Combined response to the first two posts
See, I'd agree with the part about JKR if her interviews so clearly didn't prove otherwise. Her interview on Today for example where she dismisses any of Snape's good qualities or claims how great Sirius was because he loved Harry (when you see in the books that Sirius often chastizes Harry because he is not James or the fact that he only escapes Azkaban to commit the crime he is accused of and in the interim realizes his responsibilities - yeah, some great godfather he is). I really can't see her seeing what most HP readers on LJ obviously can see in Snape's character. I don't give much credence to what she says in her interviews since she says so much stuff that never happens but her treatment of Snape is more than enough for me interpret that she obviously doesn't like him as she does Sirius (who she claimed is one of her favourite characters). Now, I'm not against her prefering Sirius or anything, I just think she undermines Snape way too much. Leads me to think a lot of the readers give her too much credit just as some readers attribute things to Purdy that he probably never intended - which wouldn't be that far off, would it? She intends for readers to like the Marauders but she shows that a few days after the werewolf episode, Sirius and James are back to victimizing Severus (Rowling, DH 33). You have to be an unbelievably arrogant and remorseless jerk to victimize a guy you almost killed. Plus, the whole point about Harry naming his son after SS was rendered superfluous for me in the last scene. Harry's whole speech about Slytherins being brave was undermined by him telling his son how to get avoid getting into it.
As you rightly said, Snape cares just as any good and responsible teacher should. True and I wasn't implying it made him better than the others -- merely saying that he DOES care and doesn't wish to harm his students contrary to 'popular opinions'. Any other teacher (Minerva, Hagrid, Flitwick) is ALSO rude, like Snape yet he gets the most flak of it. The point about the supposed debt Snape owes -- As if James would have saved Snape if not to cover his and his friends' hide - his action is somewhat noble, his motivations are self-serving which does not make the event heroic. Anyhow, assuming that Snape does owe James a "debt" - it is his wish whether or not to complete it. He is not obligated to save Harry or bound by a magical debt as Wormatil is because of J's dubious motivations (check end of PS/SS where AD explains it). He does so out of his own wishes, for his own peace not out of an obligation.
Minerva: treats Trelawny with a fair degree of rudeness and cruelty (not that I care about Trelawny but still, it's to M's discredit), she admits to having been harsh on Pettigrew because he didn't fare well academically ( I was often rather sharp with him... Stupid boy... Foolish boy..." ), she makes Neville sit out in the corridor so that someone can let him in the common room because he forgot the password. I distinctly recall her saying ""Which abysmal, foolish person wrote down the passwords and then proceeded to lose them? ... Is it always going to be you, Longbottom?" Now, that doesn't sound like any worse than what Snape usually says to Neville. People accuse Snape of being biased but is Minerva any less biased when it comes to throwing out all Slytherins because of one girl? Or when she makes allowances on the Quidditch pitch (letting Harry on in first year) so that her team wins? That is just as biased as Snape's favouring of the Slytherins and he criticizes the Slytherins as well possibly with the exception of Malfoy as per Ch.8 of PS/SS.
Hagrid: The first we see of him, he insults and hexes an 11-year-old who we know is a peice of work but he doesn't. He only hexes Dudley because Vernon is a bit of an ass to him. Hagrid *physically* harms a kid. No one bats an eyelash. He is also unfairly biased towards Gryffindors as evinced in the second time we see him. "..wasn't a witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" Hagrid says when at this point he *knows* that Sirius Black outed Lily/James and Sirius definitely wasn't in Slytherin. He shows bias by lying AND exhibits cruelty to a little kid because Vernon insults DD. Sound like any victimizing-child-partly-because-of-father teachers you know? Despite all this, Hagrid isn't criticized for his actions. Why should Snape be condemned, then? Because he does it to the protagonist while Hagrid does it to Dudley who hasn't done anything to him? That's the ad hominem fallacy. If you're going to hate the action, hate it in everyone. Don't make allowances. (The last part is less aimed at any specific reader, more at JKR.)
Flitwick makes a kid write lines which are to the effect that the person is a student "not a babbon brandishing a wand". That is so much like what Snape would say to Neville but unlike Snape, Flitwick is never judged for this.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Snape isn't any worse than the other teachers, either just as he is NOT any better than them at caring (he probably cares more than Hagrid does about students who aren't in his house). He's JUST like them. The only difference happens to be that he doesn't like Harry. That is, in all likelihood, why he's portrayed as an antagonist for actions that other teachers are let off the hook for. He is not an antagonist - simply an anti-hero.
Lalitha, you raised a good point about karma - it sounds interesting. I would have to disagree in regards to Sirius, though. His punishment -- I'm not sure you can even call it that since he doesn't feel an iota of remorse over his actions. He never atones on a personal level (as he should) for his actions. A legal punishment, to me, is an obligation and it does not equate absolution from personal actions. He feels he was justified in nearly killing Snape, and that is later reinforced when he and James bully Snape after this incident during the OWLs.
Since Eloquent specifically mentioned the first time, I'm going off by memory: Snape asks him questions. Is that being a victimizer? No. Teachers DO ask students to answer questions in class - really don't see how that makes Snape a bully. I do think he was unfair when he docked marks of Gryffindor and blamed Harry for Neville's fault, though. That would be an example of him tormenting Harry and as I previously stated, Snape DOES like tormenting adolescents for his own fun, no two ways about it but as far as I can remember, he hasn't been unforgivably cruel like Umbridge who has gone so far as to harm students physically. I'll admit he is often blunt in his sarcasm but have you entertained the possibility that this is *cultural* influence rather than a personal one? His abrasive manner can to a large extent be explained by the place where he grew up - Spinner's End which, if I recall correctly, is somewhere near the industrial north of England. Jenny Willis, author of The British Tourist Authority Guide to the North of England, states "What a northerner regards as being honest and knowing his own mind could excusably be mistaken by visitors to the North for rudeness and sheer bloody-mindedness" (Willis, 6-7). This obviously isn't an allowance for his enjoyment at the expense of their discomfort but attempts to explain why he is blunt in his sarcasm.
Not good enough reasons for mitigating any theory. Point out the allegedly "illogical" thought process because to me it seems your deeming it illogical because you see bad where there is not 😛. You're utilizing circular reasoning to justify yourself and THAT is a logical fallacy, not the theory. Even though I don't entirely agree with it, I can see the merits in the theory (Jodel's, I think, you can find it at her LJ/website) utilizing reverse pyschology. Snape's flair for dramatics, shall we call it, is not something that can be inherent. He twitches ALL the time which would make him a killer poker player because the key to poker is not being stoic but twitching and fretting all the time. What that means in terms of his character is: he presents a facade to the public (which I think is general enough that most can unanimously agree with it). Extending that facade to show his students a DE because they expect to see, and seeing how well they like it seems manipulative and subtle which does fit in with Snape's characteristics.
Your point about Snape being biased - Every teacher is, including DD. In PS/SS, he lets the Slytherins think they won and sweeps the rug from under their feet at the last possible moment, humiliating them all. They had won fair and square when DD decides to add those extra points. Neville, in particular, should not have recieved any points because his was an accomplishment of personal growth, not academic/atheletic one. Further, there wasn't an equal chance for everyone to gain those points like there is during academic or atheletic pursuits. In COS, DD implies Harry was right to chose Gryffindor over Slytherin. At the end feast, he shoots down the accomplishments of students from other houses, giving preferential treatment to Gryffindor over actions none of them had any control over -- Mandy Brocklehurst or Hannah Abbot certainly weren't given an equal chance of defeating the Basilisk or TR. A trophy for school services like the one TR receieved when he framed Hagrid would have been sufficient in its place. The time where he makes no efforts to prevent Lee's rather caustic commentary from progressing when McGonagall is making efforts to stop him. He allows anti-Slytherin sentiments to flourish and it is, ironically, the Gryffindor HOH who attempts to prevent it. Or the time he employs the anti-Slytherin careless Hagrid to teach class, when he know Hagrid has a very warped sense of harmful creatures. Is it really any wonder the school governer thinks DD is the worst thing that happened to Hogwarts? Look at his poor administration skills! (as stated above) A prime example of which is: After a ward was almost killed under his administration, the same child is bullied rather publically by the same victimizers.
And I think I'll have to agree to disagree on JKR's way on showing either "romantic love" or other kinds of love being convincing or motivating. I think she has a rather juvenile idea of love which is evident in her writings of HG "monster in chest" and RHr "canaries" etc. On Snape - his backstory was so puerile and illogical. He supposedly lurved Lily, who does a warped job of showing or having any feelings for him. Specifically, the whole underpants comment was in poor taste. Admittedly, Snape was wrong in calling her a mudblood but you have to admit she was awfully cold to him afterwards when he tried to apologize for his mistake. She was familiar with his situation and supposedly his friend. I really can't understand why he would still harbor feelings for her - you can't even call it love because it isn't that. It's a foolish obsession. Severus may be a lot of things but foolish is not one of them.
