#Severus snape meta

[maxdibert]

The Class Dynamics between James Potter and Severus Snape: A Critical Analysis:

This is a dedication to all those who say that class has nothing to do with the bullying that James exerted on Severus, to those who claim that James couldn't be classist because "he never proactively despised anyone for being poor" or because "he was friends with Remus," to those who say "Snape also attacked him" or suggest it was a "rivalry" and that they were on equal footing, or simply to those who say they are "fictional characters" and that fiction has nothing to do with reality, blah blah blah. This is something I have written with bibliographical references because, once in a while, I can stop being a simp goof and show off my university degree in political science. And yes, I am going to be an authentic pedant because I can, and because many people seem to live in a candy-coated world regarding these issues, and it wouldn't hurt them to get a bit educated. That said, here goes my essay:

When analysing the interactions between James Potter and Severus Snape in the "Harry Potter" universe, it is common to find vehement defences of James, arguing that his bullying was not class-motivated. However, it is crucial to untangle how class dynamics operate structurally and how this influences interpersonal relationships. James Potter, as a member of a wealthy, pure-blood family, represents the dominant class, while Severus Snape, coming from a poor, working-class background, embodies the subordinate classes. In the magical world, pure-blood lineage is associated with inherited privileges similar to aristocracy in the real world, where blood purity is a marker of status and power. Authors like Anderson and Löwe (2006) have explored how heritage and lineage have been determining factors in the distribution of power and privileges throughout history, both in fictional and real contexts. This socioeconomic background plays a crucial role in the power dynamics between characters like James and Severus, highlighting how class structures affect their interactions and perpetuate inequality.

Social class, according to Marxist analysis, is a structural category that determines individuals' positions within society based on their access to the means of production. In "Harry Potter", pure-blood status equates to magical aristocracy, while Muggle-borns, Half-Bloods with muggle parent and those from humble origins, like Snape, represent the working or marginalised classes. James Potter, on the other hand, embodies the privileges of the elite, not only through his wealth but also through his lineage, which grants him a status that influences his interactions with others.

The bullying James exerts over Severus cannot be disconnected from its socioeconomic context. Although James may not have explicitly expressed disdain towards Severus for being poor, the way he exploits his superior position to humiliate and subdue Severus reflects power dynamics based on class. Pierre Bourdieu describes how power structures are reproduced through symbolic violence, where the dominant classes impose their cultural and social legitimacy over the subordinate ones, perpetuating inequality. In the context of 'Harry Potter', this symbolic violence is reflected in how the magical aristocracy imposes its values and norms on those of humble origin. The public humiliations James inflicts on Severus are not just acts of bullying but also manifestations of a structural power that favours the privileged like James. Besides Bourdieu, other theorists such as Michel Foucault could provide complementary perspectives on how power is exercised and perpetuated in institutions, in this case, Hogwarts as a microcosm of magical society.

In James and Severus's case, this symbolic violence manifests in the public humiliations James inflicts on Severus, using his status to ensure there are no significant repercussions. James's position as a popular and privileged student grants him social immunity that Severus, due to his humble origin, cannot counter. This demonstrates how class structures influence the dynamics of school bullying, where resources and social capital determine which behaviours are acceptable and which are not.

The "Harry Potter" fandom often minimises James's actions, portraying him as a mere prankster without malice, while pathologising Severus's response, attributing it to resentment and bitterness. This narrative reinforces the whitewashing of the actions of the rich and popular to the detriment of the poor and marginalised. Theodor W. Adorno and Max Horkheimer, in their "Dialectic of Enlightenment", explain how the culture industry and hegemonic discourses contribute to naturalising domination relationships, presenting them as inevitable or even fair. Their analysis reveals that modern media perpetuates class dynamics by presenting power structures as natural and immutable. This can be observed in how the dominant narrative in the 'Harry Potter' franchise tends to glorify high-class characters like James while marginalising figures like Severus, whose resistance to the system is viewed with suspicion or disapproval. Contemporary studies, such as Mark Fisher's "Capitalist Realism" (2009), also highlight how media reinforces the current economic and social status quo, making it difficult to imagine alternatives to the existing system.

By justifying James's bullying as mere youthful pranks, the fandom perpetuates a narrative that excuses the abuse of power and classism, ignoring the impact these actions have on individuals like Severus, who are already in a structurally disadvantaged position. This reinforces social hierarchies and strips victims of their agency and dignity.

Severus's portrayal as a bullying victim is intrinsically linked to his social class. His marginalisation is not just a product of his actions or personal choices but a consequence of social structures that privilege figures like James Potter. Antonio Gramsci's theories on cultural hegemony are useful here to understand how the dominant class's ideas are imposed as normative, silencing the oppressed voices and legitimising the violence they suffer. In the 'Harry Potter' narrative, this hegemony manifests through the glorification of the values and behaviours of pure-blood characters like James, while the perspectives of the marginalised, like Severus, are dismissed or vilified. For example, the Marauders, led by James and Sirius, both rich pure-bloods, are portrayed as mischievous heroes despite their aggressive behaviour towards Snape, who is depicted much more negatively even when acting in self-defence. This reflects how cultural hegemony shapes public perception, perpetuating a value system that favours the privileged and marginalises the oppressed. Authors like Stuart Hall have explored how media and popular culture reinforce these hegemonic structures, underscoring the need for critical analysis to dismantle these dominant narratives.

Severus, in this sense, represents those who are constantly repressed by power structures and whose narrative is distorted to fit a worldview that favours the privileged. His resistance and eventual adoption of extreme ideologies can be understood as a response to this marginalisation, a desperate attempt to reclaim agency systematically denied to him.

To fully understand the relationship between James Potter and Severus Snape, it is essential to acknowledge the influence of class structures on their interactions. The narrative that minimises James's bullying and blames Severus perpetuates a simplistic and biased view that ignores the complexities of social inequality and power. By applying a critical analysis based on Marxist theories, we can unravel how classism permeates these relationships. Studies on young adult literature, such as those by Maria Nikolajeva, and the analysis of victimisation frameworks in popular culture by Henry Jenkins provide a theoretical framework that reinforces the need to re-examine fandom's conceptions to avoid perpetuating these structural injustices. These investigations highlight how narratives of power and oppression are often shaped by dominant interests and how this affects the public's perception of marginalised characters like Severus.

[potions-of-dark-devotion]

To be honest, I can’t believe I have to say this but Severus Snape being angry at Neville for regularly making the equivalent of a pipe bomb in class is not in the realm of SA, stalking and attempted murder. Let’s put the arguement of “well snape bullied his students so he deserved it as a kid” to rest. Cause I’m tired. Really tired of pretending it’s somehow the same. Yes, he was rude, yes he was mean and snarky at times. Doesn’t mean it’s the same on any level as what he suffered as child and teen. Be fucking for real. Not even in the same realm.

[lines-in-limbo]

Harry and Snape’s Clashing Communication Styles

It's interesting to think that Harry and Snape don’t have longer conversations in the series, but when they do, their communication styles are so different that they often clash.

Harry’s way of communicating is practical and straightforward. He tends to break down complex ideas into simpler terms that he can easily understand. This makes sense, given his upbringing in a non-magical world and his tendency to rely more on gut instinct than deep theoretical knowledge. For Harry, things are usually black and white, and his directness shows his desire to cut through the confusion and get straight to the point.

Snape, on the other hand, has a more complex and layered way of speaking. His language is precise and often sarcastic, which reflects not just his intelligence but also his disdain for what he sees as Harry’s lack of subtlety. Snape’s use of imagery and metaphor, especially when he describes consepts, gives his speech a poetic, almost philosophical quality. He takes pleasure in showing off his superior knowledge and uses this as a way to belittle Harry.

We see this clash clearly in OOTP during Harry’s first Occlumency lesson:

Snape looked back at him for a moment and then said contemptuously, “Surely even you could have worked that out by now, Potter? The Dark Lord is highly skilled at Legilimency —” “What’s that? Sir?” “It is the ability to extract feelings and memories from another person’s mind —” “He can read minds?” said Harry quickly, his worst fears confirmed. “You have no subtlety, Potter,” said Snape, his dark eyes glittering. “You do not understand fine distinctions. It is one of the shortcomings that makes you such a lamentable potion-maker.” Snape paused for a moment, apparently to savor the pleasure of insulting Harry, before continuing, “Only Muggles talk of ‘mind reading.’ The mind is not a book, to be opened at will and examined at leisure. Thoughts are not etched on the inside of skulls, to be perused by any invader. The mind is a complex and many-layered thing, Potter . . . or at least, most minds are. . . .” He smirked. Whatever Snape said, Legilimency sounded like mind reading to Harry and he did not like the sound of it at all.

For Harry, when Snape mentions Legilimency, it immediately sounds like “mind reading,” which is a reasonable but overly simple way to understand such a complex concept. His quick jump to this conclusion shows his need to make sense of something that feels threatening, but it also reveals his limited grasp of the deeper nuances.

Snape, however, can’t resist mocking Harry’s lack of subtlety. His response is laced with condescension as he insists on the complexity of the mind and dismisses the idea of “mind reading” as something only muggles would think of. Snape’s explanation is detailed and philosophical, contrasting sharply with Harry’s desire for a straightforward answer.

Another great example of their different communication styles comes in HBP when Snape puts Harry on the spot, asking him to explain the difference between an inferius and a ghost:

“Let us ask Potter how we would tell the difference between an Inferius and a ghost.” The whole class looked around at Harry, who hastily tried to recall what Dumbledore had told him the night that they had gone to visit Slughorn. “Er — well — ghosts are transparent —” he said. “Oh, very good,” interrupted Snape, his lip curling. “Yes, it is easy to see that nearly six years of magical education have not been wasted on you, Potter. ‘Ghosts are transparent.’ ” Harry took a deep breath and continued calmly, though his insides were boiling, “Yeah, ghosts are transparent, but Inferi are dead bodies, aren’t they? So they’d be solid —” “A five-year-old could have told us as much,” sneered Snape. “The Inferius is a corpse that has been reanimated by a Dark wizard’s spells. It is not alive, it is merely used like a puppet to do the wizard’s bidding. A ghost, as I trust that you are all aware by now, is the imprint of a departed soul left upon the earth . . . and of course, as Potter so wisely tells us, transparent.” “Well, what Harry said is the most useful if we’re trying to tell them apart!” said Ron. “When we come face-to-face with one down a dark alley, we’re going to be having a shufti to see if it’s solid, aren’t we, we’re not going to be asking, ‘Excuse me, are you the imprint of a departed soul?’

Once again, Harry demonstrates his practical and straightforward approach. He gives a simple, clear distinction based on what would be most useful in a real-life situation—whether the entity is solid or transparent. This shows how Harry tends to focus on what’s immediately relevant and actionable, and Ron’s defense of Harry’s answer highlights this practicality. Ron even points out that in a real-world scenario, Harry’s answer is actually the most helpful, contrasting it with Snape’s more academic approach.

Snape, though, dismisses Harry’s answer as too simplistic and mocks him for stating what he sees as the obvious. Snape’s communication is more about the theoretical and precise understanding of magical concepts. He emphasizes the deeper, more complex nature of an Inferius, which, while academically accurate, is less practical in the context that Harry is thinking of. Snape’s disdain shows that he values this deeper, nuanced understanding more than the direct, practical knowledge that Harry offers.

These moments really bring out the deeper divide between Harry and Snape. Harry approaches things with instinct and a straightforward mindset, while Snape is all about nuance, precision, and seeing the layers in everything. Because they see the world so differently, they struggle to communicate, which only adds to the distrust and misunderstanding between them—a tension that echoes throughout the entire series.

[wisteria-lodge]

Since you’ve talked about Molly and Draco, can you talk about Snape as well? When you said that there was a disconnect with Snape’s character I honestly wasn’t sure if you meant the audience was supposed to like him more or less than they actually do.

This is a complicated one, because Book 1-3 Snape and Book 5-7 Snape are written so differently that I actually want to talk about them as two separate characters. 

Book 1-3 Snape… kind of sucks. Maybe he sucks in a way you find funny (which I completely get. A lot of comedy - especially British comedy - revolves around finding the humor in really *mean* people. Snape is *written* to be funny in a dry, acerbic, Roald Dahl kind of way.) But maybe Snape sucks in a way that’s not fun for you, he’s just upsetting and cruel. Either way, he’s petty, unfair, a bully, completely unreasonable, and doesn’t really appear to have any redeeming qualities. Snape protects Harry in Book 1 only because James Potter saved his life and, according to Dumbledore:  

“Professor Snape couldn’t bear being in your father’s debt. . . . I do believe he worked so hard to protect you this year because he felt that would make him and your father even. Then he could go back to hating your father’s memory in peace. . . .” 

Later on, Snape’s motivation will become “Protect Harry because you couldn’t protect Lily.” But there’s no hint of that here.

I actually think it’s very likely that ‘Snape was in love with Lily’ is a plotline added during Book 4, because 1-3 Snape’s motivation is so completely focused on JAMES. He hates Harry because he looks like James, he hates James because (according to Lupin) he’s “jealous, I think, of James’s talent on the Quidditch field.” Within the context of the series it’s easy to say that Lupin is lying, and with good reason… but in the context of the first three books, I think that’s just meant to be true? Snape, as we know, is a stealth quidditch hooligan the way McGonagall is. Also… James’ characterization shifts around. He’s not a bully in the first three books, he’s Head Boy… and that Head Boy thing doesn’t quite gel with what we hear from Sirius later: 

“No one would have made me a prefect, I spent too much time in detention with James. Lupin was the good boy, he got the badge.”

(I know JKR plans things out in advance, but she absolutely does change things on the fly. Arthur Weasley not getting killed by Nagini is an easy example that we definitely know about. And come on - the entire last book is a Deathly Hallows fetch-quest. Was there really no way to slip in a reference to Beedle the Bard - or a super-powerful semi-mythical wand - anywhere in the first six books?) 

So, in books 1-3, there's no hint that Snape is a potion prodigy, particularly powerful, or even particularly clever. He wrote a logic puzzle and “knows an awful lot about the Dark Arts.” But that’s it. “Potion Master” isn’t an advanced rank, it’s just the posh British boarding school way of saying “teacher.” (Like headmaster = head teacher.) Early Snape is also a lot more *emotional* than he is later on, when his ability to “Master yourself!... control your anger, discipline your mind!” becomes extremely plot relevant. Like, can you picture 5-7 Snape (or Alan Rickman, who plays a distinctly later-books Snape) doing any of this? 

Snape was beside himself. “OUT WITH IT, POTTER!” he bellowed. “WHAT DID YOU DO?”  “Professor Snape!” shrieked Madam Pomfrey. “Control yourself!”  “See here, Snape, be reasonable,” said Fudge. “This door’s been locked, we just saw —”  “THEY HELPED HIM ESCAPE, I KNOW IT!” Snape howled, pointing at Harry and Hermione. His face was twisted; spit was flying from his mouth.  “Calm down, man!” Fudge barked. “You’re talking nonsense!”  “YOU DON’T KNOW POTTER!” shrieked Snape. “HE DID IT, I KNOW HE DID IT —”

In Movie 3, Snape gets a cool protective moment where he shoves the kids behind him during the werewolf attack. In Book 3, Snape is unconscious during the entire werewolf attack because Harry, Ron and Hermione simultaneously decide he’s too dangerous, and too much of a liability to keep around. Here are are some bangers from Book 3 Snape: 

- “Don’t ask me to fathom the way a werewolf’s mind works.”   - “KEEP QUIET, YOU STUPID GIRL!” Snape shouted, looking suddenly quite deranged. “DON’T TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND!” - “Up to the castle?... I don’t think we need to go that far. All I have to do is call the dementors once we get out of the Willow. They’ll be very pleased to see you, Black . . . pleased enough to give you a little Kiss, I daresay. . . .”  - “I’ll drag the werewolf. Perhaps the dementors will have a Kiss for him too —”

If you sort of squint you can maybe say - okay, maybe this is a PTSD response. Like I’m writing a Snape POV fic right now, you can make it work. But it’s not work the books do for you, and it’s not the characterization choice they make in the films. 

BUT. Snape goes through a little bit of a revamp/retcon in Book 4. It’s totally deliberate - he’s Book 1-3 Snape at the beginning, then he basically vanishes from the narrative… the reader kind of forgets about him…  until it comes up during Karkaroff’s trial that Dumbledore ABSOLUTELY trusts him, even though he was a Death Eater. So now when Snape turns up at the climax - he’s a figure of intrigue, and it makes sense that he’s one of the two people Dumbledore brings with him to deal with Barty. Honestly, it’s a pretty cool magic trick. We buy it when - instead of hissing and spitting and hopping around like he does when he confronts Fudge at the end of Book 3 - Book 4 Snape deals with Fudge like this: 

Snape strode forward… pulling up the left sleeve of his robes as he went. He stuck out his forearm and showed it to Fudge, who recoiled.  “There,” said Snape harshly. “There. The Dark Mark. It is not as clear as it was an hour or so ago, when it burned black, but you can still see it. (...) This Mark has been growing clearer all year. Karkaroff’s too. Why do you think Karkaroff fled tonight? We both felt the Mark burn. We both knew he had returned. Karkaroff fears the Dark Lord’s vengeance.”

Calm, collected, focused. This is a character who you’re supposed to take seriously, a character who you are supposed to respect. 

I think it’s very interesting that after Book 4, we don’t see Snape *bully* the students during class again. He’s strict, and he’s a hard grader, and Harry still thinks he’s unfair, but like… the narrative framing is on his side now. 

“Tell me, Potter,” said Snape softly, “can you read?”  Draco Malfoy laughed.  “Yes, I can,” said Harry, his fingers clenched tightly around his wand.  “Read the third line of the instructions for me, Potter.”  Harry squinted at the blackboard(… ) His heart sank. He had not added syrup of hellebore, but had proceeded straight to the fourth line of the instructions after allowing his potion to simmer for seven minutes.  “Did you do everything on the third line, Potter?” “No,” said Harry very quietly.  “I beg your pardon?” “No,” said Harry, more loudly. “I forgot the hellebore...”  “I know you did, Potter, which means that this mess is utterly worthless. Evanesco.” The contents of Harry’s potion vanished; he was left standing foolishly beside an empty cauldron. “Those of you who have managed to read the instructions, fill one flagon with a sample of your potion, label it clearly with your name, and bring it up to my desk for testing.” (...)  “That was really unfair,” said Hermione consolingly, sitting down next to Harry  (...) “Yeah, well,” said Harry, glowering at his plate, “since when has Snape ever been fair to me?”

Like he isn’t nice, but he also isn’t asking Harry questions he can’t possibly know the answers to, threatening to kill someone’s pet, or calling Hermione ugly. He didn’t even take away house points. And - during the next lesson, we are told that the approach Snape took with Harry actually worked?

Determined not to give Snape an excuse to fail him this lesson, Harry read and reread every line of the instructions on the blackboard at least three times before acting on them. His Strengthening Solution was not precisely the clear turquoise shade of Hermione’s but it was at least blue rather than pink, like Neville’s, and he delivered a flask of it to Snape’s desk at the end of the lesson with a feeling of mingled defiance and relief. 

I want to do one more close read, on a excerpt from Book 5: 

Harry realized how much Professor McGonagall cared about beating Slytherin when she abstained from giving them homework in the week leading up to the match. (...)  Nobody could quite believe their ears until she looked directly at Harry and Ron and said grimly, “I’ve become accustomed to seeing the Quidditch Cup in my study, boys, and I really don’t want to have to hand it over to Professor Snape, so use the extra time to practice, won’t you?” Snape was no less obviously partisan: He had booked the Quidditch pitch for Slytherin practice so often that the Gryffindors had difficulty getting on it to play. He was also turning a deaf ear to the many reports of Slytherin attempts to hex Gryffindor players in the corridors. When Alicia Spinnet turned up in the hospital wing with her eyebrows growing so thick and fast that they obscured her vision and obstructed her mouth, Snape insisted that she must have attempted a Hair-Thickening Charm on herself and refused to listen to the fourteen eyewitnesses who insisted that they had seen the Slytherin Keeper, Miles Bletchley, hit her from behind with a jinx.

This has a very similar structure to the sequence when Snape refuses to punish Draco for enlarging Hermione’s teeth. Slytherins and Gryffindors having an altercation, Gryffindor girl gets caught in the crossfire. BUT a few key things have been changed. One - the section is told in second-hand narration, which makes it less emotional than the teeth-scene. Two - the section begins with comparing Snape to McGonagall: she’s being biased/helping out her students too, so it’s only fair if he does it as well. Three - his insult isn’t “Your face has always looked like that,” it’s “You must have messed up a spell,” which is a lot less personal, and a lot less mean. (If anything, Snape is subtly insulting her for casting a cosmetic charm/being too girly… and being a girly-girl is an inherently suspect characteristic in JKR’s world.) Everything about this passage is set up to create a “Snape the Bully” moment… that kind of excuses Snape. 

So, what do we have? There are the people that think Book 1-3 Snape just went too far, and you can soften the narrative framing around him, and you can add in as many tragic backstories as you want, and it doesn’t really matter. THAT is definitely not what JKR wants you to think. She wants to bring you along for the ride, and (as you can tell from the framing) she's started to like Snape a lot.

HOWEVER. I do not think that the fan who likes 5-7 Alan Rickman Snape is… quite seeing the same thing she is. I get the sense that in the text, Snape’s tragic backstory is not meant to *explain* his bad behavior so much as it is meant to *excuse* it. He stays mean and bad-tempered… but he’s allowed to be, both because he is always acting in service to a Good Cause, and because he was abused at home, bullied at school, etc. A big part of why I think JKR likes writing Snape so much (and why she’s so protective of him) is because she finds something cathartic in letting a character be nasty… but for it to be allowed because they’ve suffered, and also because they're in the right. Sadly I think this describes a lot of her current online interactions. 

JKR also loves the idea of *pining.* (It is crazy how long the main characters’ pining/longing/will-they-won’t-they thing in the Cormoran Strike books has lasted.) It’s a very safe kind of romance, and (again, sadly) you can tell from her writing that romance is not generally something that feels safe to her. Snape is sometimes characterized by those who dislike the character as an incel-type who wants to possess Lily, and I just don’t think that’s in the text. If anything it’s the other way around. Snape has some unconsummated, medieval courtly love thing going on, where he has decided to live his life in Lily’s service. 

I wrote about why I think Draco Malfoy (unintentionally) appeals to fans. With Snape…  I actually think a lot of his current (unintentional) appeal comes from the way a softer Snape reframes the narrative into something more complex, and especially the way it reframes Dumbledore. Manipulative/Morally Grey Dumbledore is a *very* popular fan interpretation, and the way you get that is with a sympathetic Severus Snape. 

“You disgust me,” said Dumbledore, and Harry had never heard so much contempt in his voice. Snape seemed to shrink a little. (...)  “Hide them all, then,” he croaked. “Keep her — them — safe. Please.”  “And what will you give me in return, Severus?”  “In — in return?” Snape gaped at Dumbledore, and Harry expected him to protest, but after a long moment he said, “Anything.”

The implications here are really far reaching. Because to me, the main question when it comes to Snape is - why does he STAY at Hogwarts? He clearly hates it, why doesn’t he just leave? If you’re talking about 1-3 Snape, it's because he’s eternally holding out for the Defense Against the Dark Arts job, and he’s just kind of a twisted miserable guy who would probably be equally miserable everywhere. 

But books 5-7 add the context that he’s brilliant, he’s brave, he’s principled, he’s got a sense of humor. He seems close with the Malfoys. He has *options.* So now the (unintended?) implication is… he doesn’t leave because Dumbledore won’t let him. The fact that he keeps applying for the DADA job becomes dark and borderline suicidal when we learn it’s cursed, and that Snape knows it’s cursed. If he takes it, he’ll leave (or die) at the end of the year. That means, every year, he’s tacitly asking Dumbledore “Can I leave?” And Dumbledore is answering “No.” 

That’s such an interesting, juicy character dynamic. Snape is being kept miserable on purpose because… he’s easier to control that way? And if that’s true… then oh boy is it sinister that Dumbledore left Harry with the Dursleys. He knew he was raising Harry “like a pig for slaughter” (as Snape puts it.) And if Harry doesn’t have a support system, if he’s miserable, if Dumbledore can swoop in as his savior… then doesn’t that make him so much easier to control? 

[picthos]

If it’s true that James bullied Snape because he aspired to become a Death Eater.

I believe that this interpretation doesn’t make James Potter a brilliant hero, but rather a petty hypocrite.

It paints him as someone who is weak to the strong and strong to the weak—a braggart, so to speak.

James Potter didn’t exclusively target Snape; he also bullied other anonymous students at Hogwarts simply because they annoyed him or for his own amusement. For instance, there’s a student named Aubrey who was hexed by James, but it’s never mentioned whether Aubrey was a Slytherin.

On the other hand, individuals like Mulciber, Avery, Evan Rosier, Lucius Malfoy, and even Sirius’s younger brother Regulus were all clearly aspiring Death Eaters, and they came from powerful pureblood families.

There is no evidence that James went after or bullied individuals from pureblood families either. If some fans imagine that James bullied Snape because Snape aspired to become a Death Eater, and that James did so with a "righteous heart," then that would indeed be amusing.

"It would mean that his fans have transformed their favorite character into someone who, under the guise of justice, targets the poorest and loneliest person while ignoring others with greater power. Such an interpretation only turns James into the very hypocrite they would likely despise."

Even if they use Dark Magic as an excuse, James himself maliciously used jinxes and hexes on others, and there’s no story of James Potter punishing Mulciber, who tried to use such a terrifying Dark Magic spell on Mary Macdonald that Lily said it was horrifying.

When will those who praise James for bullying others at school realize this truth?

Honestly, I hope they never realize the contradictions and logical fallacies. They haven't noticed it so far, and I don't think the snaters people who would read my post are smart enough to acknowledge those errors.

—I hope they never know. Let James remain that hypocrite forever.

[forestdeath1]

I think it's important to see that James and Sirius bullied Snape, but Snape wasn’t "hiding in bushes in SWM to avoid them". Fans of the Marauders also like to whitewash James and Sirius, making them out to be good boys. They were not kind, certainly not to Snape.

Snape also wasn’t a kind and innocent boy. Before school, Snape already held views similar to Nazis, and he wanted to be in Slytherin, a house that "produced" many Death Eaters during a time when Voldemort was tearing the country apart.

I don’t know why Snape stans don’t see how bad this is. Let me repeat. THIS IS VERY BAD. "But we can’t judge them all, they are just children..." No one judges anyone just for being in Slytherin, though it’s a weird desire during an open genocide of Muggle-borns. Again, Snape didn’t just want to be in Slytherin. He held these views before school. (Yes, he had a bad father. No, that’s no excuse to harbour misanthropic views. Sirius had a bad family. Harry had a bad family. Millions have bad families. Snape read books; he knew the history of Slytherin and Gryffindor. Hatred for his father isn’t an excuse to think you're above Muggles. Snape could defend his views even as a child, and he methodically stuck to his views, despite everything Lily told him, despite already knowing what was happening in the Wizarding World).

Plus, the narrative that JKR tried to feed readers in the books, that James was similar to Draco in his bullying, is also bad.

Imagine being in Hufflepuff. I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?

Who wants to be in Slytherin? I think I'd leave, wouldn't you?

It's clear she tried to portray James as similar to Draco.

But they are in completely different positions. Draco is in a house that officially adheres to a policy of exclusivity and pure-blood supremacy, which led to a terrible war and many deaths, literally genocide. Slytherin isn’t just about cunning and ambition. It’s primarily about blood; the main reason for the fallout between Salazar and Gryffindor was that Salazar didn’t think Muggle-borns should be at Hogwarts. Draco is in a house that produced almost all the Death Eaters. Not to mention, Draco is a Death Eater’s son and holds similar views.

At the same time, James, who hates everything about Slytherin, dark magic, roughly speaking, hates their exclusivity and where it leads. And he, as a pure-blood, knows well what is happening in the country at that time. He doesn't fully understand all the propaganda as a child, but he knows it's bad.

There is nothing in common between Draco and James.

In James’s case, it’s actually Snape who holds supremacist views and even persistently advises his friend to be in Slytherin. Of course, James reacts. No "good" person would want to be in the house that supports genocide. At least it's shameful.

Draco actually insulted Hufflepuff from his privileged position. For him, Hufflepuff isn't "prestigious" enough.

James was rude because of the moral component of Slytherin’s ideology (and he was right, though he shouldn't have interfered in Snape and Lily's conversation), while Draco criticised personal qualities of Hufflepuffs, which he finds not "cool" enough. And this is exactly how Snape later insults Gryffindor, calling them stupid.

This is a completely different starting point. However, this doesn't negate the fact that James and Sirius were bullies. James tripped Snape the first time they met. James physically bullied Snape. Sirius bullied him psychologically. Meanwhile, Snape was inventing dark spells, which he planned to use on enemies. Considering he was planning to become a Death Eater, enemies would be Aurors, the Order of the Phoenix, Muggles, and Muggle-borns.

Lily tried more than once to convince him that he was on the wrong path, but Snape was blinded by his ideals. Even his love for Lily didn’t change his beliefs. He thought the genocide wouldn't affect Lily. Snape only realised the full horror when tragedy struck him personally – the only one he always loved. Then he understood how painful it is to lose a loved one. Then he realised that other people also lose loved ones. That all of them are people. And that genocide is bad, and Voldemort is evil.

Snape’s fans blame only James and Sirius, portraying Snape as an innocent victim of rich, pure-blood, popular boys. Ignoring the fact that Snape genuinely believed he was better than the two, and that in Slytherin they couldn’t stand James and Remus, but probably treated Snape quite well, although not enough to defend him (which is not surprising for Slytherins, when did they ever defend each other in canon?). No one was accepted into Voldemort's ranks just like that, Snape was very smart and talented. Voldemort didn't recruit only through fear, intimidation, and humiliation, he gave a sense of community, participation, exclusivity, unity.

James and Sirius are cruel, with Sirius being more cruel than James. James has a "justification" in his mind; Sirius needs no justification, he simply despises Snape. James doesn't understand that even if you think someone is bad, you can't beat and humiliate them. Sirius doesn’t care about this. They don't understand that their violence is bad. None of them fully understand it. All of them think Snape deserved such treatment.

I find it very hard to write this and I'm sincerely trying to be fair to schoolboy Snape and see him first as a child, not a future member of a terrorist organisation, who actively supported these views even at school, though even teenagers are responsible for their actions. But if you find an excuse for Snape, find one for James too. And don't make Snape out to be a little defenceless boy who was a victim and who hid behind bushes. Snape was never a defenceless boy.

I love Snape as a character. But both he and James, and Sirius, were cruel children, but with different presuppositions.

Regarding the notion that poor Snape was bullied by the rich... JKR tried to push a narrative of classism based on money into the story but failed completely, because there is no evidence that pure-blood wizards were directly associated with wealth in the WW. JKR is known for her haphazard world-building, her Ministry even lacks a Department of Economy and Finance, and here she tried to introduce a narrative of Snape's poverty versus the wealth of pure-blood James and Sirius, while the entire book contradicts this narrative. Let me explain! In the books, blood is more important than money. Blood provides connections. And before all social changes connections and blood brought everything else. Although there probably aren’t many rich Slytherins, most are of average wealth. By that point, James was a son of blood traitors and likely not very popular in Slytherin. No amount of money could fix the disdain they had for him because he actively opposed their ideals. A poor but pure-blood Slytherin would consider themselves much higher in status than James (As often happens, the most extreme and exclusive views appear when people start losing their position, and the pure-bloods began to lose their position in the WW). The heir of Slytherin – a status that outweighed poverty and Tom Riddle's half-blood status. For the Lestranges, Rosiers, and Averys, this was enough to follow Tom. They smirked in the book when Tom said he had a "bad background." They knew his real background, his true status. Snape was a Prince, his mother was pure-blood, we don’t know much more about them, but considering Snape called himself the Half-Blood Prince, he was proud of being a Prince, not a Snape. The Gaunts were poor, but they considered themselves the most noble. Classism in the WW isn’t that simple, it’s not just pure-bloods = money or that money solves everything, or money = Upper class. Even in Muggle history, aristocrats weren't homogeneous, there were "real nobles," like in Germany, there was Uradel and those who gained their nobility, Briefadel. The antiquity of a noble line was considered superior to a newly granted honorary title. After all, any commoner can be granted a title, but no power can give noble ancestors to someone not born to them. And this is very relevant to the WW with its shifting social structure, where previously pure-bloods ruled and didn't allow anyone decent jobs etc etc, and now suddenly everything is changing and "Mudbloods" can even become Ministers of Magic.

Slughorn is known for trying to be a "good Slytherin," but he is also the craftiest Slytherin and knows which way the wind blows. The first time around, in his Slug Club, there were only pure-bloods and Tom Riddle himself, but Tom was an exceptional student. But then pure-bloods increasingly lose their status as society becomes more diverse, and he realises that half-bloods can also achieve success. Cunning Slughorn understands that the social structure is starting to change (and this becomes fertile ground for war because pure-bloods don't want to lose their status). And we see that in the Slug Club, there are now half-bloods and pure-bloods, and he selects not just based on pure-blood status but also on talents and who owns a potion shop etc.

So, James has a conditional "status" among "good" houses and within a changing society, but for Slytherin, where Snape studied, James’s status wasn't so clear and his money wasn’t really important for old-fashioned Slytherins. Slytherin lived by its own laws, the laws of true class – Nature's Nobility (Nature's Nobility: A Wizarding Genealogy). Obviously, not everyone was wealthy. In such a small economy, there can't be a large number of wealthy families. While James was popular in school among a more liberal society, Snape fuelled his pride within Slytherin, which accepted him even as a half-blood. And only Sirius had real status for Slytherins, but he lost it. Classism in the WW is complex, because during the Marauders' era, they were in a situation of changing social structure. It's somewhat like the Middle Ages when the middle class emerged, followed by the English Revolution etc. But people reduce it all to the simple cliché of "they had money," although the dynamics between them were more complex, and their story unfolded during serious social upheavals and class struggle.

I know it’s boring 😂 If you have any thoughts, let’s discuss!

[sctumsempra]

going insane and i need to infodump about severus snape’s patronus being a doe for a second. i personally don’t think it changed, or lily necessarily influenced it- i think it’s always been a doe, casting the charm in dumbledore’s office was meant to show that he and lily were supposed to be viscerally aligned with each other and he knows he fucked it up and that’s why he’s spent almost two decades trying to atone for what he did. on a representative level, the doe symbolizes peace, protection, and innocence, and no three words could possibly represent severus snape more.

all he wants is peace: a peaceful life for himself, a peaceful world, a peaceful school. everything he’s ever done has been to create as much peace as possible. some of it can be considered misguided from a black and white moral standpoint, but it’s what created peace for himself. for example, aligning himself with the purist views of his housemates made him less of a target for bullying- he’s not a pure blood, and they’d know, and having powerful ambitious students on your side instead of alienating yourself from everyone means you have at least a semblance of protection from harm some of the time. he becomes a double agent for dumbledore to help bring about peace from voldemort’s reign. it might not have been peaceful for him per se, but it was still with the intention of peace in some form. he tries to give other people peace- he takes a vow with narcissa to protect her son because she’s crying and scared for him, and it gives her peace. he doesn’t throw draco under the bus to save his skin when voldemort accuses him of being the elder wands owner, giving draco and narcissa peace even if they weren’t aware. it’s either for himself, or for others.

he’s the most protective teacher at the school- would mcgonagall have thrown herself in front of three kids facing a wolfsbane-less werewolf? would flitwick take the burden of an unbreakable vow to protect draco malfoy from voldemort? would any of the DADA teachers have run towards the sound of a screaming woman? he consistently vows to protect everyone and everything he can. and, leading into his innocence, when he realizes he’s only been protecting harry for him to die, it breaks him.

he’s not necessarily innocent in that his hands are clean and he’s never done anything wrong in his life, but he’s innocent in that he’s naive. he trusted voldemort enough to be drawn into the death eaters, he trusted dumbledore enough to be manipulated into his bidding. it feels like he forgets that dumbledore screws him over constantly, dangles things in front of him and takes them away, makes crude assumptions, and has left him to fend for himself essentially their entire relationship. the times that dumbledore abandons him- physically, mentally, metaphorically- he gets very upset. like it’s new information to him that dumbledore treats him like shit. from an abuse perspective, he probably had to spend his childhood mentally erasing what his parents and home were like so he could feel safe and normal, so the constant ebb and flow/back and forth of his and dumbledore’s relationship is familiar to him. when dumbledore draws him back in with whatever method, he’s right back to behaving as dumbledore wants, doing what dumbledore wants, and believing what dumbledore believes. the times that he remembers that dumbledore doesn’t care that he let the guy who’s tried to kill him or assault go, or that dumbledore thinks he wants only lily saved because he desires her romantically or sexually, or that dumbledore has only been using harry and, by extension, him (as he’s been the one protecting harry) to play the long game of destroying voldemort are the times that he’s emotional in the books. he cries, he’s vulnerable, he raises his voice, he begs and he pleads and he defers. he doesn’t do that any other time, other than when he found harry watching his memories. he trusts and he forgives (or he forgets, or he feels safer pretending he doesn’t care what’s been done to him/how he’s been treated.) a doe is perfect for him. reducing it to something like tonk’s patronus being changed as soon as she’s in a relationship with lupin or that it’s only a doe because of lily evans completely erases his entire way of thinking and behaving and being.

also, in a self indulgent addendum, it’s a very feminine animal, and severus is consistently aligned with femininity. hermione calls the half-blood prince’s writing feminine. he wears his mother’s clothes as a child, and lupin encourages neville to dress his boggart as his grandmother. he’s quiet and docile and tries to be non-violent unless he’s pushed to his breaking point, and even then it’s screaming or crying or getting animated. he’s emotional and frequently painted as hysterical. he gets the “woman character treatment”: to the average viewer who doesn’t think about him long enough to understand otherwise, he only desires lily. the consensus is that he chases her, he only thinks about her in the context of attraction. the line about looking at her greedily is constantly understood to be lust, and not a desire for love or a desire for a peaceful relationship for once in his life (and a relationship that only ever seems to be platonic at that). he even backs off and all but disappears from her life when he’s asked to, while james (the one with the stag patronus, the classic triumphant male character) harasses her and pursues her and behaves in a way that makes his son decades later wonder if he forced lily into a relationship. he’s behaviorally aligned with what femininity in the eyes of misogyny is supposed to be. he keeps to himself, he’s quiet, he sacrifices every bit of himself for students and coworkers and superiors and expects nothing in return, he pushes his students to be the best they can. (i’d say nurtures with my whole chest, but as the narrative comes from harry, we can’t really be sure. in my view, his house won the house cup for several years in a row which was only interrupted by dumbledore awarding a fuck ton of points to his gryffindor prize pony, his classes are seen as high performing and advanced by even dolores umbridge of all people, he only tries to punish students albeit a bit violently after several attempts of getting them to understand why what they did was wrong, which seems to be pretty nurturing in comparison to what other teachers allow and do). whether he’s trans, or had been influenced more by eileen, or he was intended to be deeply complex and contradictory and that meant that he had to have these traits, or any other of the multitude of reasons for snape being an inherently feminine character, it’s there. his patronus wouldn’t be a stag, he wouldn’t be anything overbearing and he wouldn’t be anything aggressive. it doesn’t make sense with his soul and his personality and his life. the peaceful protective innocent/naive doe, however, does.

[heidi891]

The Boggart Lesson from PoA

I like both Snape and Lupin, and I don’t agree with the takes from both ‘sides’ of fandom.

1) Snape makes a rude remark about Neville. I love Snape, but that was terrible. It’s great that Lupin tries to help Neville.

2) Lupin cannot know Snape is Neville’s boggart. Neville’s greatest fear is being a Squib, being not enough, and he’s just had a stressful lesson with Snape. Lupin could think Neville’s boggart would be some kind of a monster like many kids or a Death Eater or something like that connected to what happened to the Longbottoms. Snape isn’t an obvious option. Lupin wants to help Neville, not to bully Snape.

3) Once it turns out Neville’s boggart is Snape, it’s hard to choose a Riddikulus option that doesn’t humiliate Snape somehow.

4) Still, this scene is an early sign that Lupin used to be Snape’s bully (or at least a friend and an enabler of his bullies, though the Marauders Map suggests Lupin could take more active part in the bullying before the Prank).

5) Because of that bullying, Snape takes the boggart incident personally. Lupin doesn’t try to bully Snape this time, so from this point of view Snape is overreacting, but at the same time he does have a reason to suspect Lupin of bad intentions. After all, he was a member of the group that bullied Snape, and Lupin never apologised.

All I mean… it isn’t black and white situation.

[mitsuki91]

Another controversial and unpopular headcanon about Severus and Lily.

I always read that they don't understand each other, that Lily at least is not a real friend for him, ect ect... I don't like this.

I think they knew each other. In a way impossible to replicate. They are fond of each other. Too fond. As in they want more.

I mean not necessary in a romantic way, but in a jealous way for sure.

Do you think Lily was so stupid to not understand what's going on in Slytherin? To not see how James' bully and the fact Sev is alone in the entire school affect him so much? Oh no. Oh no, she knew. And she thinks: "But I am here. Why am I not enough?"

Do you think Severus was so stupid to not understand she is doomed to be hunted in the upcoming war? That she has to have other friends, a little protection everywhere she can find it, in order to survive outside school? He knews. And he thinks: "But I am here. Why am I not enough?"

The real problem between these two was that they don't fucking talk to each other. They are teens and afraid about their feelings. I suppose Severus was in love (or thinks he was if you don't see it) and doesn't feel like she can choose him, so he deny, even in his mind. He is sooo afraid to lose her that he simply shout down inside. And I suppose Lily knew somehow, somewhere in her, that her feelings are not healty. That she is not suppose to want him so much (again not necessary in a romantic way), to care about him so much... To need that he has to want her and only her so badly. She try find a balance, she try to make other friend, but no one stick or, in fact, she doesn't really care about other people so she is afraid. She thinks something is wrong with her.

They both are so jealous about each other that this blind them. They both feel so much about each other that they are afraid. And so, they didn't talk about this, and start to think this was a "me" problem and the other sure can not feels this way.

So they are doomed.

But yeah, at the end, Lily was the person who know Severus the best and Severus same about her.

They are real friends. Even too much.

[maxdibert]

The nickname “Snivellus” derives from the word “snivel,” which means crybaby. So, Snivellus was basically a way of mocking the fact that Severus might show his emotions—that instead of toughing it out like a stereotypical, macho, strong, hairy-chested man, he cried. I don’t think I need to explain why this nickname is problematic—any nickname used to bully someone is problematic—but a nickname that also references a supposed weakness, stemming from the expectations of a patriarchal society for men to display “unmanly” behavior typical of “weak” men, is not just problematic due to the bullying itself but also because of the misogynistic implications it carries. Because yes, misogyny and hegemonic gender roles also affect men by demanding certain traits from them to validate them socially. And I know the Marauders lived in the 1970s, and that Rowling is one of the worst when it comes to gender issues. But I find it quite ironic how Marauders Stans or Slytherin Skittles, who have built their trash fandom and constant Snape-bashing around the topic of LGBTQ+ themes, have the audacity to mock Snape using a nickname that directly attacks gender nonconformity and justifies a toxic, traditional masculinity that shames men who cry or show emotions, labeling them as less valid.

The Marauders weren’t social justice warriors, and James and Sirius, in particular, embodied the classic values of male success through the performance of stereotypical “macho” characteristics: as leaders, as “alphas” of the pack. Both are violent; both are cocky men who try to stand out and mark their territory. Both exhibit behaviors that have typically been excused in men just because they are men, such as abusive and reckless behavior. Their nickname for Severus stems from the idea that showing emotions—especially crying—if you are a man, is a reason for ridicule and mockery because men don’t cry. Men are supposed to be strong, puff out their chests, and keep going because that’s what men do. It’s a misogynistic and archaic mindset that continues to be perpetuated in social models and relationships to this day. And I find it incredibly hypocritical that certain people who claim to hate J.K. Rowling for being a transphobe then go on to appropriate the horribly sexist nicknames she created for a group of heterosexual men embodying toxic masculinity to bully another man for not performing the traditional masculine model expected of someone like him.

Because Severus wasn’t a “macho”. Severus was a studious introvert with a more passive character who didn’t fit into the masculine vision of the time. Everything about him, including his appearance, demeanor, and interests, is unmasculine from a hegemonic perspective given the historical context. But these people don’t care. They’re so limited, so ignorant, and so cynical that they not only ignore these kinds of nuances but even find it funny to reproduce insults that any real-life James Potter would probably have used against them.

Make no mistake: James Potter and Sirius Black wouldn’t have been your friends. They would have tortured you as much, if not more, than Snape. And that’s the most pathetic part of their fandom, unfortunately.

[potions-of-dark-devotion]

Ok but what’s funny to me is Snaters relentlessly arguing that Severus Snape is a bad person when in fact the entire fate of the Wizarding World hangs on the string of his integrity and goodness. He could have burned the world to the ground if he wanted; but he values human life, even the lives of those he detests personally. Literally the entire Harry Potter series hangs on the balance of Severus’s goodness. Without his relentless goodness even in the face of hatred; Voldemort would have rolled over them like ants under a boulder. You can’t deny it. He is canonically a good person with more integrity and responsibility and patience than I could ever hope to have.

[tiphprince]

The Iceberg of Snape and Dumbledore's Scheming

If you prefer to read this on reddit, here's a link to the post.

This theory initally came from this simple observation: it makes no sense for Snape to be the referee of Harry's second Quidditch match.

In total, the text gives us directly 3 reasons, all from different point of views. For the teachers and the students, Snape is a petty bastard who wants to prevent Gryffindor from winning. For Harry, Snape is a murderous bastard who wants to kill him. For Quirrell, Snape is an interfering bastard who wants to protect Harry. This last reason is the one that we are given at the end, and that we accept as truth. It seems logical to us both in the plot of PS as Snape being a red herring, and the plot of the whole series, with Snape having always been there behind the scene to protect Harry in honor of Lily's memory.

From Snape's point of view however, this makes no sense.

"Why do you think he wanted to referee your next match? He was trying to make sure I didn’t do it again. Funny, really ... he needn’t have bothered. I couldn’t do anything with Dumbledore watching. All the other teachers thought Snape was trying to stop Gryffindor winning, he did make himself unpopular ... and what a waste of time, when after all that, I’m going to kill you tonight." - Quirrell

First, why would Snape be in a better position to help Harry while in the literal middle of a Quidditch match? He'd have to pay attention to everything happening, not just Harry, even if just to avoid being injured or killed himself, which nearly happened twice in the span of about 5 minutes. He wouldn't be able to focus nearly as much on counter spells, let alone keep an eye on Quirrell.

Second, Dumbledore's presence at the game. Even if Quirrell/Voldemort had made another attempt with Dumbledore there, I don't see how Snape could have done much from up there than Dumbledore wouldn't be able to do with spells.

So, my theory is, what if Snape wasn't there to protect Harry, but as another red herring, this time for Quirrell?

It gets a bit complicated here, as we have to keep track of the timeline and what everyone knows or doesn't know, so please bear with me.

I won't go into all the detailed explanations of Dumbledore's plot with the Philosopher's Stone, and the protections, many others have done it way better than I could, but the basic idea is this: Dumbledore knows Quirrell is working with or for Voldemort in some capacity, he orchestrated pretty much everything that happened in the first book, and asked Snape to keep an eye on Quirrell for him.

Quirrell however, doesn't know what exactly it is that Dumbledore knows. Quirrell knows that Snape suspects him, that he knows he's after the Stone, and that Quirrell made one attempt on Harry's life. What Quirrell does not know however, if whether or not Snape told all of this to Dumbledore.

Nothing, to Quirrell, indicates that Dumbledore knows about everything, or at least knows who is behind the events. After all, if he knew, why not have Quirrell fired/imprisoned, why not confront him, like Snape does?

To show this further, Dumbledore even asks Quirrell to help set up one of the protections for the Stone. This alone shows that Dumbledore must trust Quirrell, and so that Snape and Dumbledore are not working closely together, or else Snape would have told him. Snape being a referee even with Dumbledore present reinforces that idea.

In fact, to go even deeper, Snape is the one who looks the most guilty out of everyone involved.

"Yes, Severus does seem the type, doesn’t he? So useful to have him swooping around like an overgrown bat. Next to him, who would suspect p-p-poor st- stuttering P-Professor Quirrell?" - Quirrell

What if Quirrell's plan was to also use Snape as a scapegoat, the one Dumbledore would be focused on. After all, we we saw it in the book, no one looks more guilty than Snape. This would explain why Dumbledore would attend a Quidditch match, which isn't something he usually does, to... keep an eye on Snape, who would be in close proximity to Harry during a highly dangerous sports game.

From Dumbledore and Snape's point of view, this is what they are counting on. Give Quirrell a false sense of security, that the one person he fears doesn't suspect him personally, not anymore than anyone else at least, and allows the rest of Dumbledore's plans to go as smoothly as possible.

In this book, Snape is a red herring for Harry, for Quirrell, for Dumbledore, and of course, the reader.

[snapeysister]

Snapedom!

Anyone having meta or ideas on why Severus had specifically been killed by a snake? Why would Voldemort, despite admitting that Severus had been a loyal servant to him and showing no signs of suspicion in his loyalty, decide to kill him in such a cruel way? And why Nagini, of all snakes?

Thanks in advance for input!

[picthos]

the son of Spinner’s End's Snape

In the past, I have written about this topic, but today I aim to provide a more detailed explanation.

When Petunia saw Snape, she contemptuously referred to him as "Spinner’s End's Snape boy." I believe that Petunia must have learned about Severus and the Snape family’s reputation from adults. My reasoning is as follows:

1-Children, when speaking negatively about someone they don’t know well, usually mock their appearance, clothing, or create derogatory nicknames based on the person’s name.

2-For instance, James Potter referred to Snape as "Snivellus" after hearing his name. Similarly, Sirius, who was aware of Snape’s poverty and unkempt appearance, described him to Harry as having an ungroomed appearance and also mentioned Snape’s knowledge of dark magic during their school days.

In most cases, when children ridicule someone they are unfamiliar with, they typically do not criticize the person’s family name.

To put it simply, Petunia’s use of "Snape Boy," invoking Snape’s family surname, is not something children would ordinarily come up with on their own. The way she not only uses his name but also disparages the neighborhood he comes from reflects a level of disdain that surpasses what children typically develop independently. While Spinner’s End, the neighborhood where Snape lived, was already stigmatized due to its poverty, outright contempt for the area is more likely to be an attitude instilled by adults rather than one children form on their own, especially without direct exposure to such biases.

In the story, another character who targets a family name is Draco Malfoy. Draco, having been raised by pure-blood parents who disdained the Weasley family, mimicked this sentiment by mocking Ron for his family background. This highlights how such attitudes are often shaped and reinforced by adults rather than naturally originating among children.

The issue of children in contemporary elementary schools dividing each other based on family background and parental occupations remains prevalent today. Parents often pass their prejudices down to their children, encouraging them to avoid or exclude certain classmates. Consequently, marginalized children become targets, with others mocking their homes and families and labeling them as being from "poor neighborhoods" or "poor households."

When I saw Petunia calling Severus "Snape Boy," it reminded me of these harmful societal prejudices. This suggests that Snape’s family had a poor reputation among the townspeople, much like the way such biases are perpetuated in real life.

Petunia’s hobby, as seen in Book 1, is eavesdropping on the neighbors. If neither Mr. nor Mrs. Evans were critical of Snape’s family, it is likely that Petunia picked up the term "Snape Boy" from other adults in the town.

neighbors and strangers, who hardly know him, would judge him with prejudice by mentioning the father he dislikes and wishes to avoid. Based on what we see from Petunia’s words and actions, I believe there are plenty of reasons, beyond his father’s issues, for young Snape to have no attachment to the Muggle world.

[forestdeath1]

I see many Snape Stans (I dislike Snape but I see why he turned out the way he did) saying James sexually assaulted him, especially on TikTok, when it’s not the truth at all, we don’t know if he ever actually took off his pants because and it wasn’t his fault that Snape wasn’t wearing any trousers. While he did bully him he never sexually assaulted him, and so many people are now saying this and I’m just flabbergasted, why did no one read the books? Why does everyone get their informations off TikTok and Twitter?

I don't really like this topic, to be honest. But here's how I perceive it.

1. In the canon, as far as I remember, it wasn't even implied that wizards wore trousers under their robes. They all just wore their underwear. And Lupin says:

"Oh, that one had a great vogue during my time at Hogwarts," said Lupin reminiscently. "There were a few months in my fifth year when you couldn’t move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle."

"Yes," he said, "but he wasn't the only one. As I say, it was very popular. . . . You know how these spells come and go. . . ."

So Snape not only created this spell himself, but it also became popular at school. So many students were hanging upside down, showing off their underwear.

From this, we can infer that wizards perceived it slightly differently than we do now, and even than Harry. It was "fun" bullying, but nothing more. Even Lupin himself sounds like he's justifying it, although he probably got hung upside down too ("There were a few months in my fifth year when you couldn’t move for being hoisted into the air by your ankle.").

2. We don't know for sure if James ended up taking Snape's pants off. Logically speaking, JKR simply didn't describe it, assuming that he did. Given the time the book was written, she probably didn't intend to invest it with such a horrible meaning. This all happens in the 70s in the WW. For our time, of course, it's SA. And that's awful. But the perception of that time could leave its mark. For example, when I was in school, many things that are now considered "awful" were seen as "not so bad". Those who did those awful things back then didn't even really understand how awful their actions truly were. Society evolves and we increasingly respect people's personal psychological and physical boundaries. What we didn't perceive as SA back then is considered SA today. A simple example you've probably seen in movies, spanking children was considered normal and right. That's how society raised those people. Surely today those same people wouldn't spank their children, because they would understand it's bad.

So it's likely that nobody at school perceived this action as SA. Moreover, James always played to the crowd. And if he really, according to the author's intention, took Snape's pants off, and the whole school saw it as normal, and didn't start looking at James with disgust... it raises big questions for the school students, doesn't it? If my friend did this today, he wouldn't be my friend anymore. Most people would look at such a person with disgust. But James's popularity didn't diminish at all.

This brings us back to the fact that nobody back then saw it as worse than bullying. So the society of that time hadn't yet formed enough understanding of what SA was and how bad it was to expose someone else's genitals. So James didn't fully understand either how awful it was, much more awful than pink bubbles out of your mouth or doubling someone's head in size. So for them it was all on the same level — taking someone's pants off or making them hang upside down or doubling their head in size.

I'm not justifying it, but the wizarding world is pretty harsh. Neville was thrown out of a window, Harry almost killed Draco, Fred and George literally made a kid disappear for a week, and Hermione kept Rita Skeeter captive in a jar for over a month. All of this is awful, but the wizarding world operates by different moral standards.

If judged in terms of our morality, there are almost no morally pure characters in these books.

I especially don't understand Snape stans (I mean I like Snape, but I don’t understand their logic). In terms of our morality, both Snape and James deserve to be punished. Snape would have got a much bigger sentence for joining and helping a terrorist organisation. What are Snape stans trying to prove? That Snape was better? No, he wasn't. They're all arseholes in terms of the muggle world of 2024.

[thebewitcher]

Recently, I've realized that one of the major disagreements I have with some of the more radical Snape haters is that they interpret Snape as being duplicitous. One big example of that mindset is their belief that he knew Peter was the spy but kept this information a secret to get revenge on his school bully. They also present him as using his position as a teacher to unfairly punish or try to punish Harry.

But, the more closely I study this character, the more I see him as someone who is, in his own way, very earnest and who cares about following the rules (maybe as a reaction against what he became and did when he strayed away from the right path). Even if a case could be made about him being more lenient towards Slytherin, which is a whole other can of worms linked to his past, and less forgiving towards those he doesn't like.

But he's not punishing or isn't trying to punish someone if he doesn't sincerely believe they had done something wrong/broke the rules and deserved to be punished in accordance. There are a lot of examples of him being on Harry's case about something Harry is indeed guilty of. While he might take some joy in seizing the opportunity to punish Harry (or someone else he dislikes), my impression is that he always honestly believes in Harry's guilt and he's doing what he sees as his job as a teacher. He's not inventing Harry's wrongdoings to have a pretext to be a dick to Harry (he doesn't need a pretext for that). He believes what he says and acts in accordance.

So, to me, his fault isn't him being dishonest. No, he's the hero of his own story when it comes to his role as a professor, trying to teach stubborn and not always bright children, trying to uphold order and some justice against those arrogant (in his opinion) enough to break the rules in major ways.

His faults leading to him unfairly judging students are his being very stubborn in his views of others and of their actions (thinking he knows their motivations for instance), being blinded by his emotions, and by his own preconceptions about what someone's personality might be. Harry and he are very much alike underneath it all in this regard. He doesn't really try to know more about a situation or its circumstances once he made up his mind about it or about someone.

So, it's not admitting that he has faults (and made bad calls) that's an issue for me, the issue for me is what I believe to be a bad (as in "incorrect") interpretation of the character used to bash him, IMHO, unfairly.