sure, but that just goes with being cynical and jaded. Passionate- unless you mean "short-tempered," then no. "Cold" and "bitter" are more apt descriptions when he's not wearing leather pants. Atonement? He's not searching for atonement. You don't atone for driving away the girl you love and directing a madman to her murder by verbally abusing her son. He's out for revenge against Voldemort, and he's Slytherin to the bone. Cunning, deception, and the drive to get what he wants- Voldemort dead. He is not rebelling against society. He is not living out a socially-questionable philosophy. Just because he's a bad person who ends up doing something heroic does not make him a Byronic Hero. And here's the litmus test- is he doing evil because he's evil, or only because it's necessary for a greater good? How does making fun of Neville or crushing Hermione's self-esteem help make the world a better place?
 * It doesn't. He's a huge dick; I acknowledge that - so does Rowling, and even Snape himself, in the end. What he did to Neville, Hermione and Harry was just him being an immature Jerkass I meant passionate as in passionate about his beliefs, which he clearly was, or he wouldn't be willing to fight for the Order.(And now you'll probably say that he only did that because of Lily, to which I answer; no, he didn't. He got into it when Lily died, because he saw how batshit insane Voldemort really was, but he did want to fight to the end and stop the Death Eaters.) Byronic heroes are never kind or unconditionally good; the trope name comes from Lord fucking Byron, guys.
 * I never said Snape needed to be good. He just needs a good reason for being bad. Which he doesn't have. Lelouch toys with free will and sacrifices human lives like pawns, and he's clearly doing evil- but he's doing it in order to topple another evil empire. He's a cold, manipulative jerkass because he sees everyone and everything as a potential resource in his fight against the empire. Snape, however, is a jerkass because he's a playground bully in an adult's body. Also, if you're going to dispute "Snape fought against Voldemort because of Lily" then you're going to have to take it up with J. K. Rowling. It's almost stated explicitly in "The Prince's Tale" chapter of DH, i think. Dumbledore keeps reminding him "Do it for Lily!" whenever the going gets tough.
 * Playground bully? Really? I don't know what you think, but I would call that victim-blaming. And comparing Snape to a dude who is willing to sacrifice the lives of innocents is pretty unfair. And no. If Snape was only doing it for Lily, then he would be manipulating people behind the shadows and being too cowardly to go out and fight. Because that's what he does best, but he just chooses not to. And that is why he's mentioned as the bravest man Harry ever knew, I think. He didn't want to, but he did it anyway, because Voldemort needed to be stopped.
 * Yes. Really. Because there is no other way to describe how he treated the students. I like how you concentrate only on his noble aspects and conveniently forget 6 books of straight-up BULLYING. And I don't see how you can jump from "Snape did it for Lily" does not lead to "He will fight directly against the man that killed her." It's a perfectly logical explanation that is supported by canon. Your idea that he's actually capable of being a Dumbledore-esque mastermind manipulator is likely a fanon interpretation.
 * By your wording, you are portraying him as some kind of Draco Malfoy type who did everything For the Evulz. That is my main problem with your theory. He was an asshole, and his treatment of his non-Slytherin students was horrible, but you have to remember that he was the product of a lifetime of emotional abuse. He was not quite as good at The Plan as Dumbledore was, but you have to remember that this guy managed to convince Voldemort that he was a loyal Death Eater. For years.
 * What you dont seem to understand is that people react to abuse and bullying differently. While some brush it off and mature, some are greatly effected by their bullying and abuse and their emotions and how they treat people as well as their confidence is greatly affected ( even Alan Rickman said that Snape felt he needed to have respect, and he felt the character was insecure). I will admit that Snape was a bad teacher and I think he would have been happier with a job in a private lab in St.Mungos or something, and while I will admit, or mostly I see him as forever, emotionally and maturity wise, stuck as a seventeen year old boy. Also he is not evil and in the last book there are so many things he did for Harry and others that, if he was evil or the bad guy, he didn't need to do. If he was so evil then why, after killing Dumbledore and after everyone thinks he was evil and he had complete control over the school did he even bother helping the Trio or the students? (Like sending Ginny and Luna to Hagrid as punishment). If he had been caught then he would have most likely been put to death or at least tortured. Furthermore if he was bad then why obey Dumbledore at all? Dumbledore is nothing more then a painting and can't do anything. Besides even JK said "there are no truly good and evil people in my books, except for Voldemort" or something like that, during an interview. The thing is not one single character is all good or all bad but a mix of the two. Just like in real life people are shades of grey. - Silver Doe


 * Snape is neither good nor evil. He's ... very, very complicated. He is a survivor of child abuse, evidently throughout his entire childhood. Survivors of long-term abuse (childhood or otherwise) tend to (very broadly speaking) either follow in the footsteps of their abusers, curl up in a ball (metaphorically speaking) and never truly deal with it/move on, or do a complete 180 from their abuser's behavior in a determined attempt to never be like them. Add into this seven years of systematic, continual terrorization (I'm sorry, but it goes several steps beyond mere 'bullying') by the Marauders, who, despite one of them (sorry, Sirius) damn near getting Severus KILLED never suffered much in the way of consequences, being in Slytherin, which in canon seems to house all the slimy gits, and Severus being in school during Voldemort's rise to power and really, it's a miracle he didn't do a Bellatrix and go completely, irredeemably Dark. That he was capable of loving Lily (and I do not doubt he did), however 'obsessive' and 'possessive' that love might have been, was a minor miracle. Was it right for him to hate Harry and carry the grudge over? Heck no. But it was understandable. Not like he had much of an example to follow in how to behave appropriately, and no, Dumbledore is NOT an example of appropriate behavior. Severus still helped Harry when Harry was in mortal danger. Did he behave appropriately, and was he 'good'? Heck no, but considering everything that had happened, he was doing better than he could have done.
 * THIS, So, so much. I couldn't have said it better.
 * You win at life. You have said what I have been saying to people my whole life.
 * I think that Snapes personality, weather or not he's a hero, good, bad, evil, etc. Really depends on the person. Some people think he's good and others think he's bad. So I just propose that we agree that Snape and who he really is depends on the person and their definition or opinion of what makes a person good or bad or what makes a person a hero.
 * True. Also, at least in the third HP movie, Snape put himself between a werewolf and the three kids he didn't like. Whether he would've cared if Harry, Ron, and Hermione got killed by the werewolf or not, that takes tremendous balls.
 * Thank you very much for taking the effort to write all this off me. While I agree with other people on this page that Sev wasn't good and wasn't evil, and yes he was selfish, his past has to be taken into consideration. I also think he truly did regret his deeds after Lily's death and Harry was, well, a reminder of James and everything James had, in his eyes, 'ruined'. He wasn't able to see past 'James' and see Harry, or even just Lily's son, aside from his final moments. After the past he went through, it's a pretty good thing he eventually DID. I also agree on the werewolf point - third book was where I started liking him, I had that poster in my room.
 * I would also like to point out Snape's patronus. It's a doe, right? So if really, after all was said and done and Lily was dead, still loved her selfishly and only wanted her to himself, why wasn't at a stag then, the perfect counterpart and partner to the doe, Lily's patronus? I think his patronus shows that he did feel remorse.

Back to the main Headscratchers page