View Single Post
Old March 3rd, 2011, 9:55 pm
SoOriginal  Female.gif SoOriginal is offline
First Year
Join Date: 24th February 2011
Location: Limbo
Posts: 9
Re: Severus Snape: Character Analysis Reboot v.4

And when Severus first said he'd feed Neville's potion to Trevor, he did not know that it wasn't poison, because Neville hadn't brewed it yet. At that point in time he was expecting Neville to botch it. Neville did botch the potion, Severus continued to say he would feed it to Trevor, and he forbade Hermione from helping him fix it. So I don't agree that Severus would have not fed the potion to Trevor if it had been mixed wrong and would have killed or harmed him, for the same reason he did feed it to him at the end of class. He had to follow through to make his point, or he'd have lost face. He did not base his final decision to give the potion to Trevor on the fact that it was the right color; he decided to do that at the beginning, IMO.
There are different ways of teaching, and in my experience, the strict teacher is pretty effective. In the Neville-Trevor-Potion case - even IF the potion was botched [and really, you can't blame him for telling Hermione not to help him with the potion - teachers tell you that all the time! Conventional wisdom dictates that you don't learn otherwise...] - so, even if the potion was botched and turned into poison, I'm sure Snape would have the antidote ready. Afterall, if he was teaching the class to make something that volatile, he would have prepared for any mishaps. I don't think his point is to torture Neville - I think, as a teacher, Snape believed that the only way Neville would learn anything about Potions was if he was scared of the teacher enough to pay more attention in class and put in some extra effort...

not to mention that in PoA Harry has the dream about a white shape leading him through the dark forest which is realized in DH as Snape's Silver Doe in the Forest of Dean.

So to me that foreshadowing is a clue long before DH of the connection between Snape and Harry. We just couldn't see it at the time ~ of course it's a connection to Lily and James, too, who probably had those same Patronuses (although it's not as clearly spelled out in the book). But the whole thing nearly makes Snape rise to parental level or at least family level since there is no deer connection to any other characters except the Potters and Snape, or none that I can recall.
I never noticed the dream part before! Must go back and re-read PoA!

As for the connection between Snape and Harry - well, other than Draco, Harry is the only other kid in school Snape has any sentimental reason to feel 'parental' or 'protective' towards - because of his association with their parents. IMHO, Snape cared for Harry much much more than he ever let on - promise or not, I don't think Snape would have stopped at anything to save any child of Lily's. And, personally, I believe you always feel a strong connection to people you're REALLY antagonistic towards when you're young - whether that connection is positive or negative is a completely different issue. You want to prove to the school bully that you're better than them - and what better way to convince yourself of that fact than to care for your childhood enemy's kid? Didn't someone say forgiving an enemy is the worst thing you can do to them, or something along those lines?

As I see it, Snape is using typical strategies of someone who is trying to hide the truth. He doesn't answer Dumbledore's question directly, but instead implies his answer by producing his Patronus. This is typical behaviour in someone who is lying. By producing the Silver Doe, he is also diverting the focus of the question, from Harry to Lily, which is another typical strategy in someone who is telling an untruth.It also served to take Dumbledore's focus away from himself, as Dumbledore watched the Silver Doe fly out of the window. I think that Snape had become very good at hiding the truth, which is not surprising as it was these skills that had been keeping him alive during his spying activities.


Originally Posted by silver ink pot View Post
And the role-reversal for Dumbledore and Snape is pretty amazing in that scene.

On the "Windy Hill" Snape's request to save Lily over her family leads to Dumbledore saying "You disgust me." But the remedy in that situation was to "protect all of them" for which Snape would do "anything." That's the agreement, or the contract, between them and Snape keeps his word over and over again.

Then years later Snape finds out that Dumbledore is willing to sacrifice Harry after all - what happened to all that self-righteous "disgust" of yesteryear?
As much as I love Dumbledore - let's face it, he was a politician. He used the means he had to achieve the ends he thought were right. 'For the greater good' really - both the times! I guess at many levels, to Dumbledore, the means were only as important as the end. But Snape is a different story. Even as a cub-death eater, if he believed in the whole wizard supremacy nonsense (end), he wasn't really comfortable with the killing and the torture to meet those ends (the whole conversation with DD about watching only those people die whom he couldn't save says much more about the man than just his 'reform').


"...unless you got something. Anything. One thing. The reason normal people got wives and kids, hobbies, whatever, that's because they ain't got that one thing that hits a man hard and that true. I got music, you got this, the thing you think about all the time, the thing that keeps yourself normal. Yeah, makes us great, makes us the best. All we miss out on is everything else..."
>>> House MD
Sponsored Links