And I only ever read them each once, as they came out, so most of the details are pretty fuzzy.

Well, when Harry receives Snape's memories in the last book you do understand how tortured Snape's existence has been. That he's both arrogant and filled with self loathing. That he's been very honorable (though mean). That he's been true to the one thing that mattered to him (Lilly). That he's very bravely endured incredible trials because of his promise to Dumbledore.

And while I think that Snape's actions in the earlier books don't necessarily indicate all this, JKR does drop hints. Particularly when Harry is studying occulemency and receives the memory of Snape's humiliation by his father.

But again, in Snape's mind, that all led back to Lily and Snape's idea of his worst day being his "MUDBLOOD" hollering at Lily and ruingin any small remains of their friendship, prior to his buddying up with the Young Republicans Deatheaters, not necessarily the embarassment caused by James.

People are also convinced that Draco is a sympathetic character.

I don't see how Snape's morality trumps Krycek's, though.

Oh, I totally feel bad for Draco in book 6, especially. Is that different than being a sympathetic character?

I always liked Harry's realization that his father, of blessed memory, really could be as shitty as any other teenaged boy. And I liked Snape for the realization that someone who despises you is not necessarily your enemy. It's a very useful shades-of-grey lesson for young readers.

He's not supposed to be screaming at his students, or taking out his own childhood traumas on them.

Seems to me that Snape would have fit in well among the faculty at the College in Kipling's Stalky & Co.

I don't see how Snape's morality trumps Krycek's, though.

Oh, I don't think it's a question of morality, when you're talking about fannish appeal. Or not entirely. Krycek has the advantage of being embodied by Nick Lea, and of being consistently ambiguous in his loyalties. He does bad shit but he also does good shit, and that shows up pretty early in the canon. Also, there's the kiss.

Whereas Snape--again, only three books in--hasn't really done anything good, and his portrayal is uniformly negative. There is no attempt at this point in the narrative to make him sympathetic to the reader, or even understandable.

Which is why I find it so fascinating that he was apparently very popular even then, before we knew about his tragic backstory.

People are also convinced that Draco is a sympathetic character.

When Emmett was young he felt Draco was terribly misunderstood. But he felt that way about The Joker and Darth Vader too.

Which is why I find it so fascinating that he was apparently very popular even then, before we knew about his tragic backstory.

JKR would comment about this in interviews, saying basically (with a smile) "I don't know why people like him. He does terrible things." But, of course, she knew his arc and does expand it. Whereas early on people thought Draco would have a similar redemptive arc and he does not. He does become a more sympathetic character but he does nothing to redeem himself.

Yeah, I'm surprised by that, that Draco never gets redeemed. Because ordinarily, in a children's work, you would get the moral that even horrible people can come around. You know, the Eustace Scrubb story. But Draco never does.