Anyone Ever Pissed At Snape Because He Literally Had The Students Buy Shitty Potions Textbooks?

Anyone ever pissed at Snape because he literally had the students buy shitty potions textbooks?

Like literally the same book he used when he was at hogwarts

The same book he spent time correcting so that it actually worked

That’s the book he had his students buy, and then he didn’t give them the corrections.

That alone makes him an unforgivable character because he liked to watch children fail.

Slytherin and Eton: A Primer on the British School System.

Slytherin occupies an odd place in the Harry Potter fandom. In canon, while it is the house with the second most development, that development is almost entirely negative, with the house and a large quantity of its students acting antagonistically throughout the piece. Heck, Hagrid, the lovable gruff figure who acts as Harry’s (and thus the audience’s) introduction to the magical aspects of the series explicitely calls them the most evil house before Harry has even seen the castle. This, along with Draco Malfoy’s terrible introduction (Malfoy will be covered in detail later in the piece) and the fact that Harry is already having to distance himself from Voldemort by the time of the sorting, is the major reason that Harry chooses anything but Slytherin. While the house, or rather its representatives, are sort of given more naunce later with Slughorn, Malfoy’s Draco and Narcissus, and Snape, the core example of how it is treated in the series comes just before the final battle, when the entire Slytherin student body either sides with Voldemort (Crabbe and Goyle, and to a lesser extent Parkinson who is willing to hand over Harry to save herself) or refuses to fight the good fight at all. 

The weirdness comes from the fact that Slytherin is probably the most popular house to self identify as within the active fandom. Aside from having traits many consider positive associated with it (cunning, loyalty and ambition), it is also treated as the outcast house to the rest of the school, particularly the Gryfindors. The treatement of Slytherin therefore sticks in a lot of fan’s nerves, and understandably so. The notion of Houses, defining people at age 11, is already a weird way to handle things, after all, and defining an entire group of them as evil from the start? Yeah that’s not great, particularly if you identify with aspects of them. I myself would probably be a Slytherin or a Ravenclaw, so I can understand this distaste. But…here’s the thing. The reasons for treating Slytherin this way are not entirely diagectic in nature. The house is the centre of a massive pile up involving world building, characterisation and most importantly some fairly blunt and pointed social commentary about the British School system and society at large. 

It’s been a running gag that what racism is to the American political discussion, classism is to the British. This is not entirely true (for one thing we are certainly not over racism or xenophobia here), but there is a nugget in there. British society is heavily class stratified society. We have some of the worst mobility in the developed world, and much of our political system is dominated by a very small part of society.

Perhaps the most obvious example of this is that there is a particular branch of the schooling system that dominates government, known as the Public Schools. That name can be confusing at first. The original group of Public schools vastly predate the mandatory schooling system; the oldest of them predate Columbus’ birth by over a decade. Not his voyage to the Americas, but his birth. The original idea was that they would take promising boys who normally would not get an education, due to them not coming from families who could afford them to be educated, hence the name Public Schools. Nowadays these are all elite private schools, not linked to the department of education. While approximately 7% of the population attend these schools, 33% of the members of Parliament (MPs), 50% of the Peers in the second chamber of government and 70% of the top judges are educated here. Heck, of the 54 Prime Ministers who have led the country, 32 were educated at one of three Public schools; seven at Harrow School, six at Westminster School and nineteen at Eton College. Compare that to the 9 prime ministers educated, as I was, in state schools. These institutions form part of the basis for a web of connections that defines a lot of the elite parts of British society, not just in politics but in business, in media and in higher education as well; the “old boy’s club” that provides a barrier to entry for a vast swathe of society. While supporters of these systems will note that efforts have been made to overcome this, with around 310 of Eton’s pupils receiving financial assistance, but that means that the remaining 1,000 students come from families that can afford the £12,000 per term fees, and these students are only male. The idea that this system is anything close to meritocratic is not just laughable, it is the equivalent of starting a discussion on orbital dynamics with the word’s “assuming a heliocentric universe”. Another point to make? The entire House structure comes from these schools. Eton has 25 Houses, and in this case they are literally houses; they are where the boy’s sleep at night, since it is a boarding school. While not unique to Public Schools, they are heavily associated with them in British culture. I’m adding this in because Rowling didn’t just make up the concept of splitting the children into groups. As a teenager she attended Wyedean School, which notably historically had a four House system (oh look it’s almost as if there might be a connection), before abandoning it as the school grew (I can’t find anything about when this happened, but it could well have been after Rowling studied there). Hogwarts itself, while it is an individual school, is also a condensation, celebration and condemnation of the British School system as a whole, being the only wizarding school in the UK. Umbridge isn’t just a single throughly unpleasant inspector, she is a stand-in for OFSTED, the body responsible for school inspections. It’s notable that in Harry’s year in Gryfindor,  you have, among others, the dirt poor Ron, the muggle born Dean and Hermione, the Irish half-blood Seamus Finnigen (and given that this was written in the 90′s holy shit is UK and Irish relations another can of worms I am not going to open here because this already too long but will be glanced a bit at in a later bit of this essay). It’s honestly hard for me to not read Gryffindor and Hufflepuff as stand-ins for the UK state schools, Ravenclaw for the private schools, and Slytherin as the public schools. Remember what I said about how Slytherin is treated as the outcast part of the school? Well, it is honestly treated much like the rest of the UK school system treats the private school. How is that? Well, when it snowed in my school days and we all went to the main park, the one thing that would immediately unite all the state and a lot of the private schools was the arrival of the public school kids (particularly since they tended to try and pick snowball fights with everyone while throwing classist insults around). Slytherin is in many ways the house of privilege, and not necessarily earned privilege. Lucius Malfoy, until his ousting when he plays his hand too hard in the second book, is the leader of the Board of Governors and escaped Azkaban despite his crimes, while it is explicitely stated in the first book that Slytherin has won the House cup for repeatedly in the previous years, mainly due to Snape bestowing preferential  treatment on his own House (and yes I do think it was fine for Dumbledore to pull that last minute switch, since Harry Ron and Hermione had just legimately just prevented Voldemort from returning. That kind of deserves some credit. The Neville bit might be pushing it but again, the timing was just pretty tight). But there’s more to what Slytherin represents, and this comes back to what I was saying about how charactisation is involved in this pile up, particularly the characterisation of Slytherin himself. Specifically the characterisation of him as a rascist shitfucker. I know that’s blunt but so it is the characterisation. He left a giant monster behind for the sole purpose of having it one day unleashed on a load of kids for the crime of not being born to magical parents, and Slytherin the house has historically been defined as much by its stated qualities of cunning and ambition as it has been by this continuing tradition of racist ideology. The Sorting Hat song is not the full picture as to what defines the Houses; they have grown beyond that, both in universe and in fandom. This characterisation comes back into social commentary because, yes, the UK has had and still has a long history of racism and xenophobia, from our imperial history to the Troubles in Ireland to how Eastern European and muslim immigrants are treated now. So why does Slytherin House still bare a stain from Slytherin the man? Well, in a word, it’s tradition. Remember what I said about the age of these institutions? Yeah, that’s not a joke. The Public School system, the Oxbridge higher education that it feeds into, are heavily influenced by traditions that have grown up over the ages. Heck, it used to be that in Eton, the youngest boys in the House were basically servants to the older students and staff, a practise known as “fagging” (I am not even joking). Wizarding society in general is also heavily steeped in the past; the steam train of the Hogwarts express, for instance, or the very concept of the Houses themselves. Heck, while it is never confronted directly, quite a few characters talk about how the Sorting isn’t the best idea, most notably the Sorting Hat itself. Slytherin the house has passed down the ideals of Slytherin the man in its culture, just as the UK has passed down racism, classism and xenophobia in ours. If Voldemort is the embodiment of these issues at their most violent, then Parkinson is them at their most passive; she is willing to go with Voldemort’s demands to save herself, and is willing to accept the racism and classism throughout the books. This is what I meant by a collusion between characterisation, world building and social commentary. The books were written while Rowling was viturally penniless, and a lot of the social commentary in them reflects this, including the way Slytherin is portrayed. Is it fair to the characters of Slytherin? Should she have been more naunced about it? Well, yes. There’s a reason I called it a pile up, but if you are treating the resulting mess as simply being in universe, you are going to miss a lot of important aspects about why she created it the way that she did.

Why do you think severus lives in his old childhood home still?

I think it was an intentional move by JKR to show that he never moved on from the past. Severus was a man who was incapable of moving on, incapable of letting go of his trauma and anger. The fact that he lives in his childhood home, the place where he met Lily and the place where he endured his father’s abuse, symbolises how he was unable to move on from his childhood. But if you’re looking for a more “realistic” answer, then I suspect he never cared enough to put in the effort of moving out since he stayed at Hogwarts for most of the year, and he might have also had debts to pay off from when his parents were alive.

Bonus: I also remember someone saying he might’ve stayed in Spinner’s End because it was where he met Lily and where all of his happiest memories with her were. And during the 2nd chapter of Half-Blood Prince (Spinner’s End), we can see that he was in a better mood than he usually was. He likes Narcissa and would of course be happy to see her, but his pleasantness might also be because of that reason. And I’m sure he didn’t like living in his childhood house, but I think he liked the neighbourhood and the areas where he and Lily would also hang out. Though I think that’s only part of the reason as to why he stayed there.

to add on lily’s flaws she also believes james and the marauders rather than severus (which is just bad writing imo) and she tells him to be grateful james saved his life, she also who quickly bites back once you annoy her, she also gave cheeky answers to slughorn when he suggested she could’ve been in slytherin, (i personally hate her sm for her trying to tell severus he should be grateful to james would like to hear your opinions) but yes even her, a briefly mentioned character, is very flawed!

tbh my feeling is more that she just believed a rumour that was going around the school rather than having heard it directly from james. idk obviously we dont know. but teenage girls (and boys) often believe rumours. not that weird. I actually think she wouldn't have believed it coming directly from James given how she acts towards him in SWM, but if the school generally seems to agree that it happened then it's more believable.

re: her telling Sev he should be grateful, I've talked about this before (I think in that very post about lily's flaws) but I don't read it as "you should forgive james for everything he's done" but just this kind of desperate, naive "can't we all just get along and stop fighting" sentiment. it's still not a great thing to say, absolutely it's insensitive and tactless.

however it's always interesting to me how Snape people despise Lily for that singular comment (like that's the worst thing anyone could do lol) when Sev is pretty atrocious to her in that conversation too. He completely dismisses her feelings-- like how is Lily saying he should be grateful any worse than him writing off what Mulciber did to Mary as 'just a laugh'? Sev literally ignores her because he's too focused on his hatred towards the Marauders to hear his muggleborn friend's very valid concerns about the death eater wannabes he's hanging out with.

I don't think it's fair to hold Lily to a different standard than Sev, that's my opinion. If she's insensitive towards her best friend then god is he ever. and idk teen friendships are often like that- immature. they have yet to mature

they are so dysfunctional lol. and i love them for it personally!

So many people who say that Snape can't be a victim in the situation with the marauders because he hurts them (and/or others, e.g. calling Lily a mudblood) in return have clearly never seen an abusive relationship before and while I'm genuinely so, so happy that their life experience has allowed them to avoid it, it makes me scared that when they do come across one, they're going to pull this same shit.

Y'all... very, very rarely in a situation of peer or domestic abuse is the hurt one-sided. Often, because of the fact that the abuser has skewed the power in the relationship so far in their direction, the victim lashes out, too. Sometimes in self-defense, sometimes in anger or desperation, sometimes even proactively to avoid what they think will be a more dangerous situation later.

The misconception that victims never fight back or hurt their abusers makes it harder for many victims to realize that they are in abusive situations at all. (For example, no matter how many boxes they can check on any 'are you in an abusive relationship' questionnaire, they can't be being victimized, because they, say, threw a book at them that one time.) Abusers use this to discourage their victims from seeking help; many people think that since they're not the "perfect victim", they won't be believed. And esp in domestic situations, abusers also often hold these incidents over the victim for increased control and to justify even more abusive behavior ("you make me do it").

It's all about the fear, the control, and the power dynamic; the victim doesn't need to be morally perfect nor have done nothing wrong in the relationship to "deserve" the label. They may hurt the abuser back, take out their anger on innocent people, or even become the abuser in other relationships—and that doesn't make them not a victim themselves.

Was the way Snape reacted to the abuse by his peers—calling Lily a mudblood, developing hexes, and using them back—good? No, obviously not; his violent responses to being victimized and his concurrent radicalization led to some very dark places for him. Doesn't change the fact that he was a victim. Does his being a victim excuse his choice to join the Death Eaters, turn over the prophecy, and bully his students? Nope; he had agency and he made the wrong choices. But he's still a victim.

Thoughts on Snape?

I think he is a very good representation of a man who felt insecure in his manhood; his male ego was permanently wounded by James' bullying and he decided to make it everyone else's problem by being the most insufferable teacher at Hogwarts. Add to this that he is a halfblood and only his mother was around, iirc? Snape, Voldemort and Harry all act like foils of each other in that sense, but whereas Voldemort fixated on his blood status as the main reason for his insecurities, Snape fixated on Lily. His character is all about male entitlement, he was obsessed with her at Hogwarts and then showed to have no boundaries as he went into her house to cradle her dead body in front of her traumatized kid. He only saw Lily as a trophy to be possessed, which you can see from the way he hated Harry, because Harry reminded him Lily wasn't his and that Lily had sex with another man. His interest in the Death Eaters was only secondary to his obsession with Lily and I think Lily rejecting him pushed him toward joining the Death Eaters, because, once again, his male ego was bruised and he needed to replace it with something else.

He remained mysterious up till the end and his back-and-forth with treason was very compelling to read about. So I hate him (as a "person") but he is such a good character narrative-wise and he is very interesting to study