This is a rather atypical post. But just recently I was challenged yet again on my belief that Severus Snape is a good character at core. He has always been my favorite character in the books and movies. Not only because Alan Rickman was an incredible actor, but also because his character is rather complex. I read the books and watched the movies as they were published and therewith read the books before I saw the movies.
Until today I'm proud to own a almost life-size Snape poster, that Cinemax had gifted me after the first movie had stopped playing.
His character is rather complex. Surely, Severus is not the traditional good guy by being nice to everyone, but the world is not black and white. It never was and never will be. No person is purely good and no person is purely evil.
As David Hare writes in his book:
Nobody is totally evil Our heavily ingrained tendency is to divide the world starkly into goodies and baddies. Films do it, cliché-ridden newspapers (especially) do it, books do it. It starts young, because kids' cartoons and video games do it too. And of course this plays perfectly to our S-O-S, because when we were living in caves it no doubt made a lot of sense to quickly identify others as either friend or foe, with no grey areas. It might, after all, have made the difference between life and death! But millions of years later, could it now be time to move on, update our neural pathways and get over our smaller selves?[...] All of us are capable of evil and of good. A 'cruel murderer' can come home and show compassion to his children, a kind nurse' can come home from work and be aggressive to her family. As Nichiren says: 'Even a heartless villain loves his wife and children. He too has a portion of the bodhisattva world within him." It therefore follows that nobody is totally evil. Neither is anybody totally good - you're guaranteed disappointment if you choose to worship someone else and then expect them permanently to demonstrate the higher aspects of human behaviour.
Source: The Buddha in Me, The Buddha in You - David Hare
That being said, I found a post on reddit that summarized the matter beautifully.
In it, 'tubbem' lists facts at first of why Snape is a good man.
"Severus Snape did switch sides."
"Severus Snape remained on the Order’s side even when Lily Potter was already dead. There’s no “win” here."
"Severus Snape was concerned about his soul when Dumbledore asked him to kill him and give him a merciful death. Bad guys don’t worry about their souls."
"Severus Snape was loyal to Albus Dumbledore all the way. He did everything Dumbledore asked him to do. He continues to follow Dumbledore’s plans even when Dumbledore is dead."
"Severus Snape is angry that Dumbledore says Harry has to die in order to defeat Voldemort. He feels deceived, used, and betrayed. Although he was determined to protect Harry for Lily, he accepts that defeating Voldemort is more important for the greater good."
"Severus Snape protects Harry Potter. He protects Draco Malfoy. He tries to protect Remus Lupin. He protects the students from the Carrows."
"Severus Snape gives Harry the information he needs even as he lays dying."
(Source: www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter)
I can agree that life turned Snape bitter. If you get bullied at school and loose your best friend and love of your life, I'm sure most people would turn into a dark phase and be rather bitter. But the question is whether we remain there or eventually correct our paths.
Everyone can agree that Dumbledore and Lupin belonged to the nice characters. Why would they trust Severus Snape if he were a bad man? If I know a person is bad, I'd not tell him my secrets or come to him for help. And if he clearly was such a bad person, why would Harry Potter name his son after him [Albus Severus Potter] and describe Severus as the bravest men he ever knew?
Still not convinced?
To further quote the Reddit post by tubbem:
Severus Snape is a good person. He’s not perfect. He’s not flawless. He’s not very nice. But a man who saves people whenever he can, knowing that he will never be thanked for it, cannot be labelled a bad person. [...] Snape's actions were never nice. He wasn't the traditional good guy. Because Snape never cared for being nice—or beating around the bush with flattery and flowery verses—he automatically becomes a candidate for the opposite of goodness. At his core, however, Snape was a good person, who understood that being good and acting good are two different things. Snape could have shown more concern for Hermione during the enlarged teeth scenario. That would have classified as good. He could also have laughed behind her back, and chatted with Phineas about the filthy little midblood. He didn't. He said it to Hermione’s face. The same with Harry, James, Neville, Lily, Sirius, Lupin, Dumbledore, Bellatrix, etc. It wasn’t nice, yes. But that’s how he was. Snape was upfront with everything. He didn't mince his words. He was scathing with his remarks. He simply wasn't nice as Lupin was, perhaps, but he was good—gooder than most in the HP series arguably. Perhaps not as good in the moral sense as Luna or Neville - definitely with higher morality and ethical conduct than Harry, Dumbledore, Hermione, Ron, etc. Snape's goodness is demonstrated whenever his students are in danger or risk getting hurt/injured. Nobody died under his Headmasterial reign at Hogwarts. He protected Dumbledore’s Army from the Carrows and the Death Eaters. He saved Draco’s soul. He protected Harry all through those six years. He didn't have to. He could have been as relaxed as McGonagall, who was pretty much a non-player in the Second Vold War. But he has shown how he would go out of his way to save those around him—even if he didn't like them, as evinced by risking the blowup of his loyalties during the Battle of the Seven Potters. Severus Snape simply didn't care. He didn't give two hoots about what people thought of him. He only cared about the goal, about his responsibility—to defeat Voldemort, to protect Lily Potter’s son. Snape’s actions were dubious most of the time. Most of the time, he had to do what he did. Snape was putting on a performance. He couldn’t risk Voldemort prying into his memories/mind - only to see his kind, loving act towards Harry, or to see Snape drowning in the puddle of Lily’s memories. No, no. [...] So, in Snape's own ways, he continued to criticize Harry. Harry being Harry had no sense of contemplation or introspection, and that only made matters worse. He retaliated back. Snape had issues. He was emotionally stunted. He could be immature. He was vindictive. He was a loner. The last one isn't a flaw. It's a positive trait. But it's not exactly socially inspiring. That said, he was a good person. He was loyal. He appreciated the finer aspects of life. He loved. He cared. He valued friendship. When it mattered, he didn't allow his personal agendas to interfere with his professional duties (re: Sirius and Lupin). Once he realizes that Sirius is innocent, he works with him, protects him - even when Sirius was busy goading him. Snape is the anti-hero and Rowling's Flaw in the Plan, which is why he's a tad inconsistent as a character. He's not nice. But hey, if good guy Sev weren't around in Harry's first Quidditch game, they'd all be celebrating Voldemort Day."
(Source: www.reddit.com/r/harrypotter)
And if anyone needed to hear the cases again in which Severus saved Harry's life, then here are 13 such cases:
13 times Severus Snape saved Harry Potter
Counter-cursing Harry's jinxed Broom during the Quidditch game
Teaching Harry Expelliarmus early on
Casting 'Vipera Evanesca' to vanish a snake and protect Harry during the duel with Draco Malfoy
Intervention on the Night of Full Moon (Bringing Wolfbane Potion to Lupin, who had forgotten to take it, and putting himself between Harry, Ron, Hermione and Lupin, who had transitioned into a werewolf.)
Giving Occlumency Lessons to Harry in order to protect himself and his secrets from Voldemort
Refusing to provide further Veritas Serum to Dolores Umbridge and slipping the information that Harry's friend Cho only ratted them out because of the serum
Alerting the Order to Harry's Disappearance
Allowing Harry to keep his potion's textbook and therewith helping him by not directly helping him
Saving Harry from committing murder when using one of Snape's spells from the potion book during his fight with Draco Malfoy
Stopping Death Eaters from killing Harry with the false pretense that killing Harry must be done by Voldemort alone
Providing the idea of decoy Potters, when it was clear that Voldemort knew on which day Harry would be transported by The Order to 12 Grimmauld Place
Providing the Sword of Gryffindor by guiding them to it with the Patronus
Final instruction on How to Defeat Voldemort during Snape's last moment.
(Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LM6k2xLnUzI )
You don't have to like him, and we don't have to agree with all his actions. However, I hope this article demonstrates that he is neither a villain nor a bad person. He is a remarkable man with great character, though he may not always be nice.
Comments