To: Barbara RE: Snape v. Wormtail

Aright, I know we had this discussion months ago. Probably upwards of three. It wasn't long after you first started at the library. But I was shelving J non-fiction at the time, and it is still bothering me that I was unable to formulate my response to your argument. Or "your side of the debate" if you will. ;)

Basically, your side was:

You have less than zero sympathy for Snape. There were too many things he should have done and didn't. Such as 1) He should have taken more responsibility for the slytherins. Too many of them turned out bad for him to have done his job properly. 2) He should have been more fair in his treatment of the students. And other similar things. You get the idea.

You also pointed out that you had more sympathy for Wormtail than for Snape. This is because he was a weak man, and Voldemort was just so powerfully persuasive. Wormtail was less of a bad guy, and more of a victim of Voldy's charms.

Here is my response: (The one that I understood at the time, but was completely incapable of expressing in words.)

The real problem with your argument is the inconsistent use of agency or choice in the judgment of character.

In Wormtail's case, you make it sound like being a weak man is the same as some kind of genetic disease. He was born weak, and will never be able to not be weak. As such, Voldemort merely used an inherent and uncontrollable weakness to exploit a man who couldn't help it. If this was the case, I would agree with you. But it is not. This is crap. But we'll get to that in just a little bit.

In the case of Snape, though, you go to the opposite end of the spectrum. Snape deserves no sympathy because of all of the things that he didn't do enough of. Let's think about this for just a second. So Wormtail gets sympathy regardless of what his actions were, but Snape get's none based entirely on what his actions were.

I sense a disturbance in the force.

Let's go through this and level the playing field, and then see where we stand.

Although I think it's utter nonsense, let's look at the situation in which choices have nothing to do with anything. They are both strong or weak, good or bad, successes or failures, all inherently and unchangeably.

Therefore Wormtail is a weak man who is a victim of Voldy. And Snape is a strong man who defies him. Does this not make Snape the better man? Victim or not, Wormtail is weak. Is it not better to be a strong man than a weak one, if nothing can be done about the condition? Would Snape not deserve more credit for being strong than Wormtail does for being weak?

Now, let's take a look at the real world. IE, the world in which choices make you who you are, not bad habits. Some people are strong, and some are weak. But it's not a state of being, or some incurable disease. It's a result. A consequence of choices made or not made.

Snape was not perfect. Not at all. Maybe it's not illegal to be unfair, but it certainly isn't a virtue. Maybe he could have done more to encourage the slytherin's along the right path. But I would like to point out two things:

1) The slytherins have their own choice as well. Snape can't control them or make them do anything, no matter how persuasive he might be. They have to give in to him first.

2) Maybe he didn't do every single thing he possibly could have done, but he sure did a freakin lot. Think about the life he lived. The double agent life where he could have been killed at any second. The life he gave up in the end. Think about all of the jobs he did for Dumbledore that ultimately brought Voldemort down. Think about how many times he protected Harry, despite the fact that he hated Harry so very much. I mean, really. If the places had been swapped, would James have done as much? Would James have protected Snape's kid? How about a big, fat NO.

Basically, Snape tried to do what was right. He was not great at a lot of things. He still had trials and made mistakes. But he made a lot of decisions that would have been SO easy to ignore. He used his choices to defy the evilest wizard of all time, at the risk of his own life. He was strong, for the greater good. Voldy was not any less persuasive to him. If anything, he was more suave and convincing, because Voldy won't no fool. He knew that Snape was a fighter.

What did wormtail do? He friggin gave in. How's that for a great use of personal agency. He took the easy way out. He faced Voldy's persuasion and wussed out so bad that he even betrayed one of the only friends he ever had. He essentially murdered two innocent people because he was too much of a ninny-pants to think about someone else over himself. He might be inherently less magical than other people. He might be less talented. He might not be good in social situations. But none of that will ever, ever be an excuse for choice. Choice is something that every person has complete control over. He could have protected his friend, at the risk of himself, like Lupin and Sirius and Snape did. If they made the choice, why didn't Wormtail? It wasn't because he couldn't. It's only because he didn't.

I mean, look at Neville. Neville has less talent than even wormtail. And he was a pureblood. If there's anyone in the wizarding world who would have had reason to give in to Voldy's persuasion and become protected by big bad deatheater friends, it would have been him. But he didn't do it. He walked right up to Voldemort's face and sliced off the snake's head instead, even though he figured he would probably die for it.

Summary: Snape is better no matter how you look at it. Without choice in the mix, Snape is stronger than Wormtail, and therefore better. With choice in the mix, wormtail is nothing but scum who used his choices to save his own sorry butt. Snape used his to do the right thing.

So yeah, Snape wasn't perfect, like I said. But Wormtail doesn't deserve half the sympathy that he does. He may have been a victim, but he let himself become one. He wasn't imperioused. He let Voldy tell him what to do. Snape didn't. He broke away.

So, no matter how many times I go over the ideas in my head, they still don't come out right. It was a lot more eloquent and flowing and everything when I was thinking about it earlier. But I think you get the point I was trying to make, at any rate.