Snape didn't really try to become a better person. He was still a shitty person after he turned sides. He could have played off his change in personality as "going undercover" to the Death Eaters. He already used that to explain some of his other actions and it would make Dumbledore's faith in him even more believable if his personality changed for the better over time. Instead, it almost feels like he does the bare minimum out of obligation.

So no, I wouldn't really consider Snape a good person and I don't even think he was trying to be really. He cared for Dumbledore and cared for Lily and that was apparent in how he acted as an adult.

 

DLP, holds Dumbledore in high regards.
I have a question, why people like him so much?

Dumbledore isn't evil, and while he has elements of being manipulative, it comes both age and being politician.
I estimate behind the scenes in second and fifth year there were plenty of political moves, which didn't involve Harry directly in them, so we were left unaware of them.

However it is far from saying Dumbledore did solid by him.
So I wonder if anyone wish to share more nuance opinion about the white bearded one.

 

If it wasn't for Dumbledore, Voldemort would have won. Except he probably wouldn't have, because Grindelwald would have been in power for the last several decades.

 

Thank you, that is actually quite good summary.
Further how many Wizards we meet that are really Wizards, in the sense of being Sages and kick ass.

 

I would love to read a fic about Tom Riddle trying to wreck Grindelwald's regime. It would be like a post-Hogwarts fic of Voldemort's adventures, but better because it's not really peacetime.

 

I always saw Snape as a sort of lesser Dumbledore. Both of them were playing a twisted good cop, bad cop routine with Harry. I feel Dumbledore's seen positively only because we always saw him from Harry's PoV. Dumbledore's good nature ultimately arose from his different childhood and his power. The same logic for arguing the opposite with Snape. Trying to assign good or evil make no sense, everyone had an agenda and a role to play.


That's why my favorite quote from HP is "There is no good or evil, only power and those who seek it".

 

If I remember rightly that quote was from the psychopathic murderer who felt no empathy for anyone but himself.

 

Dumbledore's good nature didn't come from his childhood, he was about to run away and leave his mentally deficient sister behind to galivant around the world with his wizard-supremacist boyfriend. By all accounts he was one of those idealistic, conceited geniuses that only did an about face when he caused the death of his sister. His childhood would have probably ruined him had that not happened, and then there would be two dark lords instead of one on the march for the greater good.


Also good nature derived from personal power is demonstrably false, it's the power-nobility equivalency used to justify slaves and castes. It's a strange argument to justify Dumbledore's nature who always seemed like a good person irregardless of how powerful he was.

And yes, drawing a direct link between dumbledore and Voldemort's justification for Harry to forget his parents and join the dark side is just wrong on so many accounts.

 

I agree with all of your points except for this one. It was a bit of obsession and conceit on Dumbledore's part manipulated masterfully by Grindelwald. Most of Dumbledore's character was already in place as a teen and he seemed a normal though lonely wizard.

I actually meant that he almost always had the upper hand with everyone, either magically or politically. He made difficult choices for others but I just wondered if he would do the same for himself. The choice he made regarding Grindelwald answers this question; I forgot about that.

 

I think the key issue with Dumbledore is that he is simply a kinder version of Snape. He is very much an ends justifies the means type character. And he only seeks the good because of a tragedy that happened when he was younger.

He’s not above letting Harry be miserable in order to further his goals.

Ultimately, I dislike Snape and Dumbledore. They are both characters I would not consider virtuous by any meaning of the term. Snape is just more vindictive/less charming. And yet, Dumbledore continued to allow Snape in Hogwarts...thus making him partially responsible for everything Snape did as a teacher.

 

I think the whole point of them is that they're both tortured souls who are good men struggling with demons. There's virtue in that.

 

Fair. And I can respect that take.

I personally think though that to hate Snape and love Dumbledore is somewhat disingenuous.

Or perhaps hate and love are wrong words. Rather...condemn Snape, but excuse Dumbledore's actions.

 

I don't think it's a very hard stance to take, if you've only read the books. Dumbledore was mostly shown in positive light, and caring about Harry. Snape was a hateful and bitter bully and one of Harry's main antagonists for years. Things got a little messy in the last two books, but the impression remains. You can start picking at Dumbledore, at all of his motivations and actions, but at face value, I have very hard time trying to like or forgive Snape, while Dumbledore mostly remained in the "good guy" camp.

Personally, I don't think Snape deserves anything good, while Dumbledore is a mixed bag.

 

I’m not inclined to take things at face value *shrugs*

I think Snape’s nastiness gets overblown a lot because the books are from Harry’s perspective. Don’t get me wrong, he’s not a good guy (see Sirius). But I have a hard time viewing Snape and Dumbledore as positives and negatives in different categories.


Harry showed himself to be a brat numerous times and was definitely an unreliable POV character.

 

Eh. Snape was a petty, spiteful little man. He had some hangups, and if he'd survived, he'd likely have grown into a decent human being (he was showing the early signs of such when he kicked it at any rate), but he hadn't had the time to properly do so.

You're right that Dumbledore and Snape are quite similar at a foundational level, which I presume is why Dumbledore went out of his way to try and help Snape. But the difference between them is that Dumbledore had a century and change to complete his character arc, while Snape did not, and like it or not, that matters.

 

I mean I agree. Personally think the “future dumbledore” would’ve been Snape had he lived.

 

There are several scenes in the first 4 books, casting shadow on Snape character.

My question is this: Does Snape behavior consistent ?
Or JKR decided to alter his character midway to push his redemption ?

I mostly chuck it down to JKR plot holes, and not taking into consideration the implications of various past scenes in the context of future scenes and in the reserve.

Edit:
Q: where we see Snape magical skills* at work ? especially in earlier books.
Outside of being potion master, does he has to his name inventions, our elements that let him shine above his master peers ?

 

He was nearly 40 at the time of his death.




Again: this is a grown ass man, who has had well over a decade to think about his life choices and where they took him.

He’s just a petty little bitch.

 

Or he’s a spy playing a role and simply doesn’t care who he hurts in that position.

*shrugs* didn’t say he’s not an evil character. Just saying Dumbledore is equally as bad on a fundamental level. He just has charisma/time on his side.