βWith all due respect, I find both of these answers a little silly though. This is like saying itβs okay for someone to shoot up a school because he got bullied.β
No, thatβs an absurd comparison. Severus is not comparable to a school shooter. Severus is comparable to the countless vulnerable kids who, because of abuse, neglect, poverty, isolation, and lack of support systems, end up getting pulled into harmful groups because those groups offer them belonging and protection. Thatβs literally a documented social pattern. Religious cults, extremist organizations, gangs, and similar groups disproportionately target vulnerable young people with weak support networks because theyβre easier to recruit. Understanding why something happens is not the same as excusing it. If your first instinct when discussing radicalized abused teenagers is immediately βColumbine,β that says more about your lack understanding of the issue than mine.
βIf Severus was so not over his childhood trauma, he shouldnβt have taught at Hogwarts.β
Mmmβ¦ no? Itβs canon that Dumbledore essentially kept Snape at Hogwarts. Wanting Defense Against the Dark Arts doesnβt automatically mean he loved teaching children or dreamed of being a teacher. Those are two completely different things. Youβre making a leap in logic that simply isnβt there.
βHarry Potter was bullied, humiliated and made fun of for six years because he looked like his father.β
And despite all of that, Harry also stayed alive for six years partly because Snape repeatedly saved his life. Nuance exists.
βNeville Longbottom got picked on so much Snape became his greatest fear.β
People massively overuse this point. A Boggart reflects immediate fears, not an objective ranking of the most traumatic experiences in your life. Hermioneβs became McGonagall telling her she failed everything, does that suddenly mean exam results are worse than Voldemort? No. Also, Hogwarts students use animals in spellwork and potions all the time. And honestly? Snape was harsh with Neville because Neville was genuinely dangerous in Potions. Constant mistakes in that class could seriously injure people. I would expelled that kid, he was a fucking danger.
βHermione Granger got mocked for her appearance at fourteen years old.β
Thatβs not even accurate. Hermione had already wanted to change her teeth because her parents β who are dentists β wanted orthodontic treatment for her. She used magic on them after a spell backfired and enlarged them. Snape had nothing to do with that decision. Also, in the books Hermione repeatedly calls Snape a competent teacher and regularly defends him against Harryβs suspicions. People often ignore that because it doesnβt fit the narrative they want.
βAll of this done by a teacher, who shouldβve protected them.β
And he literally did. Without Snape, Harry wouldβve died in book one. And probably multiple times after that too.
βHarry Potter also had a terrible childhood but I donβt see him becoming a 36-year-old bullying school children.β
Harry had friends, adults who protected him, people who loved him, teachers who openly supported him, and a huge inheritance. Those situations are not remotely identical. Trauma is not a competition and people do not all respond to it the same way.
βHe was okay with Lilyβs husband and son dying so he could have her all for himself.β
Snape and Lily had not even spoken since they were fifteen. He was twenty-one at that point and had never spent years chasing her or trying to force contact. Wanting to save someone you care about after indirectly putting them in danger does not automatically mean βhe wanted her all for himself.β Thatβs a huge leap based more on fan interpretation than on what is actually written.
