#but i'd laugh at anyone who told me snape invented levicorpus for anything other than what prongs used it for

[vazaha-tya]

the worst of the marauders is always shown as two scenes: the prank and the pantsing scene

i've talked about it before, the prank is totally on sirius and there's nothing to absolve him of that. his upbringing might have given him extenuating circumstances but that doesn't excuse him. that being said, severus was the instigator of the situation. HE was the one trying to get remus expelled or killed

and the pantsing scene was on the marauders as well and it does seem like they're doing it for their own enjoyment. but james is using a spell severus created. where did he get it? how did he know to use it that way? considering what lily says about him and his friends targetting muggle-borns, there aren't too many possible answers. most anti-marauders people would be charitable and say james had the cruelty to repurpose severus' own spell and use it against him. but i think a lot of snape's actions are downplayed by what people don't say about them.

he was a death eater who changed sides yes, but what did he do while he was still on voldemort's side? and as a spy?

he cleverly knew and invented many curses, what did he do with them? who were his targets?

it is hard to defend or condemn severus because the measure of his actions is never made explicit

that's why i can't see him as a victim even in situations where the marauders are clearly in the wrong. because what isn't said, what is only implied in subtext is as sinistre as what he throws in their faces.

severus snape is not a victim. he never allowed himself to be

to clarify

i am neutral about snape

i don't like him as a person but he's a potentially interesting character

i just don't think he's well-written

his role as a spy was barely exploited

the reasoning behind his abuse of children is flimsy

and the whole marauders-snape relationship is described so badly it can be interpreted in every direction

were the marauders bullies and snape a hapless victim of their dastardly ways? eh. we're talking abt the dude who invented a curse to make someone bleed out. how do you think remus found out snape knew more curses in first year than the rest of his classmates?

were the marauders defenders of the weak against a future death eater and his friends? probably not. the pantsing scene at the very least showed they targetted him for their own enjoyment more than anything else.

or were the schoolyard fights meant as allegories of the greater tension of the war brewing in the background? most likely. the atmosphere was tense in the castle. people were disappearing, awful laws being passed as death eaters infiltrated the ministry and pureblood rhetoric was spouted louder than ever.

i think the marauders probably didn't have the time to torment snape as much as people seem to think considering they were mapping out the school, becoming animagi, running around on the full moon, doing homework (+playing quidditch for james) and who knows what else. draco had the time to bully harry because he literally had nothing else to do. that's not the case here.

but i also think james is probably the one who antagonised snape and insulted/hexed him first, maybe called him a dark wizard and generally comforted him in his idea that he had no place in the light side. his friends also probably followed, especially sirius who never learnt what a moral compass was and who probably doesn't have a standard of what "going too far" means. can you imagine what bellatrix and him got up to as kids in grimmauld place? i hardly think he understands the concept of bullying. james was spoiled, sirius fucked up and the other two very eager to please. a recipe for disaster.

but snape didn't become a death eater because of the marauders. he already resented muggles before coming to hogwarts and knew a lot of curses which he's kind of implied to have happily used. his break from lily pushed him further down the dark path but he was already involved in purist circles. he wasn't alone, he had friends (who died in the war too if i understood it right, or went to azkaban).

the marauders weren't ganging up on him 24/7. they started the hostilities, yes, and took pleasure in humiliating him. snape and his friends apparently took pleasure in attacking muggle-borns though.

they were all shitty kids terrified to die and lashing out at each other. the thing is that the marauders didn't get to grow out of it (except remus, who did put the rivalry behind him and pettigrew who's generally ignored in this) and snape did but stewed in his hatred.

snape would have been a compelling antihero if he had been better written. if it was made clear that he is selfish and bitter yet still fighting for the right side. (i wish jkr hadn't involved lily. i'm so tired of her being only characterised by her relationship with the men in her life). if he was just a complicated man, one who isn't absolved by his tragic backstory. or if it had taught him to be better, if he had been a mentor to harry instead of another reason to think he wasn't safe anywhere

and if his spying years had actually given useful intel ffs. because what did he learn as a spy that the order used? smh