#and well maybe snaters had an empathy problem

[maxdibert]

Womp womp womp first of all im not damning snape because im a marauders fan im damning severus snape because he was neville’s greatest fear.

Neville’s greatest fear was Snape because he was a strict, intimidating teacher—not because Snape was out there committing war crimes. Are we pretending boggarts are objective measures of morality now? By your logic, McGonagall, who was Hermione's boggart and frequently reprimanded and also scared Neville should be equally condemned. But I guess she gets a pass because she’s “cool.” Neville was terrified of failing—Snape symbolized that, but it wasn’t personal. You’re projecting way too much malice here.

He wasn’t just being mean to Neville because of his incompetence. There was clear joy and glee that was expressed in the books and the movies, and even if there wasn’t, emotionally torturing a child to the point of breakdowns purely because they’re bad at a subject is not okay??

Show me one canon passage where Snape “gleefully” torments Neville. One. You’re mistaking harshness for sadistic joy because it fits your narrative. Snape was strict, biased, and unfair, but delighting in suffering? That’s a fanfiction headcanon, not canon. He bullied Neville because of his incompetence, yes, and because Snape’s survival depended on competence in a literal war against Voldemort. He couldn’t afford to coddle students—not that it excuses his behavior, but let’s stick to facts, not exaggerated interpretations.

Also your little explanation about james potter and ‘trauma’ makes absolutely no damn sense. It still doesn’t excuse the fact that he was deliberately targeting harry for something that wasn’t his fault.

You missed the point entirely. No one is excusing Snape’s treatment of Harry. It’s called explaining it. Snape knows Harry isn’t at fault—that’s what makes his behavior tragic and compelling. He’s aware of how irrational it is, which deepens his character rather than reducing him to a cartoon villain. That’s the whole point of morally gray writing—you’re supposed to wrestle with these contradictions.

His special treatment was a result of something traumatic that happened to him as a baby and destroyed his childhood. It’s not like he got it by doing something terrible.

Snape didn’t hate Harry for being famous—he hated him because he was James Potter’s living reminder, a painful mix of James’ face and Lily’s eyes. He’s not “jealous” of Harry’s privilege; he’s bitter about Harry embodying the person he loved and the person who destroyed his life. It’s irrational, unfair, and deeply human. This isn’t a cartoon where every action needs to be justifiable—Snape is complex because he acts on emotions he knows are wrong but can’t suppress.

And I never said he fit into a ‘hero/villain’ box and I don’t want him to! Compelling characters are interesting but that doesn’t mean I worship him!

Great, we agree! Snape isn’t meant to be worshipped—he’s meant to be understood. But your original argument framed him as irredeemable because of his flaws, which is reductive. Recognizing Snape’s complexities doesn’t mean excusing his faults—it means acknowledging that his heroism and cruelty coexist. You seem to be struggling with that nuance.

I literally acknowledged that he helped out the Order, but I also pointed out that just because he has some good in him doesn’t mean I’m legally required to love him and excuse every wrong he’s ever done.

No one said you have to love him. You’re allowed to dislike Snape. What you can’t do is pretend that your dislike makes his actions irrelevant or his arc shallow. You can hate him all you want, but dismissing his redemption because of his flaws shows a lack of literary understanding.

You can disagree with my take but it is not reductive to say I dislike a character because he bullies children.

It is reductive because Snape isn’t just “the guy who bullies kids.” He’s a deeply flawed, morally complex character whose entire arc revolves around guilt, redemption, and sacrifice. Reducing him to “mean teacher bad” is exactly the shallow take I’m calling out.

It’s explicitly correct and canon that he bullies children and it’s perfectly valid for me to not care about the reason why.

Sure, it’s valid if you’re discussing personal taste. But if you’re going to argue literary merit, context always matters. Otherwise, you’re just shouting “he’s bad!” without engaging with why he’s written that way. Fiction isn’t about liking characters—it’s about understanding them.

Snape defenders when somebody dislikes a fictional character for valid reasons: 👹👹👹

Valid reasons would require acknowledging the character’s full complexity, not reducing him to a caricature. You’re the one ignoring context while expecting no pushback—if you can’t handle debate, don’t start one.

I’m not even saying you CANT like him. Where did I say that other people can’t like him?

This part’s fair—you didn’t. But you also framed your argument like anyone who finds Snape compelling is a deluded fanboy/girl. If you’re going to criticize a character, be prepared for counterarguments without crying foul when people engage with your points.

I just KNOW ur unemployed or stinky or both.

Oh, sweetie. Resorting to playground-level insults only makes it clearer that you ran out of actual arguments. Next time, try debating the points instead of throwing out tired, irrelevant jabs. Better luck next time.

Saw your post about Regulus, what are your thoughts on Snape? /gen

soooo i know this is gonna get people doxxing me and finding my ip address but i DO NOT like snape.

there is absolutely no excuse to bully children. whenever i think of poor neville i just can’t like snape. i don’t give a FUCK that he was bullied as a child. i was bullied heavily as a child and you don’t see me emotionally torturing children for fun. the fact that he explicitly targets harry because of what his DEAD DAD did MULTIPLE YEARS AGO is absolutely insane. the fact that james is dead and died before harry even knew him and yet snape resents him? that’s absolutely insane behavior.

and don’t even get me started on how he treats hermione! girlie is just trying to get good grades and he treats her like she’s some roach! i wouldn’t be surprised if it was partly because of her blood status, considering that he’s called lily (one of his closest friends) a mudblood.

did he help things with the war and to an extent keep harry safe at times? yes. but do i LIKE him? hell to the no.

i feel like snape defenders just want a dark brooding “i can fix him” archetype of a character or a sad wet meow meow boy who’s meek and bullied, which i guess is whatever but it makes me so angry when people are like “you can’t like the marauders, they were bullies!” based on one or two flashback incidents FROM SNAPES PERSPECTIVE (could be twisted or misunderstood), when snape was a million times worse of a bully because he was a full grown adult objectively targeting eleven through sixteen year olds for his own pleasure. like…numerous witnesses, no way to deny that that’s what he’s doing.