Defending the Indefensible

Defending The Indefensible

By JoTwo

When I first read SWM I was shocked. Yet what was nearly as shocking is that not all readers were horrified at what happened to Snape. I could hardly believe it when I read excuse after excuse for MWPP. People bent over backwards to downplay, even justify, their behaviour. Simultaneously they argued that Snape-the-teenager somehow deserved it. Talk about blame the victim.

OOP came out in July 2003 and it's now over 3 years ago, so this discussion may be considered too late. However I've read debates about bullying this year that trot out the same old lame excuses so I think it is still relevant.

So here is a list of the defences and my analysis of why the arguments simply don't stand up.

This defence is completely fallacious. It's basically saying that Snape should be punished in advance for something that hadn't even happened yet.

With that reasoning you could grab someone off the street and lock them up because of the possibility that they might commit a crime in the future.

My counter argument to this is the same as above. Anything that happened after SWM can't be used to excuse the Marauders.

Again, the fact that 3 of the Marauders did good things in the future doesn't count, as it's as equally irrelevant as Snape's future behaviour.

Also disapproval of what they did to Snape in this scene doesn't meant that you don't have to acknowledge that James, Sirius and Remus grew up to be on the side of the angels. It's not a black and white, either/or judgement on the characters.

Personally I don't believe Snape was prejudiced but for the sake of argument I'll accept it as true.

In real life I find prejudice against people on grounds of race abhorrent, reprehensible and plain stupid. However that doesn't give me the right to go up to someone who holds this view and beat them up. So even if Snape was prejudiced against Muggle-borns MWPP had no justification for attacking him.

According to Sirius he was, but there's no other proof of this. Maybe it was true. However immediately prior to the attack Snape was alone and minding his own business.

Then he was set upon by two people so he was outnumbered.

I agree his retaliation did more physical damage whereas the spells used by James and Sirius were less dangerous in themselves.

However they had previously immobilised him so that he couldn't defend himself.

Also if someone were beating you up you would have to be some kind of saint not to fight back. The same goes for Snape.

As with the Snape was prejudiced excuse, even if someone is interested in the Dark Arts that does not give anyone else the right to attack them first. By a logical extension this excuse would lead to condoning vigilantism.

Plus it's not illegal or immoral to have knowledge about Dark Arts. Dumbledore is described by McGonagall as knowing Dark magic but being too noble to use it.

The way the scene is written strongly implies that this kind of incident was a regular occurrence. For example, Lupin starts frowning and Peter has an expression of hungry anticipation which suggests that they know what is coming. The way Snape pulls his wand the moment James begins taunting him also shows that he knows he is going to be attacked.

It is also a canon fact that James and Sirius were bullies. Sirius acknowledges they were arrogant little berks himself years later. In the scene itself Lily accuses James of hexing anyone who annoys him. It's also confirmed by the punishment cards mentioned in HBP that James and Sirius attacked other people and thus that Snape was not the only victim of their bullying.

This argument doesn't even wash with the hero, as Harry points out that he is fifteen. The age of criminal responsibility in the UK, I believe, is ten. Therefore they were certainly old enough to know what they were doing and the difference between right and wrong.

Even JKR herself hinted at this in the Albert Hall interview in 2003. To paraphrase, she said Lupin cuts people slack because he wants to be liked.

Perhaps she should re-read the bit in PS where Dumbledore says it takes courage to stand up to your enemies but even more to stand up to your friends. This is why he awards Neville the points that win Gryffindor the House Cup. Young Lupin should have done this too.

This defence can be completely debunked by the fact that JKR stated outright in the Mugglenet/TLC interview that the Pensieve is objective.

Conclusion

The Marauders had gained a lot of popularity before OOP. This was not only because James was Harry's Dad and Lupin and Sirius liked Harry, but also because fans thought they were similar in character to Fred and George. In contrast, Snape was supposed to have been jealous of James and as a teacher he was nasty to Harry. Therefore readers were disposed to sympathise with MWPP and dislike Snape. Thus the fundamental reason for people seeking to explain away Snape's Worst Memory is that they don't want their pre-conceptions about the characters challenged. However, there are no excuses for how MWPP behaved. Excusing their behaviour in SWM is defending the indefensible.