Thanks, it was custom designed to make me rock and, thankfully, has done its job.

He's not alone in that regard. Ugh, so much wasted potential.

 

I dunno, I think it was pretty much DH that fucked him over. Left at HBP, if it had turned out that he was genuinely on Voldemort's side, that would have been pretty awesome. Bullying Harry becomes less of an issue (he's evil, the bullying comes with the job), and being the one to fool and off Dumbledore would carry a lot of bragging power.

It was pretty much the whole Snape/Lily stuff that fucked his character.

 

I don't know, Snape's character evolution seemed pretty well done to me. JK was right on that one, in letting the character develop itself. If he hated Harry as an innocent child, that hatred would only have grown once Harry started to develop as a person, became prouder, stronger, more stubborn, more of those things which Snape hated even when they were just forming in Harry's 11-year-old mind.

Snape died like a bitch because that's exactly what he deserved. The one thing I liked about Snape is that he was responisble for his own tragedy. Whereas Harry's choices made him better, guided no less by his strength of character than by fate, Snape is someone who landed himself with the low of the low by his own choices. Even Dumbledore was able to isolate himself from his ego for a second when confronted by tragedy, and change his life for the better, do the right thing. Wizards, just like regular people, face tragedies born of their own flaws and faults, the natural consequences of their choices (which defines who they are, according to Dumbledore). When Snape was confronted by his tragedy (Lily's dismissal), he grew arrogant and obstinate. He fucked up, and didn't learn. He came back, resentful of his terrible life but still having learned nothing, feeling no true remorse, having bargained for the life of someone he "loved" at the price of those she truly loved (what an asshole). He didn't want to save Lily, he wanted to possess her. To the end, he had not really changed, doing things only out of some perceived sense duty, still concerned only with his obsession as opposed to any selfless ideal. He is a human failure.

 

Am I the only one who thinks Rickman's Snape is absolutely flat and boring? He shows virtually no emotion at all. Oh, he has the dry, condescending sarcasm down, but he doesn't show the passion and emotion that canon!Snape has.

Snape goes off his rocker on numerous occasions in canon: At the end of PoA when Sirius gets rescued, after Harry peers into his pensieve, and at the end of HBP where he utterly pwns Harry (and probably more incidences that I can't remember). Rickman just doesn't have the range to show that aspect of Snape. For him, it's just the same old dry-as-a-blackboard tone every single movie.

Oh, and the fact that he's like twice the age of canon Snape doesn't help at all. IMO, Snape's character could have been cast much better.

 

I actually agree, despite the fact that I truly enjoy Rickman in most films. I feel that this is also partly a result of the films being complete and utter shit, there's no space given for any of them to really be anything more than caricatures of their parts.

Also, I do agree with the OP in that I feel Snape to be the most complex character in canon, although several other poster's have noted the tendency to pervert Snape into something "likeable" is alive an well the in fanon, which is problematic. And yeah, I was pissed at his death. I also view him as evidence that Harry and his friends in canon are sort of pussies. In the sense that they show so little magical growth and prowess than those of the generation past. I mean, if even Pettigrew could become an animagus while in school, what the hell is wrong with Harry, who should have had more motivation than anyone else?

 

No, you're not. His portrayal of Snape is basically limited to speaking through gritted teeth in a deep voice and looking all dour.

 

To be fair, that's really all he's required to do for all but HBP. Although I can't really defend the flatness for HBP, that was poor.

 

I am an official Snape hater! I am so sick of him blaming other people about how his life turned out. I feel sorry for Alan Rickman for playing this piece of trash. Now, he'll be known as this hook-nosed bastard for the rest of his life.

It's sad, but finding Snape haters is nearly impossible nowadays. *shrugs*

-Mary

 

I'm not so sure that's the case, but whether or not you hate the character, you can't deny that he's one of the only three dimensional characters Rowling wrote into the HP canon. The list is a narrow one, this list of three dimensional characters, and it includes Snape, Dumbledore (as per some interesting stuff about his youth, at least it makes him not completely infallible) and maybe... Pettigrew? I dunno, it is hard for me to think of a third off the top of my head.

 

1. Retcons
2. Apologist Bullshit
3. Misguided Fandom

Hey, what do you know, there are three dimensions to Snape's character.

Ah, but I kid...

 

If by three-dimensional you mean that his primary characteristics were cruelty, fear, and obsession, then yes.

 

That does sound like an interesting character, you're right!

 

I dunno, Rickman does have halfway decent range, except in the one end of the spectrum which is desperately needed for Snape, and that's unbridled rage. In PoA, OotP, and HBP, I did not see an appropriate amount of fury out of Rickman (which was what killed the HBP movie for me, just saying). I know he's got the ability to do it, I just didn't see it, and that pissed me off.

But then again, I was getting the impression by the end of HBP that Rickman was pretty much phoning it in anyways, giving up on the enormous shitstain that the movie was. HBP: the Movie gave us only one damned thing: a great potential characterization for Cormac McLaggen, which vlad proved admirably.

 

No, I like him too. Mostly for his uncanny ability to make all the annoying, self-righteous fans who annoy me descend into a frothing rage so great that the elves sing songs of it.

Anyone who can annoy that many 'tards all at once just by existing is cool in my book.


On a more serious note, I like him because he's an exquisite combination of magnificent bastard and total asshat. If he was just a magnificent bastard all the time, it would get old and boring. If he were just a total asshat all the time, we'd all start to wonder why Dumbledore hasn't snapped, turned his scrawny ass into a weasel, and bounced him around the Great Hall yet.

On the one hand, he is an incredibly skilled and talented wizard, casually manipulates half the people he's in contact with on a regular-to-semiregular basis (including evil insane murderous dark wizards who don't bat an eye at death and sprinkle conversations with Unforgivables like they're party favors), is awesome enough at mental magics to lie epically to Riddle's face for years and not get caught, is the third most powerful magic user in wizarding Britain, and occasionally ends up doing heroic things in spite of himself. Usually while dropping snarky one-liners.

On the other hand, he's being a bitch over not getting to tap Lily, was a creepy emo goth kid in school who made up his own Dark spells for fun, is a confirmed traitor even if he regretted it afterwards and switched back over later, is implied to have been the one who started the whole Snape vs Marauders thing the same way Malfoy started the Malfoy vs Harry thing, and used his power as a teacher to take all of this out on an abused orphan who grew up in a cupboard.

I want to hug Snape, and then punch him in the face. While on fire. That makes him a good character in my book.

 

He's talented, no doubt about that. But where does it say that he's the third most powerful wizard in Britain?

 

Dumbledore implied it, but never actually said it. Snape was the only other person who had the power necessary to master the wand, the other two candidates being Riddle and Dumbledore himself. Since we aren't entirely sure who is truly the strongest in terms of pure power between Dumbledore and Riddle, and since it's clearly obvious that Snape is not stronger than either of them, the obvious and natural spot for him is third.

So yeah. Implied, but not outright said. And it does make a considerable amount of sense, if you recall him dueling three other teachers simultaneously who were trying to kill him while he himself was trying not to kill them, or seriously hurt them in any lasting way.

Talented is being able to beat up on Death Eaters. But schooling Sprout, Flitwick, and McGonagall three-on-one is a whole different ballgame.

 

It doesn't, but based upon his performance (keeping out Riddle's Legilimency, learning to fly) he certainly isn't a slouch. Amongst those few who were seen in combat, he ranks well.

[I like this new poster Lord Raine despite the black rose and gender-confused title. Can we keep her?]

 

Again, it's lear that he was talented. Extremely talented. But your theory is based around the "Magical power" which is a shaky notion at best. I'm a fan of Snape up to a point and I have no problem recognizing him as a very powerful wizard, but this ranking is ridiculous.

I like Lord Raine more than you already.

 

I'll give you that it's a shaky notion, yes. But he is clearly more powerful than the most powerful people we know whose names are not Albus Dumbledore and Tom Riddle. He's got to be in the Top Ten, at the very least.

Or, to put it another way, how many people besides Riddle and Dumbledore can you list who could simultaneously outduel Sprout, Flitwick, and McGonagall three-on-one? I don't know about you, but for me, that list is incredibly short. In fact, since we aren't including Albus and Tom, it's basically only got one person on it. And he's only on it because we saw him do it.

Sprout is an unknown, so she's technically just padding for the sake of the argument, but McGonagall is an incredibly powerful witch who is highly skilled at magic, and Flitwick is a Dueling Champion. He's basically the Yoda of Harry Potter. Tiny, wrinkly, kindhearted, unassuming, and more than a little odd. And he'll turn your sphincter into a duck if you piss him off.

[EDIT]

To clarify, I'm not using Dumbledore's statement as proof-positive that Snape is third. I'm using it in the context of everything else we know about Snape to place him with some degree of precision in the ranking. Everything else we know puts him firmly in the Top 10 to Top 5 in magical Britain. But that's just vague. For all we know, Aberforth is a secret badass who could school half the Hogwarts faculty while also being preoccupied with a goat. But when you add Dumbledore's comment about the wand into the equation, it clearly points to the idea that Dumbledore, Riddle, and Snape are the top three. It's just a question of who is 1, who is 2, and who is 3.

Since the general consensus is basically "too close to call" between Albus and Tom, and since Snape is clearly not stronger than either of them, the ranking falls out like so:

1.) Dumbledore/Riddle
2.) Riddle/Dumbledore
3.) Snape

 

I lol'd. Anyway, stop calling them Tom and Albus, it's annoying.

Since we don't know every wizard in magical Britain we can't assume shit. But out of the characters that we have seen, Snape is easily in the top five. The thing is though, how do we know Kingsley couldn't take Snape in a duel? Or Moody? We don't. Because the writing isn't there to back it up.