"Cruel Heros and Treacherous Texts: Educating the Reader in Moral Complexity and Critical Reading in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter Books."an Essay by Veronica L. Schanoes

I found an excellent essay commenting on the ambiguous nature of the Harry Potter texts. I chose this exerpt pertaining to Snape only because it makes some good points. I offer it here for discussion.

Original essay in Green My comments are in Silver Italics

....Using Quirrell's voice, the author underscores our dependence on her narration for out understanding of events at HOgwars and revels in her ability to manipulate that dependence.

In order to do so, Rowling gives us the character of Severus Snape, who, despite saving Harry's life on the Quidditch field, is not a cranky curmudgeon with a heart of gold. Snape is an oily, petty, nasty, vindictive man with a heart of pure malice. He relentlessly mocks Harry, attacks the young wizard's dead father, cruelly insults Hermione, does his very best to get Harry expelled or at least suspended, constantly berates Neville Longbottom, and forces Ron to chop up Draco Malfoy's daisy root. Snape and Harry's father were enemies from youth. He does indeed "[swoop] around like an overgrown bat" with the dark looks of a gothic villian. By all conventional narrative cues, Snape's nastiness should indicate that he is a villain of the deepest dye. But Snape is not evil. Snape is a good guy who protects Harry on several occasions and risks his own life in the fight against Voldemort.
An accurate description of Snape. Certainly his actions speak loudly as to what he is like -- as well as the looks. The almost cliché presentation of Snape speaks to the inner archetypes of the Villian in all its glory. Wickedness abounds. However he is not evil. In the same way his actions implicate him as the quintessential villian, they also peg him as someone with courage, and morals, and a drive to do what is right, despite the consequenses. The actions that label him as "good" are contradicted by the actions that label him as "evil".

In the described scene, [Quirrell's revelation that Snape was not trying to kill Harry] then Rowling forces her reader to distinguish between nastiness and wickedness, between subjective hate and objective evil. She forces her reader to think beyond herself and her private identification with Harry to develop an awareness of the alliances necessary in order to do the right thing. This kind of distinction is one that few texts produced for adult consuption make; Shakespeare may remind us that a man may smile and smile and yet be a villian, but there is no coresponding line noting that a man may go out of his way to humiliate us and yet be a hero.
I have seen very few works that question subjective and objective evil at such a young age; indeed I myself did not entirely understand the concept until I read these novels. And while the novels are Harry-centric, this author acknowlegdes that one must think about Snape as he does play a key role in the series. Whether Harry likes it or not.

The complexity of Snape's character both necessitates and relies upon Rowling's manipulation of written narrative. Snape is quite cruel, and Rowling uses his nastiness to cast suspicion on him time and time again. When Harry hears Snape and Quirrell arguing in the Forbidden Forest, he, and the reader as well, assume that Snape but be on the side of evil, while Quirrell is assumed to be good because he is opposing Snape. As the story unfolds, Rowling reveals that Quirrell is indeed opposing Snape, but for exactly the opposite reason: Snape quite correctly suspects Quirrell of wrong-doing. Harry misinterprets the encounter because of his personal animosity toward Snape; he misreads the situation.
Here the author makes an interesting point. Any force that opposes the assumed evil is supposed to be good. This, a problem of society labeled colloquially seeing things 'in black and white', causes the conflict in the first book. Because Quirrell is against Snape, he is seen as good. Such a problem could lead to different questions in supposed 'enemies'. For example: if Voldemort is seen as evil, does that mean Dumbledore is good? Having the confusion over Quirrell and Snape's morality can serve as a comparison to other such questions, bigger questions, ones that have more impact over the entire wizarding world, rather than one measely school.

Rowling creates a similar opposition between Snape and Moody in the fourth book in the series, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Snape's obvious fear and avoidance of Mad-Eye Moody is one more reason for Harry and the reader to be well disposed toward the ex-Auror and to yet again suspect Snape of wrong-doing. This observation comes directly after Moody has been firmly established as a positive character through the very narrative conventions that Snape subverts -- he punishes Malfoy for unfairly attacking Harry by transforming him into a ferret -- and in light of the resurgence of the Death Eaters. This passage thus reveals the same kind of narrative manipulation and unreliability described above. The opposition between Snape and Moody is accurate; the reading we are encouraged to make of it is not.
The animosity between Snape and "Moody" only serve to help strengthen the persona. Having Snape avoid a character, be it an ex-Auror or not, lends more to the readers believing in the lie. However, as it does presuppose a past encounter with Snape and the real Moody, it does help convince the readers that Snape is evil.

Even after book I, in which Snape is revealed to be loyal to Dumbledore and to have saved Harry's life despite their mutual hatred, the power of convntional narrative is so strong that he continues to be a figure of questionable morality for the children and possibly for the reader. In the third books, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, Rowing manipulates the plot to suggest Snape's inherent nastiness might well drive him to evil actions: as the Potions Master stares at Professor Lupin, :the expression twisting his...face....was beyond anger. it was loathing."
And perhaps Snape has been driven to evil actions -- the potential for nastiness supposes past similar actions. It is what makes the idea that Snape has murdered before quite possible. Of course, the heightened expression of loathing to Lupin can also only stand for the fact that Snape believes Lupin to be a reason behind his attempted murder, and not for a potiential to murder.

Having established that Snape's hatred for Lupin is beyond even his formidable, normal standard, the narrator goes on some fifty pages later to intimate that this animosity might drive Snape to murder. Harry witnesses Snape bringing a potently smoking goblet to Lupin, who downs it with absolute trust. Rowling's narration makes us privy to Harry's visceral suspicions, making them our own. In this passage, Harry's confusion of personal hatred with evil is so complete that even after Lupin explains the situation entirely accurately -- he has been feeling "a bit off color," and Snape's potion, which very few wizards are skilled enoguh to concoct, is " the only thing that helps" -- the protagonist still insists on Snape's evil: he agrees with those who imagine that Snape woudl try "anything" to procure the position of Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher. These are just a few of many instances when Harry, and possibly the reader, misinterpret Snape's behaviour because they confuse unpleasantness with depravity.
The author accounts our association with the potentiality for Snape to do evil with our limited viewpoint. In book III the issue is brought again to the attention of the readers, with the smoking goblet.

Harry continues to misread Snape's actions despite being proven wrong time and time again. Rowling encourages this same confusion on the part of her reader. The last line of chapter 18 in book III reveals that Snape has been hiding in a room, listening to Harry, Hermione, Ron, Professor Lupin, and Sirius Black. The very next chapter is entitled "The Servant of Lord Voldemort" and its first four pages are devoted to a dramatic confrentation between Snape and the others. How can the reader resist suspecting Snape for a few minutes?
I have noticed this trait as well, especially the ambiguity set up by the placement of the end of the chapter before "The Servant of Lord Voldemort". I still think it is suggestive of a potential bout of evil action that Snape could take.

It is a testament to the strength of both Snape's nastiness and narrative convention that Rowling is able to provide the reader with a sporting chance to draw the destinction about evil so important to Snape's character withouth tipping her hand. As early as book I, Hermione argues for Snape's innocence: she admits that "he's not very nice" but asserts that he wouldn't betray Dumbledore. By seperating Snape's lack of "nice-ness" from his behaviour in a larger conflict between good and evil, Hermione offers the reader the opprotunity to do the same.
I believe the purpose of Hermione is to cast doubt in the other character's minds of alliances and motivations behind actions. Hermione explicitly expresses the doubt that should be apparent, and makes it easier for the reader to realise the moral ambiguity of many of the situations before they are actually revealed. I recall in book I that Hagrid's speech about Snape not wanting to steal the stone, that he was one of those who put in actions to protect the stone. And as adamently as Harry, Hermione, and Ron denied it, there was a point made.

Ron easily brushes her off in book I before Quirrell is revealed to be the villian. In book IV, Hermione once again rises to Snape's defence. She reminds us of the headmaster's perceptive understanding of character despite popular disapproval in the cases of Hagrid and Lupin, " 'so why shouldn't he be right about Snape, even if Snape is a bit--' '--evil,' Ron said promptly." This exchange pinpoints the matter exactly. Snape is not evil. But even allowing Hermione to make an incisive dictinction, Rowling, by presenting Harry's doubts about Snape via his thoughts about Snape's animosity, manipulates her reader into making Ron's mistake and equating Snape's nastiness with evil. Harry is ultimately more convincing than Hermione for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with any actual evil on Snape's part. Whereas Hermione speaks in direct dialogue, the reader is made privy to Harry's thoughts via free indirect discourse, a form of narration that entices us into equating Harry's thoughts with our own. This seduction is especially effective given the reader's (and Harry's ) desire for Snape to be evil. Snape is the character we love to hate; if he were evil, out ill-will toward him would be not only justified, but righteous. If Snape were evil, the reader could count on revenge being visited upon him by the end of the series with the triumph of good. Rowling's construction of Hermione's character also undermines the smart girl's words; Hermione is routinely mocked for being a goody-goody, and Harry, Ron, and the reader may be tempted to write her support of Snape as mere unwillingness to doubt hierarchy rather than accept her arguement as evidence of moral sophisitication. Hermione is correct, however. Snape seems to be second only to Professor McGonagall as Albus Dumbledore's right hand, and the headmaster's trust in Snape never once wavers. To understand why this should be, let us reconsider Snape's actions in light of all of the plot revelations through book IV, Goblet of Fire.
Certainly as the voice of the novel, Harry gains more sympathy and understanding than another character, such as Hermione. Using a limited omniscent viewpoint allows the reader to feel more connected with Harry's views. As such, Harry's opinions become our own. We want to see Draco Malfoy humiliated because Harry feels animosity toward him; we want to feel that Cho Chang is an attractive person because Harry is interested in her; and we want to not trust Snape because Harry dislikes him so much. And yet the blatent conflict of views comes and makes us as the reader not trust what Harry sees. The most Snape-centric example is the fact Dumbledore, an adult that Harry trusts (and in effect, so do the readers) trusts Snape. But the fact that Snape is so strongly assumed to be evil, with archetyphial actions and looks that we expect no other ending except vengence.
What I fear will happen is that Snape will be seen as a villian so strongly that he will receive revenge and punishment, despite his good deeds. His persona will overcome his actions so strongly, the act will be so believable, that when he is "punished", it will be recieved in the novel as if a great villian has been defeated. Such an ending would only add to the irony that makes up Snape's character.
At least the author recongnizes that Snape is important in the hierchary of Hogwarts professors, being continuously mentioned.

***Actually, I'm waiting for the line in a HP book where Snape says, blatently, "Trust me." And harry does. I would leap for joy at that point, only because it is a sign that they have reached an understanding that is not based on hatred, but on someting else. ***

In book I, Snape saves Harry's life despite their mutual hatred and injures himself trying to stop Quirrell from aiding Voldemort. Snape does not play a very large role in Book II, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, but in book III, Snape's complexity of character becomes quire clear in retrospect. Snape works very hard to brew a potion ("particularly complex") in order to help a man for whom he holds a lifelong hatred and who currently occupies the position he wants. Snape's fateful appearance at the Shrieking Shack in the final chapters of book III occurs because Lupin forgets to take his Wolfsbane potion and Snape is bringing him the needed dose. And Snape really does seem to believe he is again saving Harry's life by trying to capture Lupin and Sirius Black. Finally, in book IV, Snape and McGongagall aid Dumbledore in saving Harry's life, and Rowling implies that Snape may well be returning to his previous, extraordinarily dangerous role as a spy in Voldemort's circle. Whatever his assignment is, he is carrying out despite being terrified.
It seems to me that everything concerning the value of Snape's existance occurs in retrospect. Only after a careful evaluation of all the traits does one attain some other view of Snape's actions.
I only call attention to the last description of Snape in Goblet of Fire. While there have been discussions as to what Snape felt then, having to confront his new duty of returning to spy on Voldemort, I have not seen 'terrified' as one of the adjectives used. But I admit it is possible. After seeing Snape's encounter with "Moody" and having him cringe under pressure ( he is quite avoidant ) it almost makes the Terrified!Snape more possible. However, as Snape's persona is quite dominant and powerful; the concept of a weakened, more human Snape is difficult to comprehend.

In book II, Dumbledore tells Harry that the essence of one's character is defined by what one chooses to do rather by what one chooses to do rather than any inherent ability, and in book IV, the headmaster chastises Cornelius Fudge for not realizing that how someone develops is far more important than what he or she is born as. Harry, guided by his empathy and kind instincts, makes brave and good choices throughout the series. He has lost his family to Voldemort; it is natural for him to choose the side of good. But Snape is, at heart, mean-spirited. He schoolfriends all became Death Eaters, and presuably they are all dead, in Azkaban, or the Malfoys. His being on the side of the angels (((wtf?))) is a disctinct choice, one that he consitently makes depite loathing his allies. By Dumbledore's standards, is he not an even greater hero than Harry? Snape's ambigouous moral status not only allows Rowling to emphasise the unreliability of the conventions of writing and her own narrative technique, as described earlier, but it also forces her readers to rethink their definitions of integrity and heroism.
I really like this paragraph, mainly because it does outline the almost heroic quality that Snape has. And while the characters who inhabit the books do not see this, the readers see this and appreciate the effect of Snape's presense in the series. And while some might without reason and thought elevate Snape to 'hero' status on the basis of appearance (the 'OMG HE IS TEH KEWLLEST!!!1111!!' ones) it is nice and satisfying that others see him as having redeemable morals and standards, though the way at which they are presented are not necessarily 'nice'.
However, I do not agree with labeling the good side as "angels", as the author chooses to do. Not only does it immediately divide the two sides, something which the entire essay has been trying to refute, but it gives them religious connotations, which is not addressed in this essay. The rest of the essay is legitimate.

.....(after a discussion about Black....) Both Black and Snpe complicate a black and white moral schema. Where Snape forces the reader to accept a bad berson who chooses the side of good, Black forces us to acknowledge the potential for violence and ruthlessness that can exist in a good person. Despite their mutual revulsion for each other, the two characters have more in common than either would like to admit. When Harry notices that Snape at the end of book III has developed a tic in his fingers as if " itching to put them around Harry's throat," the reader may well be reminded of Sirius Black during the fight in the Shrieking Shack: his free hand finds "Harry's throat...The fingers tightened, Harry choked...."
Comparing Snape to Black is legitimiate, however unlikely/ Perhaps their similarieties form the basis of Snape\ Black fanfiction. Their duality in presenting two seperate and opposite personas unites them. There are a few common elements, such as what is pointed above, but overall the connection does not seem to be heavily emphasised.

Any thoughts on this essay are encouraged. Do not hesitate to email me.