Only Anarchy.

 

I'm not too sure about this. Sure, he was a pretty bad teacher, in the fact that he knew the subject well, but he only knew how to sell it to Slytherins. His first lesson started with an appeal to superficial desires; wealth, fame, power, etc... Yet, Gryffindors don't really care for those things, and neither do Hufflepuffs. Then he goes onto signalling out certain students and embarrassing them, I believe he thought that this would motivate them to work harder to be good at the subject because he was thinking in terms of Slytherin ambition and not Gryffindor self-flagellation. If he wanted Neville to do well, he had to create an environment where Neville wanted to learn from his mistakes, not cower from them. But then, why is he expected to roll out the red carpet for some self-important Gryffindors?

As for his politics, no, I don't think they were objectively bad. We don't fully know what the demands of the Muggleborns were, but I can only imagine (likely social welfare, free stuffs for being Muggleborn, etc...) If that's the case, I can understand his intense dislike for them. But following a guy who's a natural Hitler without the opium and Parkinson's was a pretty bad move. I also dislike how he deflects and projects onto others. Harry was exactly like Snape, in so many ways, yet he called him out as if he was holier than thou.

 

Severus "Roman Reigns" Snape, eh

 

Snape's opening speech actually promises the ability to "put a stopper on death", which is about as unsuperficial an ability as I can imagine.

There is very little suggestion that Snape likes teaching students and was singling anyone out for any other reason than to bully them. He is, if nothing else, a smart man and knew full well how Neville would react.

I'm not sure which self-important Gryffindor you're talking about, Hermione?

Once you're done imagining that the muggleborns have arrived asking where the pureblood women are at, consider that his "politics" are never the focus, it's his association with people content to torture and murder for sport.

for what it's worth my view of Snape is of a miserable bastard who hasn't gotten anything he wanted since he was about 11, and takes it out on the world. Impressive in his abilities, and his determination to stick a job through that he promised in the name of someone he cared about, but pretty loathsome otherwise. A good spy, not a good guy.

 

Lol, what the hell are you talking about?

You read to much Fanfics, not everyone is a stereotype defined by one characterisitic as if no Gryffindor or Hufflepuff would care about fame, wealth or power everyone wants that.

Really hate when writers can only write stereotypes, in COS it was said that your choices define who you are not your characteristics that's why Harry was put in Gryffindor.

In canon we have Pettigrew in Gryffindor, a bunch of idiots without any cunning in Slytherin and all of the geniuses did not end up in Ravenclaw.

Besides Snape did not give a crap about actually trying to teach his students.

He has the skills but he hates children Jk even said in a interview that he despises Neville especially because he could have been the "choosen one" and Lily would have survived.

Lol muggleborns demanding social welfare, free stuff for muggleborns are you kidding me.

It's pretty obvious that in canon they were just despised because of their Muggle background and for being dirty the Death Eaters were afterall inspired by the Nazi's their is not a more nuanced reason even if it would have made for a better story.

 

Please, everyone knows eleven-year-old children who go to Slytherin have multiple hidden agendas to reach those positions of power or fame.

Seriously, they are eleven, why the hell would it only be interesting for the Slytherins? Every child dreams of being succesful.

 

I did not discuss hidden agendas once. I was merely referring to the fact that Slytherin is the more superficial house, and Snape's appeal is purely superficial; power, immortality, money, fame.

Every child dreams of being a Superhero too, so why aren't all Slytherins in Gryffindor? Because the Hat sorts both you now and you in the future in some ways. Slytherins have more deep-seated ambition, that's the whole reason the house system exists.

So because I made a slight hyperbole, you make a generalisation that is equally as outlandish? Why do eleven-year-olds care about fame, wealth, and power, unless they're raised with the Slytherin mindset of that being the only thing that matters. You also have to account for the odd variables that fly around, using Pettigrew is a pretty bad example, as the war likely changed him, unforeseeable circumstances that the Hat couldn't calculate. For all intents and purposes, Pettigrew was simply a Neville Longbottom of a different generation.

 

he says nothing about power or money, and what is superficial about immortality?

As for why a child would want glory or fame unless they were a Slytherin, is it so ridiculous for a child to want to grow up to be a glorious and powerful wizard like Godric Gryffindor?

 

Except ambition isn't necessarily about wanting material things, and there's more than just ambition to Slytherin. Ambition could mean anything from wanting to cure cancer to make society a better place. Do you think Hermione isn't ambitious with SPEW, a movement that wants to radically change a species' place in society? Shacklebolt became Minister; is he without ambition? In fact, how many Slytherins in Harry's year show any deep-seated ambition? Sorting into houses isn't a clear cut matter. People are complex, subject to unexpected change, and their house really doesn't say much about what kind of person they are.

Everyone cares about fame, wealth, and power, kids included. Look at media and you see the rich and famous. That's what society values, and it's what people naturally want to emulate whether or not they actually care enough to succeed. You don't need to think of fame/wealth/power as "the only thing that matters," to want them, and I'd be shocked if only 25% of people cared about them. Honestly, what Slytherins only care about those anyway? Snape's driving motivation is Lily, Slughorn although reluctant to teach still defends his students instead of running away to preserve himself, and Draco can't bring himself to personally kill Dumbledore even though it would win him the Dark Lord's favor. Voldemort is probably the only one who is truly all about power, and he's absolutely one of the "bad examples."

 

Snape isn't a good guy. And neither is LightLordPotter.

 

Funny, because I also stated that his method of humiliating students only appeals to a Slytherin's ambition. You're reiterating my arguments as if I didn't say that exact thing.

You know, as a kid once, this argument falls flat to even you if you recall your childhood.

Yes, she was ambitious with SPEW, but she isn't ambitiously going on a road to Immortality, Fame, or Glory. You're using several isolated pieces of evidence, but even then, Hermione shows no rationalism in her road for SPEW, and she eventually abandons that. Just as she abandoned her hunger strike. Yes, she doesn't have as much ambition as the average Slytherin, that's the whole point of the house system.

"What is superficial about wanting to outlive everybody because of your own selfish need for self-preservation?" So does this mean that Voldemort wasn't selfish in the end? Was he secretly some selfless martyr?

 

I definitely wanted to be rich as a kid, and plenty of my friends wanted to be famous. I'm not sure why you'd think those aren't extremely common ambitions for children.

 

People, even ambitious ones, react differently to humiliation. Some rise above, some break down. Ambition is not the same as strength of character or self-esteem.

I remember wanting more than I had and imagining how nice being rich is based on TV and movies. Are you honestly telling me you think kids don't look up to pro athletes, actors, presidents, or even businessmen like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs? That's just not right. There's a reason people like that get movies and documentaries made about them, people look up to them enough to pay for a look into their lives.

Unless you mean cunning, rationalism has nothing to do with Slytherin. As for abandoning her goal, Voldemort's return can change a person's priorities. My point was that ambition, whether a person is Slytherin or not, is not the same as seeking fame, glory, or immortality.

You avoided the other important point: how many Slytherins show deep-seated ambition? Slughorn and Voldemort. Slughorn though is content with connections and to let other people have the real power, fame, and wealth. Of the students, absolutely none show anything like truly driven ambition. Draco has plans, but he doesn't choose to start them. He's forced into it to save his family. That's a reaction, not the scheme of an ambitious young man seeking power. What about Pansy, Goyle, Crabbe, Millicent? None are shown as ambitious. So who's supposed to be the average Slytherin that you hold up so high?

The house system doesn't boil down to ambitious=Slytherin. The point of the houses isn't that straightforward, or else Slytherins would have been the only people of consequence in the wizarding world.

 

I'm sure they do. But you can look up to people for reasons other than the amount of money they make. What you're using is a pretty generalised opinion that might be true for some, but not all, not even the majority.

I was referring to the fact that she placed her faith in something with a sufficient lack of evidence. Wow, you read bias books? Congrats. It's like using a CNN article to 'defuse' a conservative point, what do you hope to accomplish?

Enough to make it literally the first trait of the house.

You mean other than getting a good education, willingly taking the mark, etc...?

Not fleshed out characters. They could have ambitions, but we don't see into their mind enough to know it.

Quite honestly, the only people of consequence in Magical Britain were people that were Slytherin or used Slytherin tactics to get to their position. Harry doesn't use Slytherin as an adverb for no reason, it's quite obvious what a Slytherin is, someone who uses ambition and cunning. I'm not claiming that that's their only claim to fame, I'm just saying it's their most prominent one. But this whole argument is getting off topic. Snape appealed to the Slytherin side of everyone, not the Gryffindor or Ravenclaw sides. He could have used a speech akin to the Sorting Hat's where he attempts to call every house to action.

 

Beg the question much? Can you only conceive of wanting to live for a long time in the frame of wanting to outlive others? Was Nicholas Flamel only taking the elixir to say fuck you to his puny mortal friends? Living forever lets you keep learning, and exploring. If being alive is a prerequisite to doing anything, then immortality is a pretty good set up to a whole lot of possible dreams and goals.

 

But it's a known side-effect.

Possibly. It could be mass-marketed but he didn't share it with anyone other than his wife and himself.

You obviously have some kind of warped view of the world then. There's much more to it than simply exploring and learning because all that has a cap, and once you reach that cap, you're stuck (unless like the Flammels you immortality conveniently rests on a singular object). To the wizarding world, where an Afterlife is guaranteed, how is wanting to never see it not selfish?

 

Snape says absolutely nothing about not sharing it with others, have any of those children lost loved ones to illness that the right potion might have staved off? Is medicine in general inherently a selfish thing to make?

As for learning and exploring if there is a cap, we have not reached it. There are still magical discoveries being made. Perhaps you should consider exploration in a less literal physical sense. Does the idea of living from 1AD through to the present day not interest you in the slightest? I'm also completely baffled by your belief that not wanting to go to heaven is selfish.

 

Oh, are we doing this again? I'm going to let Mr Sherlock Holmes speak for me here: "Oh, I may be on the side of the angels, but don't think for one *second* that I am one of them."

In his teenage years, he was in a difficult situation with a talent for dark magic and potions that supposedly got him attention from the wrong crowd in his house.

Later in life, he was a selfish, immature jerk 'always' unable to move on from his boyhood crush/obsession and his teenage rivalry/obsession, respectively. Perhaps he really tried to atone for his sins, but that is very much – at least in my opinion – a matter of interpretation. I will say this, though: Snape is one of the more interesting characters in the series, and I enjoy a well-written 'good' fanfic-Snape, but as canon goes, no, he is not a good guy at all, even though he is on their side.

 

"I can teach you to put a stopper in death." Either a clear lie or Voldemort's whole entire trip to immortality could have been circumvented if he was just better at potions.

No. The right potion can't bring back the Longbottoms, the right potion can't bring back the dead. Also, Rowling's only explicitly created two Wizarding illnesses, Spattergroit and Dragon Pox, all of which are a joke by the time Harry finally comes to Hogwarts.

 

Not necessarily. He could be referring to the fact that maybe a portion could save someone that was going to die: medicine, in a way. That could technically be a "stopper in death".