Snape as the Antihero

So, how does one define Snape? He is certainly unappealing behaviour-wise, and not an idealistic character to base morals and judgments on. Yet I, indeed many of us Snapeists, do so.

Why? I think it is because Snape does have redeeming characteristics; he strives for some version of truth, and does do good deeds. Literature has a term for this type of character: The Anti-hero.

Because this site (http://www.flowerstorm.net/disa/Gallery/anti-explain.html) has done a good job detailing the nuances of the Antihero in literature, I will merely make comments about Snape's character.

All Silver is quoted from the above site, all Green is my commentary.
For the entire article click above.

'The Antihero is someone with some of the qualities of a villain, up to and including brutality, cynicism, and ruthlessness, but with the soul or motivations of a more conventional Hero. '
Certainly this is how Snape is characterized. He might have been with the Death Eaters or supported Voldemort in the past, but he is for the other side 'the good side' now.

'Many of the protagonists of Western and Eastern classical and mythological stories fit into the broad antihero mold, especially those who are shown as having turbulent, violent backgrounds and conflicting motivations.'
This describes Snape, with his conflicting past, and possibly violent. Also his tendency to act opposite of what he indicates (the very fact he is a spy) helps cement a possible antihero status.

'The protagonist's spot may be used, but more often an antihero character is relegated to a secondary or fatal role in the story, skirting potentially negative attention. Swift's Gulliver and Hugo's Jean Valjean both had their fatal personality flaws and yet held fast to their attitudes, but although they could easily represent any person buffeted by life's harshness, they are not exactly characters to model one's future life on. '
Unfortunately this could spell the end for our dear Snape at the end of the series. The observation is a viable one. Look at the effect created in a work. If the antihero overcomes his\her obstacles, and is relatively happy at the end of the series, it seems to downplay the entire effect of the torment\struggles that the character has experienced. I mean, everything turned out right in the end, right? So it doesn't matter that said Antihero killed a man, or was a thief, or was anything but good because in the end it turned out okay. The overall effect of the detrimental vices is lessened. Think of it this way -- what would the effect be in Les Miserables if Jean Valjean lived? Everyone would be happy, but there would be no relief for Jean Valjean, who struggled with his sense of self for the entire book.
There is a difference, remember, between a satisfactory ending and a happy one. Snape sacrificing his life for Harry would be just, a final act ultimately proving his allegiance, yet destroying himself in the process [an overly 'heroic' act], is different from Snape not doing anything else, reconciling with Harry, and living out his days in an apartment in London. Do you really see that happening?
At least we know that Snape's life has been 'buffeted by life's harshness', yet many people (including myself) have taken qualities of Snape as models to live by.

'Picking up the themes of literature, live and recorded drama (stage productions, radio, movies, television) also make frequent use of antiheroes and complex villains, although there is more resistance to leaving matters of the heart and mind unfinished at the conclusion. '
The above observation is merely a comment on Western society [especially American]. We like things nicely tied up in a bow and finished. Yet it is entirely possible that life is not like that, thus admitting the possibility that we will never know everything about Snape, maybe never why he defected. ( I hold out that we will, but we never know). It is partly the suspense that creates tension in the novels, epitomised in Harry's, Ron's, and Hermione's meal-time discussions about Snape's loyalty. The very idea that his loyalty is in question creates a possibility for Snape to be an Antihero.

'There is a growing tendency to give villains more complex, even sympathetic, motivations. The line between an antihero and a villain has always been hazy and open to discussion, but lately the distinction has become moot in some cases. In certain long dramas that evoke the epic spirit of the earliest stories, characters that appear as villains initially evolve and develop only to be absorbed into the storyline as antiheroes. The modern author's renewed awareness that readers are likely to be familiar with a story's entire history permits them the freedom to develop more elaborate and complex characters, some of which fit readily into the antihero mold. '
See: Snape.

I have also gathered [for another more definite opinion] a definition of 'Antihero' from A Glossary of Literary Terms (7th edition). M.H. Abrams.
"Antihero The chief person in a modern novel or play whose character is widely discrepant from that which we associate with the traditional protagonist or hero of a serious literary work. Instead of manifesting largeness, dignity, power, or heroism, the antihero is petty, ignominious, passive, ineffectual, or dishonest. The use of non heroic protagonists occurs as early as the picaresque novel of the sixteen century and the heroine of Defoe's Moll Flanders (1722) is a thief and a prostitute. The term 'antihero', however, is usually applied to writings in the period of disillusion after the Second World War, beginning with such protagonists as we find in John Wain's Hurry on Down (1953) and Kingsley Annus; Lucky Jim (1954)....The antihero is especially conspicuous in dramatic tragedy, in which the protagonist had usually been of high estate, dignity, and courage. Extreme instances are the characters who people a world stripped of certainties, values, or even meaning (in Samuel Beckett's dramas)."

I must note this, however. The Antihero is usually the protagonist of the novel. Therefore technically, Snape would not be an 'Antihero'. Instead, he could be said to have 'antihero' qualities, at the very least a paradoxical relationship with the world. But the truth is he is a supporting cast member; the series is named after 'Harry Potter', after all. But that doesn't mean that heroics can't occur behind the scenes, sometimes more valiant than the protagonist himself will experience, and from the least likely source.

While this article is only opinion, it seems constant with both what I've read of literature, my knowledge of the antihero from literary analysis, and my concept of Snape. Of course, if you, or anyone you know, have an opinion for\against (or have a more concise definition of the antihero) do not hesitate to email me.