Oh no - another Snape essay!

[mary_j_59]

title Severus vs Sirius: a short meditation on the nature of love
author mary-j-59
genre Essay, gen, about 4,800 words.
rating G. No warnings.
summary and credits What is the real difference between Severus Snape and Sirius Black? Is it simply that one is good, and the other evil? Or is it more subtle than that? Thanks to all whom I credited. The essay follows the cut:

Sirius vs Severus


It finally occurred to me that Sirius Black's animagus form is significant. That he can turn into a dog tells us a great deal about him; his animagus form illuminates the strengths of his character - and also his weaknesses.

Why a dog, and why does that animal form seem to suit Sirius Black so well? Of course, the first thing some readers may have noticed is the wordplay: Sirius is the dog star, and Sirius Black turns into a big black dog. A large dog can also be quite scary if it is unknown - is the animal hostile or not? This is exactly Harry's reaction in POA; when he first encounters Sirius, the boy is very alarmed by him. It is not till the end of the book, when he really gets to know Sirius, that he is assured of the man's friendliness. Dogs are also guardians of thresholds (in particular, they can symbolize the threshold between life and death), and that suits Sirius as well. He is one of the main links between Harry and his dead parents, and, as Harry's godfather, he is also his legal guardian. But, even more than all these symbolic meanings, that Sirius can transform into a dog tells us exactly what sort of man he is.

Just like human beings, dogs are social creatures. You never really find a dog in isolation, do you? If they have the chance, they will become part of a pack - even though this pack might consist of a few humans, the family cat, and perhaps some other critters. Their place in the pack matters greatly to our dogs; they are conservative creatures, and like to know exactly what their position is and what the rules are. A well-socialized dog is known for his (or her) friendliness, obedience, stability and loyalty. But, of course, temperament among dogs varies a good deal, just as it does with people. An alpha dog will be harder to train than others and more inclined to tussle for command of the pack. Also, some dogs are more open and friendly than others; our dogs tended to accept as family everyone their people invited into the house, but I've met dogs who had an extremely limited picture of their 'family' and were hostile to everyone else.

So what sort of dog is Sirius Black? He strikes me as somewhat dominant, in that he is the one who will decide if another person is in his pack or not. After all, he utterly rejected his first pack - his birth family - and found another to take its place. With those people he accepts, Sirius has many of a good dog's fine qualities: he is loyal, brave, generous, affectionate, and playful. But what about outsiders?

If Sirius does not consider you a pack mate, he shows one of two reactions. As we see with young Severus Snape, Sirius may find outsiders either enemies or prey. In either case, they will come in for harsh treatment, and he will never acknowledge their common humanity, nor think he has done any wrong in mistreating them. His second reaction is almost more disturbing. Sirius is capable of being incredibly callous toward people who are merely in the way. I am thinking here of the way he seizes young Ron and breaks his ankle in his attempt to get at the boy's pet rat. Sirius bears Ron no ill will at all, but he is so fixated on getting his hands (or paws) on Pettigrew the rat that the boy does not matter. We see the same type of behavior in his slashing the fat lady's portrait with a knife and in his search - again, with a knife - of Ron's bedding. He just doesn't seem to care what damage he causes provided he can catch his prey.

And then, of course, there is the loathsome house elf, Kreacher. Dumbledore warns Sirius repeatedly that he should be kind to Kreacher, but Sirius cannot manage to obey. He speaks of Kreacher with exactly the same disdain and contempt the elf uses when speaking of him, and generally prefers to ignore Kreacher's very existence. Although it seems harsh to Harry (and to some readers), Dumbledore is right when he tells Harry Sirius's indifference is more harmful than active hate. Indifference is an indication that another person's being - their very existence - does not register with you. And Sirius is very good at tuning people out in this way. It isn't just Kreacher, either: if Harry hadn't seen the family tapestry at Grimmauld place, he might never have known his godfather had a younger brother. Sirius seems to speak of Regulus - who, as we later find out, died at 18 trying to strike a blow against Voldemort - with contempt. Yes, they were blood brothers, but Regulus made the wrong choice and stayed with his birth pack. Sirius left. And, once he is no longer part of your pack - or, once you are no longer part of his pack - you might as well not exist.

This brings me to the most egregious desertion of all: the betrayal by Peter Pettigrew. Peter leaves Sirius's pack with a vengeance, causing the deaths of two members and many other innocent people, and it's hardly surprising that Sirius in turn wants revenge on him. What is surprising, at least to me, is how obsessed he is with, as he puts it, committing the murder he was imprisoned for. He becomes determined to escape, after 12 years in prison, when he sees Pettigrew (in rat form) on Ron's shoulder in a newspaper photo. Once he manages the difficult escape, he does of course want to see his godson, Harry (which he does in dog form), but his main goal throughout POA remains killing Pettigrew. Think about this: if Sirius can prove that Pettigrew, whom he supposedly murdered, is still alive, he will be cleared of all the crimes he was convicted of - crimes Peter actually committed. But, right up until the conversation in the Shrieking Shack at the end of the book, it apparently never occurs to him to simply capture Pettigrew, go to Dumbledore, and ask for justice. It's Harry who has to talk him into that sane course of action. Sirius simply wants to kill Pettigrew, and it's quite difficult to dissuade him.

This vengeful and emotional temperament is shared by another man Sirius hates, Severus Snape. In fact, the two, who are superficially opposites (Sirius handsome, popular, wealthy, and from an ancient pureblood family; Severus homely, geeky, apparently poor and a half-blood) seem so similar in core ways, they might almost be brothers. Both are strong-willed, sharp-tongued, intelligent, and inventive, and both are frighteningly good at holding grudges. These similarities struck my sister and me so strongly that, when we were trying to guess what Severus Snape's Patronus might be, both of us guessed independently it might be something in the dog family.* But Severus Snape, unlike Sirius Black, is not a pack animal. Though he does seem capable of great loyalty, he also seems a loner.

A fan called Torrill, in a conversation on "Eeyore's reflections", claims that choice is what distinguishes Severus Snape and Sirius Black. Sirius, whose whole family had been sorted into Slytherin house, chose instead to be in Gryffindor. There, he chose to make good friends with proper values, unlike the evil Slytherins like Snape. And he was loyal to his friends and eventually died while fighting Death Eaters in an attempt to rescue Harry, his godson. Severus Snape, on the other hand, chose to go into Slytherin house, where he befriended a gang of future Death Eaters and eventually became a Death Eater himself. All this is true, as far as it goes, but I think we must look a little deeper to distinguish the true difference between these two young men.

As I said before, Sirius is highly social; a pack animal. And he is, most likely, an alpha. Therefore, he judges others instantly by a couple of criteria: are they members of his pack, or another group he respects and finds friendly? And do they keep to their place? (Part of the problem between him and Severus in OOTP is literally that Severus challenges him for dominance in his own territory.) To the people he finds worthy, Sirius is a completely admirable friend and colleague. But how does he treat those he deems unworthy? I have already mentioned Sirius's treatment of Severus Snape when they were schoolboys. Severus was hardly an innocent victim - at the very least, he did not take the bullying by Sirius and his friend James lying down - but, from what little we have heard of it, one of the pranks Sirius intended for Snape was appalling. This, of course, is what Jodel calls the werewolf caper.* It would almost certainly have resulted in Severus's death, had James Potter not intervened. If this were not so - if there were no real, mortal peril for young Severus - then he could not have incurred a life debt to James Potter, as everyone insists he did. Jodel points out further that, quite aside from the real peril to Severus, Sirius never gave a thought to the peril to Remus Lupin, the young werewolf he used as a tool. Here are the possibilities she outlines: Remus kills Severus. Remus bites Severus, who survives and becomes a werewolf himself. Severus kills or severely injures Remus in self-defense, perhaps getting bitten at the same time. To the day he dies, Sirius never expresses the slightest remorse for this cruel trick, merely remarking sullenly, "He deserved it." It's hard to imagine any 16-year-old boy who would deserve being killed by a werewolf or made into one. Like Jodel, I find this a simply appalling comment. But what disturbs me much more is Sirius's lack of thought for Remus, who was supposedly one of his best friends. Did Remus deserve to be killed? To be outed as a werewolf, expelled, and sent to prison for the rest of his life? For one of those things would surely have happened to him, had the prank succeeded. And yet these logical consequences never enter Sirius's head. He may be an intelligent young man, but his desire for vengeance (whatever the reason - we don't know it yet) drives out all logical thought. It is hardly any wonder that, just a few years later, Albus Dumbledore himself believes Sirius capable of treachery and murder. He has betrayed a friend, and attempted a murder, while still at school.

But Severus Snape, as a fan commented, joined the racist, murdering Death Eaters. Doesn't that automatically make Sirius a better person than Severus? It certainly means Severus made a grave mistake which Sirius avoided, and that is to Sirius's credit. However, since we do not yet know the full story of why Severus joined the Death Eaters, nor why he left them, we cannot say more. He may have fully agreed with their philosophy; he may have been ambitious and seen them as a way to get ahead; he may have joined - and left - for much more personal reasons. We don't yet know. We also don't know what crimes he may have committed (whether willingly or unwillingly) as a Death Eater. What we do know for certain is that, up until he (apparently) murders Dumbledore on the lightning-struck tower, we never see Snape do anything as evil as the werewolf caper. In six books so far, we have never heard him so much as make a racist remark as an adult, nor have we seen him use another person as a tool, as Sirius uses Remus.

This is not to say that Severus Snape is a nice person, nor wholly good. He's obviously not. Though he may have avoided those particular evils, he is harsh and unfair to Harry, Neville, and Hermione, frequently seeming to look for excuses to put them down. Ron, too, comes in for the rough edge of his tongue, especially when he speaks up for Harry. This is no way to treat his students, and I know I would have found it hard to learn from a teacher like him. However, to do him justice, he does seem to draw a sharp line between physical and verbal abuse. This is suggestive. As Helen Ketcham says in her essay "Good Snape is not a Squared Circle", young Severus seems to have been abused as a child, perhaps by his father. We also know, after HBP, that he comes from a time, place and culture where children were usually disciplined physically. Being raised this way would have taught young Severus two things. First, he would have learned that violence - whether verbal or physical - is a proper method to use when solving problems. Second, he might well have taken to heart the old saw that "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." After all, which is more frightening and damaging to a child - being belted, or getting a tongue lashing? We now know that being continually belittled can cause enormous harm, but it's all too easy to imagine Severus saying to himself, "Abuse? I don't abuse the little buggers; I never even touch them!" Finally, as Helen Ketcham points out, if Severus actually was abused, and if his teachers typically belittled him, he simply may not know any other method of dealing with children. His knowledge of his subjects, and passion for them, is remarkable, and that is surely one of the reasons Dumbledore hired him, but it's clear that, in Hogwarts, teachers are selected for their knowledge, or because the ministry wants them there, or because they are Dumbledore's personal protégés, not because they actually know anything about teaching methods.

There is another thing to note in Severus Snape's dealings with children. Many fans seem to have missed this, but Sionna Raven on the whysnape board and Claire M.Jordan (whitehound) both noticed it independently, and I did too. Far from harming, or threatening to harm, children physically, Severus is extremely protective. One of his deepest and most powerful instincts seems to be to rescue children who are in danger. His efforts to save Harry's life in PS/SS are explained away as an attempt to repay the life debt he owes to James, Harry's father, but we see the same impulse in COS. Severus shows visible distress when the teachers are told a child has been taken into the Chamber of Secrets and is likely to die. I would guess his distress is the more acute because he is helpless - he doesn't know where the Chamber is, cannot open it, and can do nothing for the kidnapped child. In every one of the later books, we see another instance of Severus's strong drive to protect and defend children. In her essay, "Reserved Snape - canon or fanon", Claire M. Jordan lists just a few of these instances:

We see him go alone into the place where he was almost killed as a child, to confront the two people who almost killed him, one of them (as he thinks) a mass murderer and the other a werewolf he knows hasn't taken his Wolfsbane on a night of full moon, to save three children he doesn’t even like. And that must have been the reason, because if he'd just been trying to catch Sirius he would have waited the few minutes it took to call a Dementor to assist him. The only aspect of the situation which was so time-critical that a few minutes mattered that much was the danger to the children.

Again, we see him sprint through the school in his nightshirt, ignoring a break-in to his own office on the way, because he thought somebody had been hurt. That must have been the reason, because what attracted him was the noise from the open Triwizard egg, which we are told sounds like somebody screaming in pain. And we know he came in haste because he hadn't even stopped to sling a robe over his nightshirt and we know his quarters are down in the dungeons (or he wouldn't have passed his office en route) and yet he arrived on the scene, at least two floors above his quarters and an unknown distance horizontally, only about two minutes after the egg opened. When Harry accidentally cuts Draco, Snape burst through the door, grey-faced, without stopping to find out who has been attacked or by what or what might be waiting to attack him, knowing nothing except that he heard a girl scream "Murder!" (http://cj_whitehound.madasafish.com/Fanfic/reserved_Snape.htm)

Some fans might take issue with that last instance, pointing out that Snape may have known Draco was in the bathroom, and that Snape's rescue of the boy is not all that altruistic - after all, if Draco dies, he dies as well. But it is true Snape knows nothing of the danger that might be lurking there, and he doesn't hesitate for an instant.

He doesn't hesitate, either, when Narcissa Malfoy begs him, with tears in her eyes, to help and protect her son. And when Bellatrix brings up the Unbreakable Vow, he willingly puts his head in that noose. As I've said elsewhere, Severus seems fond of both Draco and Narcissa, and in any case has to maintain his cover in front of Bellatrix, so this is a special case. But, all the same, it does fit the pattern, in that the man is willing to risk his life in order to rescue an adolescent. There are at least two other instances of his desire and willingness to rescue children in the series so far. They both occur in OOTP. The first is rather minor - Snape drops everything and walks out of his office, leaving Harry alone there, in order to help his student, Montague, who is stuck in a toilet. But in the second example, he goes into the Forbidden Forest to search for Harry, Hermione and their friends who have apparently vanished there.

As Claire has pointed out, he actually risks his life trying to save the three children in POA. The same is true in OOTP: the centaurs in the forest are in rebellion, and have threatened to kill any adult wizards who encroach on their territory, and there is also a maddened giant on the loose - not to speak of giant spiders, blast- ended screwts, and who knows what other monsters. But Snape seems absolutely fearless in situations like these. When a child is in danger, the man's impulse is to respond immediately. Not only does he not hesitate, he scarcely seems to think.

This, by the way, shows clearly that one stereotype some fans hold about Severus Snape is false. Some readers are inclined to believe Snape's own press, and the descriptions emphasizing cold and darkness Rowling constantly gives him. They think Snape is cold and calculating, in marked contrast to the warmhearted and impulsive Sirius Black. Nothing could be further from the truth. In situations like these, when a child or group of children is threatened, Snape is impulsive, sometimes to the point of recklessness. He talks about emotion as if it were a weakness; he seems to have a fine analytical mind, but he does not scheme or think out all his actions beforehand. On the contrary, he leads with the heart, and unhesitatingly obeys his deepest impulses - and those impulses are to protect and defend. In this, he resembles no one so much as Harry. And there is one other person who may share those drives. It is not Sirius Black.

I believe it is Swythyv who points out that, in each generation, Hogwarts itself has had a guardian. When Tom Riddle was a student, that guardian was Dumbledore; now it would seem to be Snape. It seems almost as if Snape is Dumbledore's successor in this position. If this is so, as I think it might be, it also explains the man's animosity to Harry, even while he guards the boy. Some readers insist Severus cannot be a defender, nor on the side of right, because he is always trying to get Harry expelled. It is worthwhile to look closely at the second part of Helen Ketcham's essay, "Good Snape is not a Squared Circle" for an explanation of his behavior toward the boy. I agree strongly with Helen when she says Severus sees Harry as a budding Dark Wizard. Even more than this, it is possible he senses Voldemort in the boy and considers him a danger for that reason alone. Readers may not want to accept that Severus has a point here, but he does. Consider: So far as we know, Voldemort has not been seen or heard of in the Wizarding World for ten years. But, once Harry enters Hogwarts, Voldemort is present there, too, either in person , or by proxy in the form of one of his servants. It seems as if Harry (like Frodo in the movie of "Fellowship") brings great evil with him. No wonder Snape wants him gone. But things change after the end of GOF, when Voldemort has been reborn. At that point, Severus does not ask for Harry's expulsion even when he has a clear chance of success. The worst has happened; Voldemort has already used the boy, and Dumbledore insists only Harry can defeat the Dark Lord. So he must be kept safe at Hogwarts - but also watched constantly and carefully for signs of evil. And this is exactly how Snape behaves.

But, fans may say, if Severus is protective, so is Sirius. If he is a guardian, so is Sirius. Sirius, after all, dies trying to save Harry from the Death Eaters. And most of us are more favorably impressed by the man who rushes to his godson's rescue because he loves him than by the grim teacher who rescues because it is his duty. But should we be?

This brings me to the real difference I see between Severus Snape and Sirius Black. It strikes me that how you perceive these young men may well depend on what you think love is. Harry loves Sirius almost at once because he was his father's friend, and the young boy is desperate for a father. Sirius comes to love Harry because he is his best friend's son, and reminds him strongly of James. This is good and natural, and it's easy to admire Sirius for rushing to Harry's rescue. Because of the affectionate bond they share, it would seem inhuman if Sirius didn't feel compelled to help Harry. But, after all, Harry is now part of his pack. And it is a great deal easier to take a risk for someone you love, and who loves you, than it is to take that same risk for a stranger - or an enemy.

Harry considers Severus Snape his enemy, and the man knows this. He knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the boy hates him. Yet he is willing to risk his life for Harry, all the same. Why would he take such risks for someone he dislikes, and who detests him in turn?

In her novel, "A Wind in the Door", Madeleine L'Engle explores this question. The young girl, Meg, has earlier been able to rescue her younger brother from evil by her love for him. Now she is faced with the task of loving her dry, unimaginative, unlovable principal, Mr. Jenkins. She is arguing about the task with her companion, the cherub Proginoskes. If she fails the task, Mr. Jenkins will be taken over by evil powers, and her own little brother will be one step closer to death.

"Progo! Help me! how can I feel love for Mr. Jenkins?

Immediately he opened a large number of eyes very wide. "What a strange idea. Love isn't
feeling. If it were, I wouldn't be able to love. Cherubim don't have feelings.

"But-"

"Idiot," Proginoskes said, anxiously rather than crossly. Love isn't how you feel. It's
what you do." (A Wind in the Door, pp 117, 118)

If love is not a feeling, what is it? As Proginoskes says, it is action - action and knowledge. Another definition I have heard which makes sense to me is that love means you desire the good of the other. You do for others what will do them good; you heal them if they are injured or sick, protect them if they are in danger, whether they consider you their friend or not. Here is a quotation: "You have heard how it was said, 'You will love your neighbor and hate your enemy'. But I say this to you, love your enemies . . . so that you may be children of your Father in heaven. . . . For if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even the tax collectors do as much?" (New Jerusalem Bible, Matthew 5:43-47)

So, when Severus Snape rushes into the Shrieking Shack to save three children he doesn't even like, or goes into the Forbidden Forest to search for them, or even tries to keep Harry from evil by disciplining him, these are acts of love. What is more, he is capable of loving his enemies, quite selflessly and even instinctively, and in this he is almost unique. Only two other people in the Wizarding World have shown this sort of love. The first and most obvious is Dumbledore, as he speaks to Draco, his would-be murderer, on the top of the astromomy tower. The second is Hermione, who takes to heart Dumbledore's instruction to be kind to the vicious house-elf, Kreacher. She does not stop reaching out to Kreacher even though he responds only with the worst kind of insults. I believe Rowling has said that she allows Dumbledore and Hermione to speak for her at times, particularly on matters of morality. So it is very significant that we see these two characters showing love for an enemy. But, in his care for Harry's physcal and moral wellbeing, no one has shown this particular type of love more frequently, and more consistently, than Severus Snape.

I know it's hard for some fans to believe Snape is capable of love at all. Certainly, he is not perfectly loving; he can be cruel and malicious and seems to take pleasure in the childrens' dismay at the tongue lashings and punishments he metes out. A fan called Sylvanawood on livejournal points out that his vengefulness and cruelty are quite genuine - an intrinsic part of his nature. I've also seen it suggested he is sadistic, but is struggling against this vice and now will not harm a child - or anyone - physically, if he can help it. I'm not sure I agree that Snape is sadistic, but Sylvanawood is certainly correct about his nastiness. Even if he is sadistic, though, this in no way negates Snape's real capacity for love, nor his real heroism. On the contrary, what Rowling is showing us is a young man struggling heroically against his own worst impulses to obey his best, and to help and protect everyone who needs his aid, no matter who they are or what they think of him. This is true valor. And it is valor of a sort that is very, very rare. I cannot think of another character in these books who demonstrates the same kind of courage and faithfulness, though Harry himself certainly has the potential.

And that is the real difference, in my mind, between Sirius Black and Severus Snape. Sirius, the dog animagus, faithfully loves and helps all the members of his pack - all those people who love him. He has never been shown to love an enemy. Severus, who has no pack, willingly risks his life even for a boy he knows hates him. In doing so, he consistently does what is right rather than what is easy. It's my hope that, by the end of Deathly Hallows, Harry will at last realize all that Severus has done for him, and recognize the true nobility of his character.


Mary Johnson, April 13 2007

Informal list of sources:

L'Engle, Madeleine, A Wind in the Door, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1973

New Jerusalem Bible

Websites: Helen Ketcham's excellent two part essay is up at Professor Granger's site (www.hogwartsprofessor.com) and also logospilgrim's (www.logospilgrim.com) Travis at Sword of Gryffindor has linked to it as well.

Jodel's essays, "The Werewolf Caper" and "Man's Best Friend", can be found at her website: http://www.redhen-publications.com/Potterverse.html

Claire M. Jordan's essay is here: (http://cj_whitehound.madasafish.com/Fanfic/reserved_Snape.htm)

Sionna Raven's thoughts can be found in this discussion: http://www.hostingphpbb.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=179&mforum=snape

Swythyv's wonderfully inventive and thought-provoking essays can be found on her website, http://swythyv.livejournal.com.

Sylvanawood's discussion of Snape, his motivations and actions is at this link:http://sylvanawood.livejournal.com/806.html#cutid1

Eeyore's reflections, and her conversation about Snape (in the comments) is here:
http://eeyoresreflections.blogspot.com/

Comments

[rj-anderson.livejournal.com]

*dabs eyes with handkerchief*

I'd never noticed that about Snape and children before -- but it's true. It's right there in canon. Wow.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks! The pattern is oddly hard to see; Rowling does a great job of disguising it with Snape's general surliness and nastiness, but, once you do notice it, it's really striking. I don't know if you read Sionna Raven's comments, which I'd linked to earlier; she pointed out that the Prince family motto translates as "to aid the unfortunate." And the colors are red and gold.

BTW, I am very impressed by your writing experiment, and have my fingers crossed for both "Knife" and "Touching Indigo".

[elanor-x.livejournal.com]

I read your analysis and greatly enjoyed it. Thanks for the excellent links.
For a short introduction: I have recently friended you, am a member of HP fandom, enjoy good essays, fics & summery executions both in English and Russian. If you want to know more, you are welcome to visit my lj. :-)

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I'll friend you back.

[sylvanawood.livejournal.com]

What an interesting article, the comparison of Sirius' behaviour and that of a dog or wolf pack is very enlightening. And yet, I think that Sirius is a faithful beta, with the alpha male being James.

I think that all the characters in the series, except for Voldemort, are capable of love. And if you see a strong sense of duty as an act of love, then I agree that many of Snape's actions can be seen as acts of love. I think duty and the desire to make up for past mistakes, and the strong wish for recognition is what drives him mostly.

I would go further than you, I think he rushes to help anyone, not just children. When Trelawney screams after Umbridge fires her, Snape rushes out of the Occlumency lesson to see who screamed. He is alert to danger, and runs to help.

It may have been part of his motivation to protect the children when he ran to the Shrieking Shak, but, to be fair, it could also have been his drive to catch Sirius abd Remus, to get revenge on the Marauders. He is clearly deranged in that scene, driven by hatred. And that may be one of the reasons why Pettigrew escaped. If the enemies there would have managed to get over their hatred and work together -- Peter wouldn't have had a chance. As so often in the series, the less-than-perfect attitude and behaviour of the so-called-good people aids the rise and success of the bad.

Just for the record: I never called Snape sadistic. I do think he has a mean and cruel streak and is very vengeful, but is not outright sadistic. Sectumsempra doesn't necessarily have to be invented by a sadist.

I think he constantly struggles with himself, but isn't always successful. He's flawed and human, and that's why I love him so much. I try to not be blind about his flaws, though.

There is a wonderful essay by licendiere which might be interesting for you. I'll just give you the link: http://lincendiere.livejournal.com/12744.html

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your response - and I understand you don't actually call Snape sadistic, though you do emphasize his mean streak. Do you think I need to altr the essay so that I am not misquoting you (I must have misread you earlier)? I, of course, don't think he's sadistic, either, but I know some fans do, and i was just trying to counter that argument.

About who is the alpha and who is the beta - you may be right, but I *always* thought that, in the pensieve incident, Sirius was firmly in charge. James *looked* as if he was in charge, but he was really serving Sirius - or so it seemed to me. But I can certainly see that other interpretations are possible.

And, although Claire doesn't agree, I think you are right that Snape is compelled to help *everyone* who needs him, regardless of their age or condition. I think he is particularly inclined to rescue children, but I don't think he limits his efforts to children alone.

Thanks for the link!

Mary

[nemesister.livejournal.com]

Oh, nicely done essay! Snape's protectiveness always stood out for me. It's exactly the scenes you described, first he refereed the quidditch match just to be close to Harry. You could argue that away with the life debt, but that's not the way it read for me. Then the scene when Ginny is taken into the chamber, which you could argue away by saying he is worried for himself in case Voldemort comes back, but that's really not the impression I got. The way he was lashing out at Gilderoy with the other teachers...
There is something like that in every book, but especially HBP presented him so obviously as protector, and now also healer and savior, that I'm baffled by people who can read HBP and view Snape as evil or even as an exceptionally selfish character. What a weird way for JKR to show utter selfishness, to let the character help and heal everyone around. I'm even more baffled at people, who think that Snape is working together with Dumbledore, suggest that Snape must have been really annoyed by having to follow the Malfoy brat around and make sure nothing happens to or because of him - Um, because that is different from what Snape usually does, seemingly on his own discretion, how?

I think you are right about the kind of love you are describing being important. I expect Harry will have to learn this kind of love towards Snape, because it's Harry's love which will save the world. Although maybe there is a chance for Snape to have a development in the love department as well. For him it would be important to allow and accept the genuine feeling of love, I think. He is lacking exactly what Sirius exceeds in and what JKR calls Sirius' one great redeeming quality.

A nice description of Sirius as well. I disagree in one point: I'm not sure that he was talking about Regulus with contempt. He wasn't a very good brother to Regulus IMO, and he talks somewhat patronizingly about him, but I think you can tell that he feels some affection. "He was soft enough to believe them" It seems more like regret than a reproach to me.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your comments - and obviously, I agree with everything you say except for Sirius's affection for Regulus. Others read it the same way you do, but I just can't see it at all; I see nothing but contempt. Question: if he had felt any affection for Regulus at all, wouldn't he have let it slip that he *existed*?!

But you are right - I think both Snape and Harry have to learn to be more truly loving if they are to succeed. And I do think (as we agreed before) that the first step will have to be Harry's.

[sigune.livejournal.com]

I'm so glad you posted a link to this essay again, because when it appeared on your journal I thought I'd save it for later and then forgot about it - which is a shame, because it's very thoughtful and thought-provoking. Your analysis of Sirius and his dog-style is excellent and made me look at him in a new way... Some of his flawed reactions to people have in fanfic been attributed to madness running in his family; I think people who suggest so have a point, but your alpha dog reading makes wonderful sense (and doesn't exclude the insanity thing).

Thank you for pointing out all the instances in which Snape rushes to save someone. I have often wondered about the strength he displays going after the trio in PoA, when he is obviously still traumatised about the werewolf incident from his schooldays. Many marauder fans seem to belittle his effort - but it's true: he goes to face a werewolf to retrieve three children he doesn't even like. It is true that Harry ought to thank him on bended knee, even if it doesn't feel that way to Harry and Snape is wrong about Sirius's intentions.

The reason why I am so fond of Snape and find him interesting to think and write about is indeed that he appears as a man who battles his worst instincts. He tries to do the right thing, even though he doesn't, in my opinion, have a strong moral sense. He has to keep himself in tight control, because he knows what happens if he doesn't. This is why I am convinced that he is no longer on Voldemort's side - none of his characterisation in the books would make sense if he were still a convinced evildoer. I do think that his rushing to children's aid is his way of proving that he is better than the adults who left him at his own devices (as he sees it) when he was himself a child. I am quite convinced that he blames those adults for the fact that he joined the Death Eaters, and his favouring Draco is partly rooted in a drive to rescue the boy from a fate like his own.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oh, I do think Snape has a strong moral sense, especially after HBP. I agree that he (most likely) fights his worst instincts, but to do that consciously means that you *do* have a sense of right and wrong and also a fair bit of self-knowledge, don't you think?

His desire to rescue children is so powerful and so instinctive that I don't think he is consciously trying to prove anything by it. It's almost a compulsion, and has given me interesting ideas about what his early life may have been like (did you read "The Blessing"?) Certainly, I do agree that he never really had any adults to protect him, and he may well resent that.

And I absolutely, totally, agree with you both about his desire to rescue Draco and his actions in POA. What inspired this essay was reading some absolute hate from Sirius fans, who could find nothing good in Severus at all. It's amazing - we actually see him doing something incredibly brave and selfless, and the marauders fans simply ignore it, or even try to make him evil in that instance. Severus fans just don't seem to have the same attitude. I don't *like* Sirius - I don't like any of the marauders, really - but I think even wretched Peter probably has his good points (though we haven't seen them yet) and the others certainly do.

Oh - that there is a streak of insanity in the Black family does seem likely. And the dog comparison definitely doesn't exclude it - but having thought it out made Sirius a more bearable character to me. As I said, I really don't like him, but he would make a very good dog, though of the dominant-aggressive type. ;)

[pervert-bitch.livejournal.com]

I think I cried a little here. *sniff*
Thanks for those words and great comparison between those two characters. And you are right, it is easy to love and do good to those who does those things already in return... but to love and do good to a percieved enemy... thank you.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks! I'm glad you saw what I was driving at, and appreciated it so much.

[ook.livejournal.com]

Really well-written essay. Thanks for sharing it!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

You're welcome; glad you enjoyed it.

[medea-violia.livejournal.com]

I really enjoyed that, well thought out and logical. Dont know if it will reach the hardcore Sirius fans, but it made this Snapist think a bit more :)

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I'd say it wouldn't - I just heard from one (a very nice person, btw) who insists we don't have enough information to judge Snape's motives about anything. I think we do - the information is there, just as it was there about Snape's poverty and his ancestry - but it is subtle, and certainly not complete. But, like other Sirius fans, she doesn't seem able to see Snape in a positive light, no matter what the evidence.

Glad you liked this, though! One thing the Sirius fan said was true; we really don't have all the evidence yet, so we cannot tell for sure what Rowling is doing with this character. But I will be SO THRILLED if I am right!

[professor-mum.livejournal.com]

Wow. Stunned. Bravo. And thanks for the links.

...Snape may have known Draco was in the bathroom, and that Snape's rescue of the boy is not all that altruistic - after all, if Draco dies, he dies as well.

I totally missed this very important point. Harry nearly killed Snape, via Draco, with Snape's own spell. Harry nearly derailed Albus and Snapes entire master plan. No wonder Snape said "apparently I under-estimated you...who would have thought you knew such Dark Magic".

Was he wondering whether or not Voldy had turned on the two-way connection and was operating via Harry? I wonder....

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

I am so glad you like it, as I admire your stuff, and Swythyv's, very much indeed. So it means a lot to me when I impress you. )

But, seriously, I do think I have something here. So do you - the 'sectumsempra' scene is extremely weighty, emotionally and intellectually, and Harry really did nearly kill Snape. This is why I - even on first reading - marvelled at how patient he was with the boy. Maybe he was holding himself back very firmly for fear of killing Harry in retaliation; you can sense his rage, but he really gives Harry every opportunity to explain himself, doesn't he? And Harry really fails. It's understandable - but he does fail.

One of my teens was talking with me (again) today about our fears and hopes for DH, and he said he really wanted to see Harry become a man - someone who could accept responsibility for his own actions. He also wants to see Snape proven good, as do I. We're keeping our fingers crossed.

Thanks for reading; I'm really glad you liked it.

[anne-arthur.livejournal.com]

I do like this! 'Sirius the dog' is actually starting to make sense of this character for me (finally . . .). Only a very canine thoughtlessness could explain the werwolf escapade (since even if no-one was hurt Snape would have told everyone in Slytherin that Lupin was a werwolf - there is no way that Lupin could have avoided expulsion no matter what happened). And a very similar carelessness of his feelings seems to be paving the way for Peter's eventual betrayal - I was quite shocked at the way James and Sirius treated him in the pensieve scene. Whereas Snape, although he can be deliberately cruel, is never thoughtless or brutal.

But, although I agree with you that love is action, not fine words, I do sometimes wonder if JKR does not mean Sirius and Severus to be equal and opposite in this regard, and if, just as Sirius is brought down by his lack of concern for those he does not like, Severus's downfall might be his lack of warm-heartedness. I can't help thinking of Corinthians 13.3 ('And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing'), and I notice that EVERYONE accepts without question that Snape murdered Dumbledore, and I am very worried for him.

I do hope that I am worrying unneccessarily!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thank you, Anne! I do like this! 'Sirius the dog' is actually starting to make sense of this character for me (finally . . .).

Yes, exactly! I find Sirius a great deal more tolerable when I think of him this way. ;)

I also really liked this comment of yours: I do sometimes wonder if JKR does not mean Sirius and Severus to be equal and opposite in this regard, and if, just as Sirius is brought down by his lack of concern for those he does not like, Severus's downfall might be his lack of warm-heartedness. And I'm afraid you may be right, although I didn't quite think of it that way. What struck me more is that, however grudgingly, Severus *acts* on behalf of his 'enemies', and he is one of very few people in canon who manages this. Most of the 'good guys' - Sirius included - never do. But I do think it is true that Severus would become much more the person God and the Universe meant him to be if he could only achieve some genuine empathy, particularly for Harry. While Sirius, who had all sorts of warm-heartedness, would have been greatly improved as a person if he were less callous and managed to *think* once in awhile.

Oh - didn't Sionna (or Red Hen, or somebody) point out that HAGRID doesn't accept without question that Snape is a murderer? Maybe that is a hopeful sign. Anyway, thanks for your comment, and I'm very glad you finally read the essay and that you liked it.

Wow!

[swythyv.livejournal.com]

Well, this essay is an absolute monument. Well done! I hardly know where to start in agreeing with you. :D

I also see Sirius as an alpha-dog. In fact, I speculated that it was he, above any of the others, who would have been able to "socialize" Remus Lupin in his werewolf form: dominating him as canines do. (Really - a stag and a rat?) And I think that that ingrained canine dominance/deference, alpha/beta is the vibe everyone sensed between them. Explains the physical touching, too.

You make a sterling point about Sirius dividing the world into persons and non-persons depending whether they are in "his pack" and I share your sad opinion of how he regarded Regulus. He scraped off his parents - how much more the brother who stayed with them, and enjoyed mutual approval?

[Eccentricity Alert] One great charm of my Regulus-as-Crookshanks theory was the sense in which the brothers had reconciled - however unknowingly on Sirius' part. "Crookshanks" protected him with his own body and consistently showed a special regard for Sirius, even into OotP. [End of Eccentricity Alert] :D

But the people in "Sirius' pack" did not have much in which to rejoice, by my reckoning. As alpha, he expects to be served, which has consistently included being entertained, even for all that he "loved" Harry.

If Sirius meant to set Lupin on Snape as a werewolf, I think I do know exactly what he was thinking:

Sirius was bored at school, knew he'd never have to work, and he'd had enough of it. He was a child of privilege, and chafing at any restraints on his life that that entailed. I think he wanted to run away and see the world - just like he ended up on a tropical island after PoA, sending mail by exotic birds.

Sure a non-person would be horribly cursed or killed, but that's what they're for and Snape deserved it for being uppity. Sure Lupin would have had to flee for his life afterwards. That was the best part! He'd have to go with Sirius, then, and be grateful. Sure, James would probably be expelled. Great! Then he'd be available to go, too! Road trip! Sirius was itching to run away.

I'm not convinced that that's all that was going on that night - but if Sirius needed any motivation, I heard the bells ring on that one when it hit me recently. :D

Of course I'm right with you on Snape as protector, and you state the case of love-in-action really beautifully. (And I do appreciate the reflection on Hermione in that, too.) I hope I can do half as well in the last essay of the series I'm working on, because you're 'way out in front of me. ;D

Wow. Just, wow. This one's going in permanent bookmarks. :D

Re: Wow!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Oh, thank you - I'm so glad you liked it1 ) But, from what you said, I think I'm going to find your final essay on what was really happening during "the werewolf caper' highly disconcerting. You seem to be implying that young Severus's murder would only have been a 'by-product'; a necessary but minor consequence of something else Sirius had in mind. That is really, really chilling - and I'm not sure I can fully agree. As I read these characters right now, Lupin himself might be exactly that cold-blooded, but none of the others would have been - especially not as mere boys. At least, I hope not!

Anyway, thanks so very much for your kind words, and I am looking forward to yours (as always). I really enjoy your original ideas and sense of humor.

[psyfic.livejournal.com]

And that is the real difference, in my mind, between Sirius Black and Severus Snape. Sirius, the dog animagus, faithfully loves and helps all the members of his pack - all those people who love him. He has never been shown to love an enemy. Severus, who has no pack, willingly risks his life even for a boy he knows hates him. In doing so, he consistently does what is right rather than what is easy.

Well spoken. You mention, though, that Snape has never so much as used racial epithets, but he does, at least once... in Snape's Worst Memory. Of course, he is speaking at a moment when he is experiencing great personal pain and humiliation, but he does call Lily Evans a Mudblood.

Still, despite this, I do note that whilst Severus doesn't waste opportunities to badmouth Sirius and James and point out their flaws and bad behaviour to Harry, he *never* says a word about his mother directly. Never. Which is what leads me to believe that his calling her that was an action committed under duress... and possibly even the reason it is his so-called Worst Memory.

Personally, I doubt it is his worst memory because of the humiliation, since it is made quite clear that the Marauders did this sort of thing to him every chance they go. Moreover he was a Death Eater and must have experienced far worse than a hazing incident in that crowd! No, I believe it is his Worst Memory because he called her that, someone who had tried to stand up for him, and he lost any chance of friendship (or possibly more) with her. I'm not saying he was in love with her - merely that I feel, as you do, that Snape is intensely loyal and his actions drove someone who had expressed concern for him away. That far-too-common feeling of "Oh, I wish I'd never opened my mouth!" that we all have experienced.

This would eat at him... which is why I feel his having to kill Dumbledore (or else die from the vow, be killed by the other Death Eaters and then not be able to keep helping Harry defeat Voldemort) has marked him not just merely as a murderer, but quite likely as someone now willing to sacrifice himself for his own perfidy.

I hope he does not die, but I have a feeling he will do so, and willingly, to expiate his self-perceived transgressions.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks! But I think I need to clarify something: You say:
You mention, though, that Snape has never so much as used racial epithets, but he does, at least once... in Snape's Worst Memory

But what I actually said was that we never hear Snape say anything negative about Muggles or Muggleborns *as an adult*. What he did as a very distressed adolescent, *before* joining the Death Eaters and becoming disenchanted with them, is something else again.

BTW, although I originally thought, as you do, that Snape would die to save Harry and thereby expiate his sins, I am no longer so sure of this - for several reasons, too long to go into here. I will say I am no longer as sure as I once was that he did kill Dumbledore, though Dumbledore is definitely dead. And I am convinced that, at this point in the story (the end of HBP), Severus is more truly Dumbledore's man than Harry is. Of course, that's just the way I see it, but I do have my reasons.

Thanks again for your comment; glad you enjoyed it.

[thumm.livejournal.com]

To start with, thank you for this really illuminating and inspiring essay.
There are, nevertheless, several points I can hardly agree with so, I suppose, I'll concentrate on them mostly. I mean, if I just write "wow, how brilliant!" it won't be so interesting, yeh? :)
Well, nevertheless, I 100% agree with your analysis of Sirius, and, yes, the canine analogy seems to be the most illuminating way to analyze his character.
Then, your point about Snape's readiness to safe adolescents in danger I also highly appreciate. I remember quite well all the occasions you are mentioning but I have never thought about them as a pattern, but there clearly IS a pattern indeed.
Now, what I hardly can agree with at all is the statement that Snape's behavior on these occasions is a manifestation of true Christian love. More even, I can hardly agree with that motto you suggest: "Love isn't how you feel. It's what you do".
Love, actually, is both. Doing good to anybody implies, obviously, that you have a fairy justified idea of what IS good for him. And it is on very extreme occasions only (read: while saving someones love) when you can assume the other's good to be something self-evident.
Let me remind you of several situation in the HP canon:
- Lupin boosting Neville's self-esteem in the Boggart scene in PoA;
- Harry preventing Sirius and Lupin from committing homicide in the same book;
- Barty Crouch Jr. forcing Neville to face what Cruciatus curse is, and comforting him afterwards;
- Harry giving his Triwizard tournament earnings to Weasley twins;
- McGonagall teaching Harry to hold his temper with Umbridge;
- Hermione making invigorating comments to help Harry/Cho romance in OotP;
- Dumbledore explaining Hagrid exactly why he shouldn't resign;
- Dumbledore allowing Harry to shout and break furniture in his office in the end of OotP;
- Harry faking the pour of Felix into Ron's drink;
- Harry talking Slughorn into giving away his Horcrux memory;
- Dumbledore talking to Draco on the head of the Astronomy tower.
On all these - so very different - occasions the person named first is doing what I'd call "good" to the other. It is making life better for the other - by helping him to cope with his fairs or his grief, by teaching him to control his temper, by making him understand himself better, by guarding him from doing a big mistake, whatever.
But to do good of this kind needs a fair amount of empathy to your companion, one can't mend other's psyche if he has no idea at all about what's going on there. And empathy is exactly the field where Snape is extremely challenged. My question may sound ridiculous but nevertheless - can you mention a single occasion when Snape is helping anybody in any way other then teaching or life-saving? I mean, both these things are quite rational and therefore understandable to Severus - "knowledge is power", everybody wants to live", period. But in any more subtle matters he is clueless. He can do what he is explicitly asked to do (master a Wolfbane potion, teach Harry Occlumency, make Unbreakable Vow), but he almost never takes initiative, and even when he tries (see their interview with Draco in the HBP), he fails. Exactly because he has no idea of what goes on in other people's heads.
And I think he understands that. He understands that - in your terms - he cannot DO love to anybody in any way other then life-saving, and it is probably the reason for his "complex of saving people" (do you remember another character with the similar peculiarity? :) ). Frankly, I fill quite pity for him.
(to be continued)

[thumm.livejournal.com]

In turn, btw, Sirius is not at all challenged in the similar way. He is perfectly capable of empathy, that is - to the members of his pack, of course. It is thanks to him Remus was capable to socialize despite his disability, and his emotional support for Harry in GoF and OotP is impossible to overestimate, the fact that his actual advices were at times downright stupid notwithstanding.
Returning to Severus, it seems to me that he is probably reading too much into life-and-death issues. I mean, Dumbledore has taught us that there are things more important then death, and he seems to confirm his sayings with his actions. Severus, judging by his "I treat you like sh%t, but I save your life" behavior is quite far from understanding Albus's point. And attitude towards death being the central theme of the series, we should bear this notion in mind.
And, since we are talking about Severus here, there is another question which disturbs me. Look, we know that he is extremely brave, likes to risk his life and to play hero. We know that he highly rates this ability of his ("don't ever call me coward!") and probably carefully developed it in himself. Moreover, he is a loner who does what he things right without any concern about what the society thinks of him. And here comes a $64000 question: if the first of these characteristics (bravery) is supposed to be a defining quality of Gryffindor, and the second (loneliness and "rightness") - of Ravenclaw, why on Earth is Severus Snape a Slytherin? What does he have in common with classical (and not necessarily evil) Slytherins like Slughorn or Malfoy? He - you have noted that elsewhere, and lots of other people, too - is much more similar to classically Gryffindorish (at least as we are used to think) features of Harry. And he is not even a pure-blood, for Heaven's sake!

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your comment! I wonder, though, if you read any of the other comments, particularly Ann's? She and I had a discussion on just this point - both Severus and Sirius fail to be perfectly loving, and they fail in opposing ways. I think Severus has a lot to learn about acknowledging and expressing his emotions; he has survived, to date, by trying to deny them, and it results in a lot of misplaced anger. Sound like anyone else we know? (hint: Harry). Sirius, on the other hand, though he has all sorts of warmth of feeling for the people in 'his pack', is remarkably callous to outsiders and incredibly thoughtless all round. He, too, could have had a lot to learn, had he survived. His redeeming trait was that he was willing to risk all for those he loved, Harry included.

The examples you give of 'true Christian love' are interesting. I must confess, I don't really agree with any of them; I think there have been exactly four people, so far, who have shown sacrificial love and/or love for enemies. They are Lily (top of the list), Dumbledore, Hermione, and, following her, Severus. I am putting these people in order; I do *not* think Severus, on the evidence we have, understands compassion for an enemy or self-sacrifice anywhere near as well as the other three. But the fact remains that he *is* the only person we see in canon exercising care for an enemy. And he is not without feeling, however much he may try to deny it. I thought his compassion for Narcissa (in the "Spinner's End" chapter) and Draco (in the sectumsempra scene) were remarkable.

You say, "On all these - so very different - occasions the person named first is doing what I'd call "good" to the other. It is making life better for the other - by helping him to cope with his fairs or his grief, by teaching him to control his temper, by making him understand himself better, by guarding him from doing a big mistake, whatever." I do see your point, but I have trouble seeing how, for example, Minerva McGonagall (irritably) warning Harry about losing his temper with Umbridge is being more loving or helpful than Severus struggling to teach him Occlumency. *Both* of them are trying to guard the boy from present danger by getting him to control himself, and *both* of them fail resoundingly. I find some of your other examples problematic, as well. But I do see where you are coming from and - as I said - I acknowledged that main point both in the essay itself and in the conversation with Ann.

Your last question is really interesting! I have come to the conclusion that Severus is actually the heir of Gryffindor; he *should* have been in Gryffindor but is not there for exactly the same reason Harry is not in Slytherin - he got the impression it was a house full of bullying blowhards, and refused to be placed with James Potter and Sirius Black. I think Rowling misled us all (for awhile) by comparing James and Severus to Harry and Draco. It was an accurate comparison, but Harry (and all of us readers) misinterpreted it; it's Severus who was like Harry (a ragged, possibly ignorant outsider picked on by the cool kids), and James who was like Draco (a wealthy, popular pureblood bully).

Which brings me to my last point - about Severus's lack of emotional intelligence. Would you say Harry had any emotional intelligence? Have you noticed how often these two are described in exactly the same words? How often they seem to have the same reactions to similar situations? That's why I am reading Severus, in a way, through what we know of Harry.

Thanks again for your comment.

[gods-lil-rocker.livejournal.com]

You, my friend, are amazing! This is very very interesting. =)

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thank you! You can imagine how amazed I am that there are people who still think Snape is Voldemort's man, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. But we'll see in about three weeks!

[ajnastarheart.livejournal.com]

Wonderful essay!

Only a few short weeks until we have the final book in our hands...

*trembles*

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

"Trembles" is right! I so hope my analysis is correct; there are so many ways Rowling could go wrong with this story, IMHO. And, no matter what she does, some group of fans will be disappointed. I do not envy her.

But I'm glad you liked my essay1 Thanks for your kind words. )

[geri-chan.livejournal.com]

Came here via the "Snapedom member essay" link, and I'm glad I did. There's a great deal that I dislike about Sirius, but I still see enough good in him that I find it maddening that he's so stubbornly unrepentant of things like "the prank," because he ought to know better. It seems like he has the potential to be a much better person than he is, but I couldn't manage to put my finger on what the problem was, other than House prejudice.

You do a great job of articulating Sirius's virtues and flaws, and of explaining the reason behind them. Although it probably should've been obvious, the pack mentality explanation hadn't occurred to me before, but it makes perfect sense. All his loving actions are on behalf of the pack, not strangers or enemies. Interestingly enough, this is how I've always imagined the Slytherins in my fanfiction. I picture them as being capable of great loyalty, and of being willing to risk their lives--but only for the ones that they love; everybody else is on their own. While this was my own fanon interpretation, the portrayal of the Malfoys in DH seems to support that theory, so maybe Sirius was more of a Slytherin than he would have liked to admit.

As for Snape, I hadn't really thought of his actions as "love," but in a sense they are. He performs acts of love even though he perhaps doesn't feel love towards the people that he's helping (at least, not in the "warm and fuzzy" sense of the word). That's in contrast to Sirius, who talks a good game, but doesn't always practice what he preaches--for example when he says that you can judge a man by how he treats his inferiors, in regards to Barty Crouch in GoF. Sirius treats Kreacher at least as badly as Crouch treats Winky, if not worse. It reminds me of a saying, "The smallest action is better than the greatest intention". And Snape's actions come off as much nobler to me than those of Sirius, and the Marauders in general. Even if JKR probably wouldn't agree.

[mary-j-59.livejournal.com]

Thanks for reading and commenting! The pack mentality hadn't occurred to me with Sirius, either, and, once it did, the character instantly became more tolerable.

And Severus's actions *do* definitely come across as much nobler than Sirius's - or, indeed, almost anyone's in the Potterverse, flawed though he is. Though I agree with you that he was slightly diminished in DH, he *still* comes across as a great hero to me precisely because he's just about the only person who shows this type of love.

(You were one of the people who thought Severus diminished in DH, weren't you?)

Re:

[igorewe849.livejournal.com]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6M_6qOz-yw