#trouble is most people who DO criticise him fail to fully understand his backstory and the implications that has

[lilithofpenandbook]

A lot of people like to argue that because we only see a few memories, those probably aren't what happened all the time and that Snape was still bullying people in a gang, the memories are biased, yap yap yap

And aside from the Pensieve-is-biased excused being firstly canonically incorrect (it's established very clearly that Pensives show the literal truth and that it's impossible to tamper them without leaving evidence, hence why Slughorn's pensive memories make him more suspicious because the alteration is very clear so obviously he's hiding something) and secondly just plain stupid (why would Severus alter the memories? He removed them to hide them, not to make himself look like a victim for a viewer. We weren't even supposed to see them), there's something else people aren't getting.

That one memory is intended to show the entire dynamic.

It's like a literary/plot device. Obviously no one is going to write the entire backstory. No one has time for that. Instead, the scenes that are shown and written are written with the intention of showing what the dynamic always was (the "Worst Memory" part being explained later by it being the break of Lily and Snape's friendship, not because of the assault).

Another scene that reinforces that the dynamic between Snape and James was always a victim and an abuser is their first meeting where James mirrors exactly what Draco says about Houses. That is not a coincidence or a fun little throwback to book one, no. That's included and written like that to make it clear to the reader that James Potter was the Draco Malfoy of the past, that he was the rich, horrible bully.

Not only that, but just Snape's behaviour should make it clear he's a victim of severe abuse. He's irrational when it comes to Harry, a literal child. He reacts really strongly to Harry, almost disproportionately. That's not the behaviour of someone with just a grudge. That's the behaviour of someone with severe trauma, so much so that it's still affecting him.

But back to the memories. I think what people forget (especially the marauders fandom) is that the books were written by a person who made specific choices for what happened in the story. Yes, JKR is a bad person, but she still made deliberate storytelling choices. The memories we see of Snape's past (which are all unbiased- which should be made clear considering it's very raw and doesn't hesitate to make Severus look unflattering, it's not romanticising him) are chosen and written by her deliberately to show us what the dynamic always was like. Not "tell", show.

That one scene for Snape's Worst Memory should be enough to show the reader that this is how it always was. No excuses, no nuance, no "Mauraders fighting the Evil Slytherins", no. Had that happened, had James had a valid excuse at any point in time, that vital information would have been shown to us. But it's not. Because Snape's Worst Memory is exactly how it always happened.

From Snape being alone, to the predator/prey language, to Lily's "What has he even done to you?" and James' answer "It's more the fact that he exists, if you know what I mean", to Harry's shock and disgust and Sirius having to cycle through various excuses, the entire thing is intended to show us what the dynamic always was. Snape was always alone and attacked when he was doing nothing but minding his own business. The Marauders were just cruel bullies. Harry's disgust and shock is written as so because there is no excuse to justify James' actions, there was no Death Eater gang. And further proof is later on, in the deliberate parallel between James and Draco. It's a deliberate writing choice to show us what was always happening.

And to be honest, I think it's this "show" Vs "tell" in the books that have led to people these days being unable to understand Snape or James and completely misunderstanding both characters, and that's showing there's a clear decline of media literacy/reading comprehension.

For Snape, we aren't told he regretted his actions and changed, or that he was vulnerable and his joining the Death Eaters probably had little to do with blood purity, we are shown it. We're shown that he was always alone, we are shown he's a victim of abuse. We are given context beforehand that we can use to realise that Slytherin House was probably hostile. British readers are all too aware of the sheer class disparity and can understand how that would have affected Snape too. Everything about Snape is shown to us. It's there in the text, just not written out as "Snape felt very bad for what he did and was never a blood supremacist ever again".

On the other hand, we're told that James matured. Anything good about James is told to us directly, when we are shown that he was very much an awful person (and no, not letting Severus be killed is not a sign he was a good person in any way. That could easily be because he only didn't want to be in trouble- which is plausible again based on his character). And, if I remember correctly, most of this good about James comes initially from adults praising Harry's parents and later from Sirius and Remus, and all are biased. What we're told about James comes from biased sources, what we're shown comes from unbiased events playing out directly in front of us. We're shown James was an awful person, and just told that he's matured.

And this is where the Snape fandom and Marauders fandom seem to clash over Snape and James. We go by what is shown of Snape and James because we actually have reading comprehension, but they go by what's told of Snape and James.

And part of this is the misconception that Snape was actually part of a gang, which is something we're told by Sirius- that he was part of a gang that all turned out to be Death Eaters- when we're shown that he was on his own. That misconception comes from the fact that people are taking what we're told as fact, and aren't looking at what we're shown, which IS the fact. They're not looking at who's doing the telling either- this information comes from someone who is extremely biased against Severus Snape and someone who has it in their best interests to make him seem like he deserved the abuse. What we're shown is that Severus is often on his own and the only person who he hangs out with is Lily. And it's Lily who tells us that Snape allegedly hung around a creepy evil lot, however that is not shown. What is shown is that Snape tries to laugh the actions of his peers off, rather like how Remus excuses the Marauders' actions.

This is probably where the misconception that the Marauders had a heroic reason for bullying Snape comes too. We are told that they were good people, so surely they would have had a good reason for bullying Snape, who we're told likes the dark arts and knew more curses and hexes in his first year than any seventh year. But we are not shown that. What we're shown is them attacking James unprovoked, and James' reason being "because he exists". And yes, this is something we're told too, however again look at who's speaking. It's James. Him saying this goes against his best interests; he's not even trying to justify it, he's actually making it seem worse. That's because he doesn't have one, otherwise he'd have used it in that moment.

Every "justification" of the bullying, every implication that it was an equal rivalry, comes from what we're told, especially from biased sources. What we're shown says something completely different, and everything we're shown does not imply the Marauders were fighting wannabe Death Eater bullies, that they targeted Snape because he was a Dark Arts Mastermind, that they targeted Snape alone because they were "outnumbering the enemy". It actually implies the exact opposite: that they were rich little spoiled aristocrats who took pleasure in tormenting a boy who was on the complete bottom of the social class, that they bullied and abused anyone they saw as beneath them, and that Snape was entirely alone against them without any gang to speak of (in fact, considering the event with Mulciber that Lily mentioned did not mention that the Marauders came to defend Mary like they would have had they actually been fighting against the wannabe Death Eaters, it's very strongly implied that James and the Marauders left those particular boys alone).

James and the Marauders were not noble, muggleborn-supporting, fighters. They were exactly as shown: abusive bullies who picked on the underprivileged kid. And we see that Sirius is still that same boy, he still tries to dominate and pull Snape down, only now Snape's an adult and actually has more importance in the Order, actually the most important member of the Order, than Sirius, and in their quarrels, it's Sirius who picks them and resorts to childish insults while Snape's responses are cutting, but still facts. Peter is Peter (and in fact I'm going to say Sirius made a sort of Freudian slip- I think- when he said Peter would align himself to the biggest bullies in the playground: he's unintentionally admitted to being the biggest bully in the playground and the only bigger bully was Voldemort). Even Remus isn't the best to Snape, he's passive aggressive, dismisses him and his trauma, encouraged the kids to humiliate him, and constantly calls him "Severus" as if they're old friends when Snape constantly calls him "Lupin". All of this is shown, not told. Severus being a heavily traumatized victim of severe abuse is shown, not told.

There being any sort of Death Eater wannabe gang that the Marauders were battling to protect muggleborns is barely told, much less shown.

The Marauders maturing is told, not shown (no. Lily does not show that James matured. She isn't a goddess of virtue. Considering Sirius said James wasn't gonna take her out and hex Snape in front of her, and considering that at that moment Harry had been pushing him to tell the truth, and considering that Sirius underplays the abuse a lot, it's more likely that James simply learnt to hide his abusive nature better under the guise of maturity. Or the muggleborn witch decided to put aside her personal feelings and married the pureblood aristocrat to jump to the highest class).

But the Marauders abusing a child who was minding his own business? Shown.

The Marauders abusing a child who had absolutely no one to help protect him? Shown.

If you wanna headcanon that there were two gangs in Hogwarts, go ahead. But don't act that's what canonically happened, because it's not. And if you honestly think that's what happened, then I'm deeply concerned about your reading comprehension.

i love when snape fandom is like, the marauders attacked snape four against one/two against one! like, of course they did. what, were they supposed to fight the whole death eater gang at once? you’re SUPPOSED to outnumber your enemy!