Snape's my favorite character, but even so, no. He's a bad guy who just happens to be on the good guys' side.

 

Not at all, and it completely baffles me that Harry named his child after Snape for such a ridiculous reason. Snape loving Harry's mother does not justify the verbal and emotional abuse he inflicted on not only him, but dozens of other children, throughout the years, never mind all the other cruelties he committed and 'mistakes' (i.e., the occlumency fiasco) he made.

To be honest, I truly don't believe that Snape "switched sides" because he realized the beliefs he held were wrong. He just couldn't stomach working for the side that killed Lily and, moreover, wanted revenge. He didn't care about anything, or anyone, else--proven by the fact that he begged only for Lily to be spared, not Harry or James. He was perfectly happy being a Death Eater until Lily became Voldemort's target. Had that not happened, I doubt he would have made the switch.

Snape was a miserable old man who cared only for himself and the girl he was obsessed with. He was a petty bully who went out of his way to tear down everyone around him, including--no, perhaps especially--children. He was a terrible human being and the fact that he happened to love Harry's mother in no way excuses that.

That being said, I like him anyway.

 

In my opinion I think that Snape was hurt and forsaken as a child at Hogwarts and under pressure by others in Slytherin house for his friendship with Lily, but I do think that his treatment of Harry along with how J.K. Rowling tried to justify his turn around of being a spy for Dumbledore very suspect and illogical. Either way Snape's actions toward Harry don't justify what he did or meant.

 

amethystrei. Wait, wait, wait, after that long ass paragraph you say you like him?

 

Haha. Well, I guess it's more of a fascination, really. He's such a complex, multifaceted character, yet at the same time he's surprisingly simple (for lack of a better word) and straightforward. I also find the fact that he knows he's a bastard and doesn't delude himself into thinking otherwise rather appealing.

I don't know how it's possible to both like and dislike a character, but I do. :/

 

amethystrei. I have to say, that does not clear my confusion up one bit. But I suppose you are right about Snape being a bastard who swears for both sides. Frankly, your last post was a wonderful non-answer for me. My apologies if I seem rude though.

CheddarTrek. I suppose your explanation is reasonable enough. Far more reasonable than what I could muster at the spot. And about John, goddamn is that true!

 

Yeah, what cheddar said. I remember struggling to describe the same phenomenon as a teen and my English teacher told me to think of it as character and characterisation. I hated Snape, as a character, for his bitterness and his cruelty. I loved reading about his interactions with the main cast because of his characterisation though, how well his character was conveyed and the way you felt it.

I always think of alan from the hangover for this one. Hilarious to watch, would hate to know him as a person.

 

His actions were, in the end, for the benefit of the good guys, so that's something.
He went about it like a right bastard tho, and there's really no excuse for it.

 

I think Snapes love for Lily does not excuses his actions at all. He would have know what the DL would do when he hear the prophecy, so he was willing to let James and Harry die. How could he have not known, since the DL killed a shit ton of people already. He is bitter and fueled by revenge.

Sort of like Cersei for GoT, the only redeeming quality he has is his love. Otherwise he is a crappy person should should have been in prison with the other death eaters.

 

I would say that definitely no. I was told once that second chances ate earned through effort and pain usually physical, emotional or spiritual. That kind of effort changes you. If Snape had truly changed, his behavior would have been better. Not only that, I wouldn't define what Snape felt towards Lily as love. That is evidenced by how he treated Harry. If he truly did love Lily, he wouldn't have treated Harry like he did in Canon. Did he save Harry life, yes. But I don't think it was out of love.[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

I compare it to this: Does Voldemorts bad deeds make up for his love of power?
Don't think so either.

 

...what?

/filler

 

......What even?

I....I- What are you trying to say?

 

Clearly Lily is the anthropomorphic representation of the concept of power. Honestly, didn't anyone pay attention in Advanced Logical Leaps 323?

 

What are Snape's bad deeds? Sure he supported the Dark Lord and he even informed him of the prophecy, but how far into his Death Eater background are we reading between the lines? Because that is where I would probably find the answer. But let's just say I find it unlikely that Snape would simply be making potions for the Death Eaters since he is so magically capable and leave it at that.

My problem with Snape is that his actions, at least his perceived 'good' ones, are the result of his sense of obligation to a woman who has been dead for over a decade before cannon even really kicks off. As a moral character, it'd be more fitting to call him an amoral. Morality itself is contained within the action itself, not the consequence of said action.

But let's just take a moment to think about his indignation over Harry being lead into the Voldemort slaughterhouse of fun, he was indignant over all the time they sank into him being seemingly for him to be sacrificed. Mourning wasted time, people. Kind of a shitty attitude to have. It's as if doing the right thing has no bearing it's just a simple felicific calculation, time by effort equals value.

The fact that Snape has been unable to move on and find other reasons to fight the Dark Lord shows a deficit in his character. It wasn't just unrequited love, she scorned him. The fact that over twenty years later he is still infatuated with a girl from his teenage years shows a lack of willingness to move on and more than a trivial amount of immaturity.

Don't get me wrong, I love Snape as a character. His dry, sardonic wit amuses me to no end. Alan Rickman's delivery, just ineffable... but I recognise he lacks moral depth. He's a different kind of unlikely hero to what we usually see in narratives. As in it'd be bloody unlikely that guy is ever a hero, yet he pulls it off in the end. I don't know if I'd call Snape complex, he is definitely conflicted and keeps his cards close the chest, but not so complex. His love of Lily seems to trump any other motivation I can think of.

TL;DR Well if that's the case, I don't feel like telling you... lazy bastards

 

I think that you would be a pretty miserable old man if you were bullied by one James Potter for your entire schooling. I mean considering what James Potter did to Severus, you would think that he would turn out a pretty miserable man.

On that note, it does not justify why Snape would mistreat Harry like that. I mean, sure, Harry is the son of James Potter. BUT, James Potter died when Harry was like one. Also add to the fact that Harry was raised by his relatives made sure that he wouldn't turn out to be his father. Okay, getting off topic now.

Also, the good deeds that Snape has done, like spying for Dumbledore and whatnot. Does not make up for his bad ones, considering that while spying for Dumbledore, he still despised Harry.
So no, Severus Snape's good deeds do not make up for his bad ones.

 

I'm not quite sure of the validity of it, but according to Lupin, Snape gave as good as he got. In that case, I wouldn't call it bullying per se, but rather a rivalry? I'm pretty sure there's a word for it but bullying implies that only one side as the aggressor.

 

Snape invented sectumsempra, I think that says all there is to say. Magic is the truly a great equaliser, and Snape was talented. It'd be ridiculous to think that Snape never retaliated, but at the same time I reckon that James would've been quite belligerent and unrelenting in his efforts against Snape.