History Headscratchers / HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsSeverusSnapeGoodOrBad

11th Dec '16 11:28:51 AM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** I never said Snape needed to be ''good''. He just needs a good reason for being bad. Which he doesn't have. [[CodeGeass Lelouch]] toys with free will and sacrifices human lives like pawns, and he's clearly doing evil- but he's doing it in order to topple another evil empire. He's a cold, manipulative jerkass because he sees everyone and everything as a potential resource in his fight against the empire. Snape, however, is a jerkass because he's a playground bully in an adult's body. Also, if you're going to dispute "Snape fought against Voldemort because of Lily" then you're going to have to take it up with [[{{Canon}} J. K. Rowling]]. It's almost stated explicitly in "The Prince's Tale" chapter of DH, i think. Dumbledore keeps reminding him "Do it for Lily!" whenever the going gets tough.

to:

** I never said Snape needed to be ''good''. He just needs a good reason for being bad. Which he doesn't have. [[CodeGeass [[Franchise/CodeGeass Lelouch]] toys with free will and sacrifices human lives like pawns, and he's clearly doing evil- but he's doing it in order to topple another evil empire. He's a cold, manipulative jerkass because he sees everyone and everything as a potential resource in his fight against the empire. Snape, however, is a jerkass because he's a playground bully in an adult's body. Also, if you're going to dispute "Snape fought against Voldemort because of Lily" then you're going to have to take it up with [[{{Canon}} J. K. Rowling]]. It's almost stated explicitly in "The Prince's Tale" chapter of DH, i think. Dumbledore keeps reminding him "Do it for Lily!" whenever the going gets tough.
16th Oct '16 11:27:39 AM GranChi
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* Here's a thought. What if Voldemort had decided to go after Neville? Snape would have been ''perfectly'' fine with that. While I will admit Snape did good things and was ultimately on Dumbledore's side, he's still an evil bastard. He was inexcusably rude to his students. As a teacher, his role is to teach the students how to do what they need to do, and to help them when they are struggling. A teacher's role is ''not'' to write instructions on the board, then sit back while everyone does it while occasionally assigning them homework. And it is '''NOT''' MAKING FUN OF STUDENTS WHEN THEY DO SOMETHING WRONG. I have teachers that have done both of these things and it is completely inexcusable. Neville was scarred for life by Snape. Snape was a man who joined the Death Eater regime solely on his own. He wasn't someone like Wormtail who joined Voldemort because he was scared of what would happen if he didn't. He was a person who fully and truly believed in the pure blood supremacy [[{{Fanon}} (and still does, seeing as he calls STUDENTS the Wizarding equivalent of the N-Word)]]. And he only left that particular group because they killed the only person he truly loved. This is one of my big problems with the book. It seems to be based on the theory that the only thing different between good and bad is capability to love. While I will admit that someone incapable of loving would generally be considered evil, almost every human on this planet has loved someone; it's a natural part of life. Severus Snape is not a Hero, Anti Hero, Villain, or Anti Villain. He's just an evil asshole who happened to be on Dumbledore's side.

to:

* Here's a thought. What if Voldemort had decided to go after Neville? Snape would have been ''perfectly'' fine with that. While I will admit Snape did good things and was ultimately on Dumbledore's side, he's still an evil bastard. He was inexcusably rude to his students. As a teacher, his role is to teach the students how to do what they need to do, and to help them when they are struggling. A teacher's role is ''not'' to write instructions on the board, then sit back while everyone does it while occasionally assigning them homework. And it is '''NOT''' MAKING FUN OF STUDENTS WHEN THEY DO SOMETHING WRONG. I have teachers that have done both of these things and it is completely inexcusable. Neville was scarred for life by Snape. Snape was a man who joined the Death Eater regime solely on his own. He wasn't someone like Wormtail who joined Voldemort because he was scared of what would happen if he didn't. He was a person who fully and truly believed in the pure blood supremacy [[{{Fanon}} (and still does, seeing as he calls STUDENTS the Wizarding equivalent of the N-Word)]].supremacy. And he only left that particular group because they killed the only person he truly loved. This is one of my big problems with the book. It seems to be based on the theory that the only thing different between good and bad is capability to love. While I will admit that someone incapable of loving would generally be considered evil, almost every human on this planet has loved someone; it's a natural part of life. Severus Snape is not a Hero, Anti Hero, Villain, or Anti Villain. He's just an evil asshole who happened to be on Dumbledore's side.
2nd Oct '16 7:54:16 AM inspibrain101
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** B. Harry, being a somewhat unreliable narrator, (this time, I actually mean the definition on our [[UnreliableNarrtor Unreliable Narrator]] page,) exaggerated when he said that everyone passed their OWLs. You really expect me to believe that ''no one'' got test day jitters and fumbled with the moonstone dust or the unicorn hairs at the last minute, and accidentally botched their potion? Not one? Not even a Hufflepuff? Not even Neville?

to:

** B. Harry, being a somewhat unreliable narrator, (this time, I actually mean the definition on our [[UnreliableNarrtor [[UnreliableNarrator Unreliable Narrator]] page,) exaggerated when he said that everyone passed their OWLs. You really expect me to believe that ''no one'' got test day jitters and fumbled with the moonstone dust or the unicorn hairs at the last minute, and accidentally botched their potion? Not one? Not even a Hufflepuff? Not even Neville?
2nd Oct '16 7:51:16 AM inspibrain101
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* I believe itís mentioned that every student in Harryís year at Hogwarts managed to do well on their OWLs for Potions- even Neville, who is so scared of Snape he was unable to brew a single decent potion ''ever'', in SEVEN YEARS. Now, some may argue that the reason Neville, at least, did so well is because Snape was not in the room when they were taking the test, thus Snape is a horrible, abusive teacher. Iím not going to argue that Snape is the greatest potion brewer to grace the dungeons of Hogwarts or anything, but I just canít buy that heís a HORRIBLE teacher. Hereís my reasoning: Itís one thing to do well on, say, an oral examination as opposed to a written test, or essay questions as opposed to multiple choice, or you might learn better with different teachers or teaching styles or whatever. What you canít attribute to teaching style, however, is the knowledge itself. I canít buy that just because the greasy haired git isnít scaring the socks of Neville anymore, he is magically (pardon my pun) gifted the ability to brew a potion for his OWLs. Potion brewing requires practice. And what about all the other kids who passed the OWLs? It was implied that Harry and his friends really had to cram for their potions exam because Snape didnít teach them anything. Again, I donít buy this. EVERY SINGLE KID, just by cramming the week before, managed to pass, even though the teacher didnít teach them anything? No, doesnít cut it. But then again, we never really see Snape actually teaching the kids anything particularly useful- just, ďInstructions on the board, go! Meh, you suck, Harry and Neville. Ten points from Gryffindor. Ten points to Slytherin.Ē I have a few hypotheses to explain this:
** A. Harry, being a somewhat unreliable narrator, only bothers to note the times that Snape is acting like a slimy git, when all the while, Snape is actually teaching them things in his roundabout, slimy git way. I have had teachers for advanced classes with unusual teaching styles, where it doesnít seem like the class learns anything, yet by the time exam day rolls around, weíre surprised to find that we know all the material.
** B. Harry, being a somewhat unreliable narrator, exaggerated when he said that everyone passed their OWLs. You really expect me to believe that no one got test day jitters and fumbled with the moonstone dust or the unicorn hairs at the last minute, and accidentally botched their potion? Not one? Not even a Hufflepuff? Not even Neville?

to:

* I believe itís mentioned that every student in Harryís year at Hogwarts managed to do well on their OWLs for Potions- even Neville, who is so scared of Snape he was unable to brew a single decent potion ''ever'', in SEVEN YEARS. Now, some may argue many on this page are arguing that the reason Neville, at least, did so well is because Snape was not in the room when they were taking the test, thus Snape is a horrible, abusive teacher. Iím not going to argue that Snape is the greatest potion brewer to grace the dungeons of Hogwarts or anything, but I just canít buy that heís a HORRIBLE teacher. Hereís my reasoning: Itís one thing to do well on, say, an oral examination as opposed to a written test, or essay questions as opposed to multiple choice, or you might learn better with different teachers or teaching styles or whatever. What you canít attribute to teaching style, however, is the knowledge itself. I canít buy that just because the greasy haired git isnít scaring the socks of Neville anymore, he is magically (pardon my pun) gifted the ability to brew a potion for his OWLs. Potion brewing requires practice. And what about all the other kids who passed the OWLs? It was implied that Harry and his friends really had to cram for their potions exam because Snape didnít teach them anything. Again, I donít buy this. EVERY SINGLE KID, just by cramming the week before, managed to pass, pass a major standardized test, even though the teacher didnít teach them anything? No, doesnít cut it.Barely Sensible. But then again, we never really see Snape actually teaching the kids anything particularly useful- just, ďInstructions on the board, go! Meh, you suck, Harry and Neville. Ten points from Gryffindor. Ten points to Slytherin.Ē (By the way, Lupin's a werewolf.)Ē (Seriously, what ''are'' the characteristics of a werewolf in human form? That would have been darn useful.) I have a few hypotheses to explain this:
these seemingly irreconcilable facts:
** A. Harry, being a somewhat unreliable narrator, only bothers to note the times that Snape is acting like a slimy git, when all the while, Snape is actually teaching them things in his roundabout, slimy git way. I have had teachers for advanced classes with unusual teaching styles, where it doesnít seem like the class learns anything, yet by the time exam day rolls around, weíre surprised to find that we know all the material. Mr. Miyagi style, only we can all agree that Snape is nowhere near as nice as Mr. Miyagi.
***Just to be clear, when I say "unreliable narrator," I don't refer to the literal definition on our [[UnreliableNarrator Unreliable Narrator]] page; I'm not saying that Harry is lying. What I mean is that he's not omniscient, and two people can remember the same series of events very differently. For example, obviously we get a lot of play-by-plays from Harry's Quidditch games, because Harry loves Quidditch, but we don't get a lot about History of Magic with Professor Binns. (That being said, the events told from Hermione's perspective must have been a ''very'' boring book.)
** B. Harry, being a somewhat unreliable narrator, (this time, I actually mean the definition on our [[UnreliableNarrtor Unreliable Narrator]] page,) exaggerated when he said that everyone passed their OWLs. You really expect me to believe that no one ''no one'' got test day jitters and fumbled with the moonstone dust or the unicorn hairs at the last minute, and accidentally botched their potion? Not one? Not even a Hufflepuff? Not even Neville?
2nd Oct '16 4:46:21 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** I disagree with the Dursleyís part, sadly in real life you need much more for social services to intervene.
2nd Oct '16 4:42:45 AM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

** This troper is a psychologist and finds this very interesting. In real life, no one is absolutely good, but psychopaths do exist and can be considered ďpure evilĒ to some degree, so in some regard Rowling [and GRR Martin] does portray that successfully; good vs evil could not be of absolutes and though ďabsolute evilĒ does exist absolute good doesnít.
8th Jul '16 10:15:24 PM inspibrain101
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* I believe itís mentioned that every student in Harryís year at Hogwarts managed to do well on their OWLs for Potions- even Neville, who is so scared of Snape he was unable to brew a single decent potion (that we know of). Now, some may argue that the reason Neville, at least, did so well is because Snape was not in the room when they were taking the test, thus Snape is a bad teacher. Iím not going to argue that Snape is the greatest potion brewer to grace the dungeons of Hogwarts or anything, but I just canít buy that heís a HORRIBLE teacher. Hereís my reasoning: Itís one thing to do well on, say, an oral examination as opposed to a written test, or essay questions as opposed to multiple choice, or you might learn better with different teachers or teaching styles or whatever. What you canít attribute to teaching style, however, is the knowledge itself. I canít buy that just because the greasy haired git isnít scaring the socks of Neville anymore, he is magically (pardon my pun) gifted the ability to brew a potion for his OWLs. Potion brewing requires practice. And what about all the other kids who passed the OWLs? It was implied that Harry and his friends really had to cram for their potions exam because Snape didnít teach them anything. Again, I donít buy this. EVERY SINGLE KID cramming the week before managed to pass, even though the teacher didnít teach them anything? No, doesnít cut it. But then again, we never really see Snape actually teaching the kids anything particularly useful- just, ďInstructions on the board, go! Meh, you suck, Harry and Neville. Ten points from Gryffindor. Ten points to Slytherin.Ē I have a few hypotheses to explain this:
A. Harry, being a somewhat unreliable narrator, only bothers to note the times that Snape is acting like a slimy git, when all the while, Snape is actually teaching them things in his roundabout, slimy git way. I have had teachers for AP classes with unusual teaching styles, where it doesnít seem like the class learns anything, yet by the time AP day rolls around, weíre surprised to find that we know all the material.
B. Harry, being a somewhat unreliable narrator, exaggerated when he said that everyone passed their OWLs. You really expect me to believe that no one got test day jitters and fumbled with the moonstone dust or the unicorn hairs at the last minute, and accidentally botched their potion? Not one? Not even a Hufflepuff? Not even Neville?
C. Honestly, it would be a lot simpler if JK just didnít include this offhanded sentence- but then again, thatís why itís a headscratcher. The whole thing seems at the very least ironic, if not completely incongruous with what we know about Harryís potions experience and Snapeís teaching methods.

to:

* I believe itís mentioned that every student in Harryís year at Hogwarts managed to do well on their OWLs for Potions- even Neville, who is so scared of Snape he was unable to brew a single decent potion (that we know of). ''ever'', in SEVEN YEARS. Now, some may argue that the reason Neville, at least, did so well is because Snape was not in the room when they were taking the test, thus Snape is a bad horrible, abusive teacher. Iím not going to argue that Snape is the greatest potion brewer to grace the dungeons of Hogwarts or anything, but I just canít buy that heís a HORRIBLE teacher. Hereís my reasoning: Itís one thing to do well on, say, an oral examination as opposed to a written test, or essay questions as opposed to multiple choice, or you might learn better with different teachers or teaching styles or whatever. What you canít attribute to teaching style, however, is the knowledge itself. I canít buy that just because the greasy haired git isnít scaring the socks of Neville anymore, he is magically (pardon my pun) gifted the ability to brew a potion for his OWLs. Potion brewing requires practice. And what about all the other kids who passed the OWLs? It was implied that Harry and his friends really had to cram for their potions exam because Snape didnít teach them anything. Again, I donít buy this. EVERY SINGLE KID KID, just by cramming the week before before, managed to pass, even though the teacher didnít teach them anything? No, doesnít cut it. But then again, we never really see Snape actually teaching the kids anything particularly useful- just, ďInstructions on the board, go! Meh, you suck, Harry and Neville. Ten points from Gryffindor. Ten points to Slytherin.Ē I have a few hypotheses to explain this:
** A. Harry, being a somewhat unreliable narrator, only bothers to note the times that Snape is acting like a slimy git, when all the while, Snape is actually teaching them things in his roundabout, slimy git way. I have had teachers for AP advanced classes with unusual teaching styles, where it doesnít seem like the class learns anything, yet by the time AP exam day rolls around, weíre surprised to find that we know all the material.
** B. Harry, being a somewhat unreliable narrator, exaggerated when he said that everyone passed their OWLs. You really expect me to believe that no one got test day jitters and fumbled with the moonstone dust or the unicorn hairs at the last minute, and accidentally botched their potion? Not one? Not even a Hufflepuff? Not even Neville?
** C. Honestly, it would be a lot simpler if JK just didnít include this offhanded sentence- but then again, thatís why itís a headscratcher. The whole thing seems at the very least ironic, if not completely incongruous with what we know about Harryís potions experience and Snapeís teaching methods.
8th Jul '16 10:04:30 PM inspibrain101
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

*** Heartwarming moments with Professor Snape! ... Yeah, that's pretty much it.
7th Jul '16 5:40:05 AM CrypticMirror
Is there an issue? Send a Message


[[folder: A well-written character?]]
* I'm not about to argue that Snape isn't a good guy. Even if he's not particularly nice, he still went to great lengths to protect Harry from Voldemort when he could've just as easily left him, all out of love for Lily, and what remained of her in Harry, not to mention he seems to have taught everyone at least ''something'' during his years as Potions master. But everywhere I look, he's always labeled as the best character or the most well-written character...and I'm left wondering how this can be true. Despite his ulterior motives, Snape throughout the entire series was written as being shady, grouchy, suspicious, rude, and even sadistic at times. Every other aspect of his character is either shown to us in a grand total of two different flashbacks or exposited piece by piece by another character, and it isn't until that one chapter near the end before Harry finally considers him to have been anything more than a sadistic teacher at best and a backstabbing Death Eater-in-disguise at worst. How is that supposed to be looked at as well-written?
[[/folder]]

to:

[[folder: A well-written character?]]
* I'm not about to argue that Snape isn't a good guy. Even if he's not particularly nice, he still went to great lengths to protect Harry from Voldemort when he could've just as easily left him, all out of love for Lily, and what remained of her in Harry, not to mention he seems to have taught everyone at least ''something'' during his years as Potions master. But everywhere I look, he's always labeled as the best character or the most well-written character...and I'm left wondering how this can be true. Despite his ulterior motives, Snape throughout the entire series was written as being shady, grouchy, suspicious, rude, and even sadistic at times. Every other aspect of his character is either shown to us in a grand total of two different flashbacks or exposited piece by piece by another character, and it isn't until that one chapter near the end before Harry finally considers him to have been anything more than a sadistic teacher at best and a backstabbing Death Eater-in-disguise at worst. How is that supposed to be looked at as well-written?
[[/folder]]
6th Jul '16 4:30:53 PM QuarrelsomeChevon
Is there an issue? Send a Message


* I'm not about to argue that Snape isn't a good guy. Even if he's not particularly nice, he still went to great lengths to protect Harry from Voldemort when he could've just as easily left him, all out of love for Lily, and what remained of her in Harry, not to mention he seems to have taught everyone at least ''something'' during his years as Potions master. But everywhere I look, he's always labeled as the best character or the most well-written character...and I'm left wondering how this can be true. Despite his ulterior motives, Snape throughout the entire series was written as being shady, grouchy, suspicious, rude, and even sadistic at times. Every other aspect of his character is either shown to us in a flashback or exposited by another character, and it isn't until that one chapter near the end before Harry finally considers him to have been anything more than a sadistic teacher at best and a backstabbing Death Eater-in-disguise at worst. How is that supposed to be looked at as well-written?

to:

* I'm not about to argue that Snape isn't a good guy. Even if he's not particularly nice, he still went to great lengths to protect Harry from Voldemort when he could've just as easily left him, all out of love for Lily, and what remained of her in Harry, not to mention he seems to have taught everyone at least ''something'' during his years as Potions master. But everywhere I look, he's always labeled as the best character or the most well-written character...and I'm left wondering how this can be true. Despite his ulterior motives, Snape throughout the entire series was written as being shady, grouchy, suspicious, rude, and even sadistic at times. Every other aspect of his character is either shown to us in a flashback grand total of two different flashbacks or exposited piece by piece by another character, and it isn't until that one chapter near the end before Harry finally considers him to have been anything more than a sadistic teacher at best and a backstabbing Death Eater-in-disguise at worst. How is that supposed to be looked at as well-written?
This list shows the last 10 events of 158. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.HarryPotterAndTheDeathlyHallowsSeverusSnapeGoodOrBad