Re: Had Snape been truly cunning, wouldn't he have been more polite?

ruchadalvi@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
One thing that really makes me wonder is Snape's behaviour towards
Harry. Whether he is good or not, his nastiness is certainly getting
him nowhere. If Snape is really so cunning, why does he go out of
the way to be so mean to Harry? Surely, wouldn't it be in his better
interests to be extremely sweet and friendly to everyone, even if he
doesn't want to?He would certainly benefit from everyone's trust and
people would think twice before suspecting him.

It seems to me that Snape really prefers to be the badass that nobody
dares to mess with--and who doesn't have to be nice to anybody.

The very fact that he chooses to be mean even though it is against
his better interests and his
better judgement shows that, contrary to Harry's perception, Snape is
a very emotional man and
one who lets his heart rule his head. . . .

He certainly does seem to do so in some ways. But nobody really has
any other option; one can only begin to apply reason in response to a
motivation that comes before reason. Before you consider what means to
use in order to get what you want, you must first want something. Even
if it's something as basic as your next drink of water. If you don't
want anything, not even to go on living, then it is hard to see the
sense in doing anything to get what you want.

So the question is not whether he has overriding desires that precede
reason, but how he prioritizes them. And it seems to me that being
able to show that he has power over others is a high priority for him.

OTOH, while it's hard to tell without knowing what game he's really
playing, and on which side, it seems that he might be letting his
black little heart rule his head to an extent that is rather foolish.
He wouldn't admit this, of course. But then, he also took Harry to
task for referring Legilimency as "reading minds", even though that is
literally what "legilimency" means.

2) Another thing: Dumbledore said that when he destroyed the ring
horcrux, he would certainly
have died had it not been for Snape's help. If Snape was evil, why
didn't he kill him at that
time, when Dumbledore was considerably weakened?
He need not have done much, all he had to do was to take a longer
time than necessary to brew
the potion so as to let the curse have time to take its effect.
Pretend to be out of ingredients,
or not remembering the potion exactly . . .

What potion? I don't remember anything about him using a potion to
counteract the curse of the ring. Did you assume that he used a potion
because that is the subject that he had been teaching?

.. . .
Now while the selfish Snape aiming for world domination wouldn't
make a bad story, I feel that
a noble and good Snape who ultimately sacrifices himself to help Harry
defeat Voldemort would be
far better. At least, I am hoping that happens.
It would be far more romantic for one thing, and would help end the
series on a bitter sweet
and feel good note. And considering the fact that these are basically
childrens' books and also
considering how dark they are getting, having the last book show
redemption and the basic
goodness of human nature would be welcome indeed.
But come to think of it, when JKR has already told the apparently
evil man turns out to be good
story with Sirius Black, I doubt she will repeat it. :)

But in the case of Sirius Black, the story was that someone had been
falsely accused based on insufficient information, and then denied the
right to defend himself in a trial. Snape's story might be of a person
whose misdeeds are correctly known, but who is misjudged because his
purposes were misunderstood.

Alex Clark

Room maid lover, Ltd. (an anagram rejected by Tom Riddle)