The Detestable Professor Snape

I am currently re-reading the Harry Potter series.  It truly is a very engaging and immersive tale, and I definitely recommend it to anyone who hasn't yet read through it.  J.K. Rowling is clearly a first-time author, but she is still leaps and bounds ahead of a certain other best-selling young-adult author, who-shall-not-be-named-here-but-you-all-know-who-she-is. 

True, she does succumb to some of the same sloppy mistakes to which writers often fall prey, especially the overuse of -ly adverbs to describe the content of someone's dialogue rather than their manner of speaking.  Still, she weaves such an amazing story that draws us in so much that we excuse those gaffes because they are really secondary and not quite as distracting as it would be if the story weren't quite as engrossing and packed with dramatic tension (*ahemtwilightahem*).  

But, there are two major areas where I think she might have miscalculated how the reader would react to her characterizations of certain people.  

One of these is Severus Snape.  

From here on out, there shall be spoilers, so please do not continue if you have yet to read the full Harry Potter series, as I would be loathe to spoil the wonderful surprises inside!











Okay, shall we continue?

Severus Snape is one of the main characters in the series.  His arc is a vital part of the conclusion of the entire story, and unlike the Marauders, the Order of the Phoenix, and even Voldemort, he features prominently in every book.  

He is also a disgusting and vile man who most certainly should not be a teacher, and even more certainly should not be allowed in a position of authority over young children.

He is obviously intended to play the role of the Anti-Hero, a dark foil to Harry's heroic and often courageous deeds.  He is intended to be a bitter, spiteful man who still harbors enough good in him for the final sacrifice, to do right in the name of an unobtainable love.  The reader should think of him as an inherently good man, although one given to darker deeds and a less then pristine personality.

However, this is not what we get.

And to note, this is about book Snape, not movie Snape.  Movie Snape is light years different from his book counterpart, closer to the original intention, I believe.

Professor Severus Snape, as the title indicates, is a teacher, not of college-aged adults, but of children aged 11 to 18.  At 11 years old, these children are entering their first real magical education.  Like any group of 5th and 6th graders, the children come in with a variety of attitudes, parenting, educational backgrounds, etc.  Regardless of the child's race, gender, ethnicity, background, or scholarship, a teacher's duty is to:

• teach every child the subject material in a way that they can understand and retain,
• meet every child at their skill level and help them make the most of their potential, 
• guide each child to become better people and take their place in society by modeling respectful social interactions and correcting errant behavior where needed.

Snape does none of these things.  In fact, he directly and constantly contradicts each point.   Furthermore, there are three main skills and traits a teacher should possess, and of which they must possess at least one to be even marginally effective:

• Patience - Since most students do not possess the skills of an expert (hence why they are being 'taught'), they will usually not be able to accomplish mastery until the very end of their education.  Hence, patience with their foibles and fumbles is necessary.
• Pedagogical skill - In other words, the ability to transfer knowledge to your students in an effective and retentive way is one of the chief hallmarks of a good teacher.
• Fondness for children - Teachers of primary education (K-12 or 1-12 in most westernized countries) should be prepared and indeed enjoy working with younger learners, all but a small handful of whom are not fully-matured adults.  This also means knowing how to teach and act around children in a positive and encouraging manner.

So... 

Why is Snape a teacher at Hogwarts?  Or anywhere?  Teaching is most certainly not his calling, he seems to despise children, and even worse, he is an anti-teacher.  He is not only incompetent at his job, he is actively harming his students and disrupting their learning.  His students actually often fare better learning the material on their own, with no supervision at all than with Snape in charge!

"Professor" Snape fails to teach his students even the basic subject material (how many of his students actually succeed in learning the potion craft in his class, as opposed to either knowing it ahead of time or seeking instruction outside of class?), and he actively discourages and belittles children who would otherwise show great potential with a little guidance.  He bullies and humiliates children in front of their peers, he shows blatant favoritism, he encourages students to bully others emotionally and physically, and he openly encourages bullies to brutally assault other defenseless children.

Hogwarts is the premier magic boarding school in the United Kingdom and is overseen by both a Headmaster and a Board of Education who would be responsible for ensuring the excellence of the teaching staff.  There is no excuse for Snape's continued employment.  And yes, Dumbledore could have kept Snape close at hand in myriad different ways other than placing him in a job that he is not only unsuited for, but where he is actively destroying children's futures.  So, the double agent plot point discovered in Book 7 could have been resolved in a way which would have kept so many students out of Snape's harmful reach.

J.K. Rowling unfortunately went way overboard in vilifying Snape, too far to make him an Anti-Hero.  In order to work, an Anti-Hero's backstory must illicit sympathy from the reader and eventual understanding of his/her current actions.  Snape's characterization is too petty and vile for this to work effectively, and thus the epilogue comes off as forced and hammy when Harry names his own son after Snape.


In-Book Evidence

There are many scenes in the books which bring to light Rowling's flawed characterization of Snape, and then immediately raise questions of the logic, immersion, and reality of a world where a teacher like Snape can not only keep his job, but stay out of Azkaban for reckless endangerment and assault on young children.  Here are just a few of the times in the books which show that Snape should not only be allowed nowhere near kids, but is also just a failure of a human being in general:

Philosopher's (Sorcerer's) Stone

• Before we even meet Snape in person, we are told that he constantly shows favoritism (very much a major no-no for teachers) to students of his own house: Slytherin (a group which was unfortunately the victim of Rowling's other major flawed characterization, but I'll get to that in another article).  He would ignore rule-breaking from some students, and issue inordinate punishment for minor transgressions to others.  This shows that his unprofessional immaturity and spiteful behavior was established well before Harry arrived.  So, even without the living reminder of his "childhood trauma" around (in quotes because as we later find out, the "trauma" was largely self-imposed, and almost entirely a fabrication of his own delusions), Snape was still a failure of a teacher.
• In their first face-to-face meeting, in the very first Potions class, Snape's first words to Harry are accusatory, spiteful, and confrontational: "Ah yes, Harry Potter.  Our new - celebrity."  What kind of teacher (or human being) accosts a new student, an 11-year-old boy nonetheless, with this kind of hateful introduction?
• He then proceeds to bully and intimidate an 11-year-old boy in his first year in the magical world, while fully knowing that student has next to no experience with wizards or wizarding society.  He humiliates him in front of the class, a major no-no for anyone who has taken even an introduction course for a teaching license (which Rowling has, strangely enough).
• Snape continuously humiliates and torments 11-year-old Neville Longbottom, although Neville has no relation to Harry or Harry's father, nor any real relation to Snape in any way.  Thus Neville loses any confidence he might have had and proceeds to give up on potions although he might have otherwise shown some skill had he been taught by a real teacher and not a pitiful, narcissistic man-child.  In fact, whenever Snape is absent during Potions class, Neville shows a fair bit of aptitude for the craft, just by not having his teacher around!  Oops!  Maybe Snape shouldn't have been cast as a teacher!
• Snape torments and humiliates Hermione constantly, despite her being very studious and willing to learn new things (which is a teacher's main goal is it not?).  

Chamber of Secrets

• When Ron and Harry are caught driving the Ford Anglia to Hogwarts, Snape is in full support of Harry's expulsion, knowing full well (as we find out in Book 7) that Harry's only protection relies on him staying under Dumbledore's watchful eye.  But since when does Severus Snape care about a young boy's life, after all the lives he's already ruined?
• When the basilisk first starts to take its victims, Snape immediately (and quite publicly) accuses Harry Potter of being a murderer, despite having no evidence other than his own irrational hatred for a 12-year-old boy he doesn't even really know.
• During the Dueling Club, Snape instructs and encourages Draco Malfoy how to launch a poisonous snake during what should have been an instructional demonstration.  Basically, he used the guise of a lesson to release a highly venomous, lethal animal into a confined area packed with young children, aged 11 to 18.  It's almost like he was trying his hardest to kill Harry.  Because that's what easily could have happened had Harry not spoken Parseltongue. And if not Harry, that lethal snake would have surely attacked and likely killed another student.  What kind of teacher actively seeks to put a whole school-full of young children in deadly jeopardy, and then keeps his job?

Prisoner of Azkaban

• Snape uses the Invisibility Cloak to follow Lupin to the Shrieking Shack.  This, in and of itself, is relatively admirable, given he appears to be trying to save the lives of three of his students.  However, we soon learn that his real intention is to settle a 20-year-old schoolboy grudge against Sirius Black.  Snape enters the room well before the truth comes out, and he witnesses a vast amount of evidence pointing to Sirius's innocence.  He then is directed toward a simple and easily-performed test which could prove it (expose Scabbers as Peter Pettigrew), as well as possibly deny Voldemort his servant and inevitable return.  Once more, Snape chooses the path of insane sociopathy, refusing to listen to reason or any words that might shatter his fragile, arrogant delusions.  Thus, he almost sentences an innocent man to a fate worse than death, as well as hastening the return of one of the most evil mass-murderer monsters who had ever existed.
• After everything had passed, Snape petulantly exposes the secret of Remus Lupin's werewolf affliction, despite it having no bearing on anything.  He does this purely out of spite, not because he actually believes Lupin to be a danger.  What kind of toddler-esque tantrum can this supposed "adult" (I use that term loosely) throw that can be any more blatant than this?

Goblet of Fire

• When Goyle is hit with Harry's rebounded curse, Snape shows sympathy and directs him to the hospital wing.  When he sees that Hermione was hit with Draco's rebounded curse, he instead humiliates her in front of the entire hallway.  He does this, knowing that Hermione had just been assaulted by another student.  
• Harry appropriately receives detention for his attack on Malfoy and subsequent assault on Goyle.  Malfoy, however, gets away without punishment and is now emboldened by his success to become an even worse sociopathic bully than before.  Snape certainly is teaching something, at least!
• In Malfoy's stead, Ronald receives detention for absolutely no reason, thus showing all the students that there is no clear link between action and consequence, something all teachers learn is very important when it comes to teaching children "right from wrong."
• When Harry is in a panic after meeting a muddled Barty Crouch on the grounds, Snape instead uses this emergency, life-or-death situation to further intimidate and bully Harry, rather than respond immediately as any sane human being, especially an authority figure, would have done.  This delay could have easily made the difference in the murder of Barty Crouch by his son.  If Snape had immediately taken action, Barty Crouch Sr. might have been saved and been able to divulge the information about his son, which would have prevented Voldemort's subsequent rise to power.
• Snape accuses Harry of stealing from his office, again despite having no reason to believe Harry would do so other than his own irrational, twisted hatred.  He then proceeds to try and bully Harry by insinuating he would perform illegal physical and mental assault on Harry with a highly restricted dose of Veratiserum.  This is akin to brandishing a gun and threatening to shoot their kneecaps if they don't "talk."  In our normal world, this would be considered intimidation and extortion on the level of the mafia, not something we would tolerate junior high teachers doing to our 14-year-old children.

Order of the Phoenix

• Harry learns about Snape's childhood trauma through his trip into the penseive.  However, this does little to explain his current psychosis, and instead causes a lot of problems with his characterization:
• Ultimately, Snape was bullied as a child, okay.  So were many people.  So was I.  Do I take my childhood trauma out on my 5th grade students by emotionally scarring them?  No, of course not, because I'm not a monster.
• Snape was bullied as a child by children.  Now, in turn, a large percentage of his students are being bullied as children by an adult, and a teacher at that, one against who they are completely powerless to fight back.  Wow, that's true Snape justice for you.
• He was bullied by Harry's father, okay.  That sucks for sure.  But, how can anyone in modern, first-world society sympathize with a character who believes that a child should be held accountable for the crimes of his father, especially when that child was a 1-year-old infant when both of his parents were murdered.
• And sure, his hatred of Sirius Black is quite justified. But, isn't sentencing that man to die-- no wait, the Dementor's Kiss is stated to be even worse than death-- for a crime you know he didn't commit a tad contemptible and even villainous?  Snape was quite ready to do so in Book 3.
• And where does all the hatred of Lupin come from?  Lupin never bullied Snape.  His only relation to Snape's hard childhood was one of association.  Does that constitute a crime now, in Snape's twisted lawbook?
• And as it all turns out, Snape's line to Harry about how James only saved his life after performing a "practical joke that would have ended in [his] death and [James's] expulsion from Hogwarts" is a blatant, ugly lie.  In fact, it was Sirius who set up Snape to have a look at Lupin in werewolf form, and then only after Snape was snooping around, spying into other people's private lives, which is pretty detestable in and of itself.  In the end, James really did save Snape, after learning of Sirius's actions, and at no point did James really set up Snape to be in any danger.  So, Snape is a dirty liar on top of everything else.
• Now let's actually deconstruct the pensieve scene, where Harry supposedly learns that his father was an insufferable prat.  This scene is clearly intended by Rowling to make an excuse for Snape's present day sociopathy and (by Harry's reaction) get the reader to sympathize with him.  It does not.  It fails in every way, and here's why.  Let's start at the top:
• Snape purposely follows the Marauders after the OWL test.  He has supposedly been bullied by them before.  Why on earth would he hang near them?  Probably to catch some personal secrets that he could use to humiliate them (hey, he learned early!), unless it was to catch one of them alone and jinx them behind their back, which I wouldn't put past Snape either.
• Then, he directly places himself in harm's way by sitting near the group of supposed bullies that supposedly made his life hell.  The whole engagement that followed was partly Snape's fault for not exercising prudence (which he supposedly prides himself on having in great quantities).
• Next, when James approaches him and hurls over a vocal insult, Snape immediately goes for his wand and tries to curse James.  Let's remind ourselves that Snape used his time at Hogwarts to learn a battery of dark spells, designed to maim, injure, torture, and murder (not the least of which was Sectumsempra, a spell that almost kills Draco Malfoy in Book 6 when cast by someone unfamiliar with it's execution; in the hands of its master, who knows what it could do).  A wand in Snape's hand is akin to a loaded gun.  Imagine if a kid on the playground got approached by some other kids hurling vocal insults, and then pulled out a gun and aimed to kill.  Is that okay in anyone's book?
• Next, James reacts to having a loaded weapon pointed at him by disarming and then freezing Snape when he goes for his gun-- I mean wand-- again.  Sounds prudent to me!  In fact, he only starts humiliating Snape after Snape gets his gun-- I mean wand-- and fires a bullet-- I mean Sectumsempra-- at James, causing blood to appear.  Let's think.  James at this point has not really harmed Snape.  Snape reacts by trying to murder James.  Snape is getting what he deserved in my book.
• Instead of attacking Snape back with a deadly spell, James hoists him up and humiliates him for punishment.  After caving in to Lilly Evans, Snape again goes for his gun-- I mean wand-- and tries to murder James again.  What the hell?  
• When Harry talks with Sirius, Sirius confirms that Snape often hexed James whenever the chance presented itself (probably from behind, without showing his face, because that's how Slytherins roll, especially greasy slimeballs like Snape).  This really seems to be a lot less of a jock-bully vs. innocent nerdy victim set up and more of a friendly, popular guy vs. sneaky, sociopathic coward kind of deal.  So, really Snape comes off looking no better than usual, and maybe even worse, as he's transferring all this proxy hate and loathing onto Harry with not even the excuse of a real childhood trauma.
• When Snape tries to teach Harry occlumency, "Professor" Snape completely fails at teaching, despite that being his only necessary job function at Hogwarts.  He not only fails to convey any of the subject matter, he proceeds to bully, intimidate, and emotionally assault Harry so much that Harry ends up permanently unable to acquire skill in occlumency, and constantly complains of his scar feeling worse than before the lessons were forced on him.  Yes, Snape ruined a student so bad that not only did the student not learn the requisite skill, he became crippled in that skill forever.  Nice job of anti-teaching, there!
• Also during these lessons, Snape uses the penseive to protect his own privacy, but constantly intrudes and assaults Harry's very personal memories.  Not only does he get off on humiliating and assaulting children, he is a yellow-bellied coward as well.
• In Book 5, Snape mentions that only the highest level scores on the OWLs can get into his advanced Potions class.  He then proceeds to threaten and blame the students for his own poor pedagogy and failure as a teacher.  These are traits that anyone who has been through basic teacher training (like J.K. Rowling!) would recognize as being the classic telltale traits of a very poor teacher: basic inability to self-reflect and self-analyze.
• After Harry finds out about Snape's "worst" memory, Snape outright tries to murder Harry, despite Harry's protests.  This is not the act of a redeemable man.  Harry dodges spells that completely obliterate various pieces of furniture and equipment, any of which could only have had a very violent, and most-likely fatal, effect if they had connected with a 15-year-old boy.
• Afterward, Snape ignores Harry during the next Potions lesson, and Harry actually does a lot better in class.  What does it say about your worth as a teacher and as a human being, when not doing anything at all is many times better than any alternative.
• Of course, Snape still uses the opportunity to blatantly and unfairly destroy Harry's schoolwork, and gives him a 0 for a perfectly acceptable potion.  This has two problems.  A) It shows Snape to be a foul, unacceptable excuse for a teacher, and B) shows that many kids probably could make his advanced classes, if he weren't actively sabotaging his own students' work.  Then he blames the students for being "stupid."  Nice bit of professorship there!
• During the OWL exams, without Snape there to intimidate them, both Harry and Neville do much better than normal.  So, just Snape's absence is a vast improvement over his teaching "skills" (or lack thereof).  Why is he a teacher again?

Half-Blood Prince

• This book is relatively tame as far as Snape's detestability goes, considering most of the time is being spent to set up Snape as the villain for the infamous ending.  But even then, I knew Rowling was going for the ole double twist.  Still, at least Snape is too busy trying to fool everyone into thinking he's the bad guy to actually be a bad guy.  This man can't do anything right!  But in this case, it's at least a positive.

Deathly Hallows

• At the end of the main story, Harry learns all about Snape's love for Lilly Potter, his mother, after viewing Snape's final memories in the pensieve:
• We learn that Severus has done all of the "good" works in his life simply for the sake of a promise to Dumbledore, wherein Dumbledore would attempt to save Lilly (and Lilly only, he didn't give a fig about the murder of an innocent man and infant) from Voldemort's wrath. 
• After Dumbledore fails to uphold the bargain, Snape is then bound only by promises of revenge and guilt.  At no time does Snape do the "right" thing because it's decent, or moral, or just the right thing to do.  
• He always had a self-absorbed reason for every action he took, even if it was all for the sake of a pitiful, obsessive unrequited crush on a girl he could never have, not because of his birth or station or anything, but because he exposed himself as a narcissistic, racist, murderous thug, and good people (like Lilly) generally don't like those kinds of people.
• After we are told everything, we realize that Snape views Harry as the final fruit of his lifelong obsessive love.  Harry is Lilly's child, the child of the woman Snape supposedly "loved" more than anything else, enough that he was able to resist and betray the darkest wizard in the history of the world.  So, does he honor her memory by treating her child, the boy she died to protect, with care and compassion?  Did he  try and become that father figure Harry never had, to make sure Lilly's spirit continued inside Harry?  Ha!  Don't forget who we are talking about.  Yeah, maybe a normal, well-adjusted human being with an ounce of goodness inside him would do all that.  But that's not Severus Snape.  Instead he "honors" Lilly's memory by treating her beloved son with nothing but hate, spite, scorn, and contempt.  He makes Harry's life a living hell, and does his best to see Harry afflicted with depression, sociopathy, psychosis, or worse. 

In Conclusion

Bullying is known to cause severe depression, trauma, sociopathy, suicidal inclinations, and other very harmful syndromes in victims, even into and throughout adulthood, and it's bad enough when coming from classmates, but from a teacher?  Rowling should know better what kind of important duty and trust a teacher has in a child's life, as she has taken a teacher training course herself.  So, why would she paint Snape as a teacher brutally betraying his most sacred responsibility to young children, and then expect readers to sympathize with him (and in a crazy twist, actually succeed!)?  

Rowling turned Severus Snape into such a loathsome individual, such an immature, sickly, pathetic man-child, that his backstory and actions throughout the story in no way matches up with the "Anti-Hero" image we are clearly supposed to get from Snape.  Instead, the backstory scenes come off as a transparent ploy to gain cheap sympathy points from the readers, and the epilogue's revelation of Harry naming one of his son's after Snape falls flat with forced emotions that just don't resonate.  

While Snape isn't a murderous black-and-white, mustache-twirling villain like Lord Voldemort, he is nowhere near a good person, inside or out, no matter how deep you go.  Nor is he any kind of hero, anti-, dark, tragic, or otherwise.  He is a sad, pathetic excuse for a pitiful human being who never grew up from being an immature brat, and who uses his childhood trauma as an excuse for sociopathy.  Sociopathy which has undoubtedly scarred many young children, perhaps (as bullying often does, unfortunately) even causing some of them to end their own lives in bouts of severe depression due to constant bullying by their own teacher (as an aside, I believe Neville Longbottom shows considerable strength in putting up with Snape's constant humiliation as well as he does; no wonder Neville's a Gryffindor).  Sociopathy which on many occasions indirectly aided Voldemort's return to power.  Sociopathy against those most vulnerable (like orphans, say), who are most in need of a strong guide and mentor (i.e. practically anyone other than Snape).  Sociopathy that would have been okay with the murder of an innocent infant (as well as countless others) as long as the object of his one-sided, obsessive "love" was kept safe.  Sociopathy that is not in any way redeemed by his pointless death in Book 7.

Oh, and the last nail in the coffin?  Snape can't teach worth a damn, even when just looking at basic subject matter.  Sure, he's a "genius" with potions, but none of his students really learn in his class, as they're all too frightened and intimidated to try anything new.  In fact, most of his same students flourish under a different Potions teacher, even one who is less skilled like Slughorn.  Even Snape's old textbook does a better job of teaching than he ever could in person.  So, not only is he a child-bullying sociopath, he can't even teach!

Basically, Rowling messed up big time with Snape, doing a very amateur job of characterization, and it shows.  This is probably one of the two major errors in the book (the other being the over-the-top evil vileness of every single Slytherin, aside from one side-character in Book 6) that really has the potential to derail the story for a lot of readers.  It makes it hard to re-read the series, actually, and has raised a lot of debate on how "good" the series really is (the answer to that, of course, is that it's all in the eyes of each individual reader, but still...).

And for those readers who do sympathize with someone who gets off on tormenting young children, I have to wonder a little bit if their minds are really in the game, or if it's mainly due to Alan Rickman in the movies.  At the very least, Rickman did a masterful job of toning Snape down, which was necessary because I believe to actually see Snape's sociopathy on screen would have traumatized viewers.  So, good on Rickman for turning Snape from a monster into someone at least we can kind-of relate to.  But, if not for Rickman changing Snape into the author's original intention, I can't imagine very many people (not sociopaths themselves) cheering Snape on.

In the end, maybe Lucius Malfoy was right all along with his opinion about Dumbledore's fitness for the job of Hogwart's Headmaster, letting Snape stay on the job.