plans
(Anonymous)
"this borders on a lot of what bothers me the most as to his methods of teaching. Why would anybody, not just a teacher think that the best way to foster trust in another human being..."
Snape's teaching was designed to foster competence and knowledge (and it did). He didn't know trust would eventually be relevant, and he probably would have despaired if he had, because he's never had the social gifts and as far as he could see Harry hated him on sight. (Not the fault of either of them; it was Quirrellmort who made Harry's scar hurt as he caught Snape's eye for the first time. But it meant that they both entered the first lesson already convinced the other hated them.)
"consistently treated them badly"
I don't agree. Snapee was strict and even harsh, but rarely unfair. Harry was at all times a lazy, sloppy, uninterested student, and in Snape's class he was also consistently disrespectful from the very start. (And he was also best friends with a student even lazier, sloppier and less interested - "I've got better things to do in Potions class than listen to Snape," says Ron in CoS - and a swotty show-off who let both of them copy her work. That wouldn't have helped either.) I'm contemporary with Snape, and in my schooldays, Harry would have got the strap for his behaviour as a matter of course. Every lesson.
Hogwarts is, if anything, very much behind the times in pedagogic practice, and the teachers that we do see are mostly incompetent (Trelawney, Quirrell, Lockhart), sarcastic (McGonagall, Flitwick, Snape), or both (Hagrid). There is no teacher training and no managerial support; Dumbledore doesn't even look up from his magazine when Snape tries to discuss problem student Harry.
"and then actually killing a much loved and trusted authority figure in front of them foster trust ... killing him for whatever reason in front of Harry, is not going to get Harry's trust."
Can't blame Snape for that; it was Dumbledore who both required the trust and made its achievement impossible.
"Since trust is all important it does indeed generate the question, why did Snape not try to win Harry's trust?"
How exactly? If saving Harry's life at the cost of Snape's reputation and comfort in the staffroom did not engender Harry's trust - and we know it did not - what would?
And why would Snape trust Harry enough to try? He knew the Dark Lord could listen in to Harry's mind and that, far from blocking him, Harry had welcomed him in.
By the time Snape knew trust would be important, it was too late for either to trust the other.
"Why did Snape not have a plan in place to get the information to Harry in case of his death?"
He probably did. We don't have any definite information about any alternate plans and fail-safes, but we *do* have a similar situation to judge from. I'm talking about the Sword of Gryffindor, of course, where Snape's final words in the scene where he suddenly learns Harry's location are:
"Don't worry, Dumbledore. I have a plan."
So I think it's a fairly safe bet that Snape had a plan about getting the Horcrux message to Harry, too - and I wouldn't be surprised if it utilised the same method: a silver doe Patronus that Harry instantly recognised as connected to his mother.
"Why was there no backup plan in place in case Snape said black instead of white to Voldemort and Voldemort killed him because of that?"
Yes, why did *Dumbledore* have no backup plan? Especially when the plans he did make were so ridiculously unlikely to succeed? What if Voldemort had checked on his Horcruxes sooner and hidden the rest somewhere safer before Harry got to them? What if Harry hadn't escaped Malfoy Manor? (For that matter, what if he hadn't been captured and thus never deduced where the Hufflepuff cup was?) What if Voldemort found the Elder Wand sooner and killed Snape sooner too? At every point, Dumbledore's plan was weak. At every point, it defied logic and common sense.
Snape's teaching was designed to foster competence and knowledge (and it did). He didn't know trust would eventually be relevant, and he probably would have despaired if he had, because he's never had the social gifts and as far as he could see Harry hated him on sight. (Not the fault of either of them; it was Quirrellmort who made Harry's scar hurt as he caught Snape's eye for the first time. But it meant that they both entered the first lesson already convinced the other hated them.)
"consistently treated them badly"
I don't agree. Snapee was strict and even harsh, but rarely unfair. Harry was at all times a lazy, sloppy, uninterested student, and in Snape's class he was also consistently disrespectful from the very start. (And he was also best friends with a student even lazier, sloppier and less interested - "I've got better things to do in Potions class than listen to Snape," says Ron in CoS - and a swotty show-off who let both of them copy her work. That wouldn't have helped either.) I'm contemporary with Snape, and in my schooldays, Harry would have got the strap for his behaviour as a matter of course. Every lesson.
Hogwarts is, if anything, very much behind the times in pedagogic practice, and the teachers that we do see are mostly incompetent (Trelawney, Quirrell, Lockhart), sarcastic (McGonagall, Flitwick, Snape), or both (Hagrid). There is no teacher training and no managerial support; Dumbledore doesn't even look up from his magazine when Snape tries to discuss problem student Harry.
"and then actually killing a much loved and trusted authority figure in front of them foster trust ... killing him for whatever reason in front of Harry, is not going to get Harry's trust."
Can't blame Snape for that; it was Dumbledore who both required the trust and made its achievement impossible.
"Since trust is all important it does indeed generate the question, why did Snape not try to win Harry's trust?"
How exactly? If saving Harry's life at the cost of Snape's reputation and comfort in the staffroom did not engender Harry's trust - and we know it did not - what would?
And why would Snape trust Harry enough to try? He knew the Dark Lord could listen in to Harry's mind and that, far from blocking him, Harry had welcomed him in.
By the time Snape knew trust would be important, it was too late for either to trust the other.
"Why did Snape not have a plan in place to get the information to Harry in case of his death?"
He probably did. We don't have any definite information about any alternate plans and fail-safes, but we *do* have a similar situation to judge from. I'm talking about the Sword of Gryffindor, of course, where Snape's final words in the scene where he suddenly learns Harry's location are:
"Don't worry, Dumbledore. I have a plan."
So I think it's a fairly safe bet that Snape had a plan about getting the Horcrux message to Harry, too - and I wouldn't be surprised if it utilised the same method: a silver doe Patronus that Harry instantly recognised as connected to his mother.
"Why was there no backup plan in place in case Snape said black instead of white to Voldemort and Voldemort killed him because of that?"
Yes, why did *Dumbledore* have no backup plan? Especially when the plans he did make were so ridiculously unlikely to succeed? What if Voldemort had checked on his Horcruxes sooner and hidden the rest somewhere safer before Harry got to them? What if Harry hadn't escaped Malfoy Manor? (For that matter, what if he hadn't been captured and thus never deduced where the Hufflepuff cup was?) What if Voldemort found the Elder Wand sooner and killed Snape sooner too? At every point, Dumbledore's plan was weak. At every point, it defied logic and common sense.