Why Severus Snape Is Not A Hero

#4: DEFINING A HERO

Let's take it back to the basics, shall we? Severus Snape is not a hero, and I can prove it with the very definition of the word.

hero /ˈhirō/ noun:
1. a person noted for courageous acts or nobility of character.

I won't deny that Snape is often idealized in the Potter fandom as being courageous and noble. Meanwhile, within the Potterverse, Snape is also deemed a noble and courageous man by many. Is that really what makes a hero? The opinions of others?

By this definition, Voldemort was a hero. And, yes, since there are two sides to every story, he was probably heroic in the eyes of the Death Eaters. But this definition is very open to perspective. Can we find one that doesn't rely so much on what others think?

2. a person who, in the opinion of others, has special achievements, abilities, or personal qualities and is regarded as a role model or ideal.

And we're back to opinions again. By this definition, anyone could be a hero. You tell me: is the good opinion of others all it takes to make a hero? What if your whole life is dedicated to helping people but no one likes you; are you still a hero then?

The colloquial definition of hero isn't someone noted for their courageous acts. No, it's a "good guy." A person who does the "right thing."

Maybe we should all agree on a few defining principles of heroism.

Heroes exceed what is expected of them. They make a positive impact on people's lives. They rise above and beyond the ordinary.

These principles all apply to a known hero: Harry Potter. He exceeded his own expectations of himself, not to mention his Muggle life. He helped many people, and saved many lives. And as The Chosen One, as he Boy Who Lived, he was far beyond the ordinary.

What about Snape? Maybe he exceeded expectations by not letting Harry die when he had the chance, but otherwise, I can't think of anything. How about positive impact? I'd argue that Snape made a very negative impact on people such as Neville, Hermione, and even Draco, by feeding into his sense of entitlement. And as for beyond the ordinary...the only thing that could bring Snape up from that was his spying on Voldemort, but even then, that's only one out of three.

When assessing heroism, it is important to consider motives. Genuine heroes seek to help others for that purpose alone, not for fame or material gain. Heroes are caring and compassionate individuals who want to improve people's lives out of a sense of duty to do the right thing.

Harry's motives for saving the world were just that: saving the world. Not even revenge on Voldemort was a true factor in his quest. He wanted to destroy Voldemort because it would help people, and he knew he was the only one who could.

What were Snape's motives?

Oh right...loving Harry's dead mother.

But I wouldn't want you to think I'm just making up definitions, so let's take a look at some more "official" ones.

3. a mythological or legendary figure often of divine descent with great strength or ability.

Definitely not.

4. an illustrious warrior.

Not really.

5. a person admired for achievements and qualities.

We already talked about this one.

6. one who shows great courage.

Hmm...did Snape show great courage? I mean, according to Harry, he was "the bravest man I ever knew." He spied for Dumbledore at risk of his own life, and yes, that was brave.

But compared to Remus, to Sirius, all the Weasleys, Mad-Eye, Tonks, Hermione, McGonagall, Dumbledore, and Harry himself...can we really call Snape, who bullied schoolchildren in his spare time, a man of "great courage?"

7. the character in a literary or dramatic work —used specifically of a principal male character, especially when contrasted with heroine.

Snape was not a principal male character, so this one doesn't fit the bill either. Wow, it almost seems like Snape's...and this may shock you...not a hero.

So, what about an antihero? Some good examples of antiheroes are James Bond, Tyrion Lannister, Magneto, and Sherlock Holmes. (But not Loki. Sorry, everyone.)

antihero /an(t)ēˌhirō/ noun:
a protagonist who is conspicuously lacking in heroic qualities. characteristics include the following:

• imperfections that separate them from typically heroic characters (selfishness, ignorance, bigotry, etc.);

• lack of positive qualities such as "courage, physical prowess, and fortitude", and "generally feel helpless in a world over which they have no control";

• qualities considered dark traits, usually belonging to villains, (amorality, greed, violent tendencies, etc.) that may be tempered with more human, identifiable traits that blur the moral lines between the protagonist and antagonist.

Basically, an antihero is a bad guy on the good guys' side, or a good guy on the bad guys' side, and they tend to be very, very popular.

The one thing almost all antiheroes share: they do the right thing in the end. They are inherently good. Maybe they sacrifice their lives to make up for what they did, or they end up joining the heroes, but in the end they realize what they did was wrong and they want to be better.

Snape may have died a hero, but he wasn't a hero in life. Does dying for the good of the Wizarding World redeem him? Does loving Lily all along redeem him?

No. Snape was no antihero, and here's why: if Lily had never existed, he would have lived and died a villain. He became a Death Eater of his own accord, and was willing to let James and Harry die for Lily. He is not good at his core. He was neither villain, hero, nor antihero.

So there you have it, folks, by very definition: Severus Snape is not a hero.

[zahra]