Dissin' the Slyths (was: Midnight in the ...)

[judyserenity]

No: HPFGUIDX 38388

I think Dumbledore was wrong to publically humiliate the Slytherins in 
PS/SS, acting like they were going to get the House Cup and then 
publically snatching it away at the banquet.

Marina argued this point of view, saying:
> [The Slytherins] did *not* 
> deserve to have their faces rubbed in it in front of the whole 
> school. And Snape, in particular, did not deserve to be jerked 
> around by his boss in front of all his colleagues.

But Dicentra, who would dis a Slyth on sight, thought Dumbledore did 
the right thing:
> Slytherin had been winning the house cup for several years
> running. Given Snape's propensity for randomly awarding and
> deducting points, and the Slytherin credo of ends justifies the
> means, it's highly likely their House Cup wins didn't come about by 
> the most above-the-board means in the world....
> the Slytherins and Snape undoubtedly needed to be taken down a few 
> pegs. 

So, sometimes Dumbledore is going to "take Snape down a peg", by 
humiliating him in front of all of the students and the other faculty, 
and sometimes Dumbledore is going to say "Umm, Severus, do you think 
you could go risk your life for my cause?"  Sounds like a poor 
strategy to me. 

There's a bunch of problems with humiliating Snape and the Slyths.  In 
addition to pushing them towards Voldemort's side, I just plain don't 
think it's right.  We don't know that *all* the Slyths are evil; why 
do they *all* deserve humiliation?  True, it's not nice to "cheer" 
Harry for losing Gryffindor points.  However, that doesn't make it OK 
for Dumbledore to stoop to the Slytherin students' level; he is 
supposed to set an example for them.  As someone said, Dumbledore is 
Headmaster and therefore should be impartial. 

I see no evidence that Snape cheated in order to win the House Cup for 
Slytherin in previous years.  I've said it before, and I'll say it 
again, Snape is all bark and no bite when it comes to the students.  
(I assume that when it comes to his treatment of *adults*, he has 
actually fought or killed some in the past.) He says a lot of mean 
things, but is much less biased when it comes to grades and points.  
We know he gave Hermione a higher grade than Draco in Year One.  Sure, 
Snape takes points off Harry *twice*, for no reason the first time he 
meets him, but only *1* point each time, a trivial amount.  I actually 
think that some of the times he takes off points (5 points in PoA when 
Hermione talks out of turn three times, 10 points when Harry barges in 
late), he could have taken off plenty more, given the rules at 
Hogwarts.  In the scene where Harry comes in late, after Harry 
repeatedly refuses to sit down, Snape takes off only 5 more points 
(although he *threatens* to take off 50.)  Really, Harry is being very 
unfair to Snape in that scene, although Harry doesn't realize it.  He 
is more-or-less implying in front of the whole class that Snape has 
poisoned Lupin, when in actually Snape is helping Lupin by making the 
Wolfbane potion for him.  (Let me put in a plug here for my theory 
that Snape *invented* Wolfbane potion, and did it specifically for 
Lupin.) 

In general, Snape is often *perceived* as trying to give the House Cup 
to his Slytherins, even when he's not.  In the first book, Quirrel 
notes that the staff thought Snape was trying to throw the Quidditch 
match to Slytherin by referring, when Snape was *really* trying to 
protect Harry.  

So, if Snape isn't cheating, why has Slytherin won so often?  I agree 
that there is a lot of unfairness in the system; I just don't think 
Snape is the cause. Hogwarts seems to make no effort to provide a 
level playing field. Rich parent wants to buy top-notch brooms for 
your whole House team?  Fine. Parents too poor to buy you a decent 
wand?  Tough luck. Hogwarts seems to have a "Play the hand you're 
dealt" ethos, which often favors the Slytherins. This does not justify 
the Headmaster publically humiliating Slythrin, in my judgment.

By the way, if Snape has been Head of Slytherin the whole time during 
Slytherin's winning streak, this would make him Housemaster just a few 
years out of school -- very impresive. 

Pippin said the public humiliation was "poetic justice" because of 
> how the Slytherins came to be 150 points ahead of Gryffindor in the 
> first place...it was because of Draco Malfoy 's underhanded plot to 
> catch them with Norbert. 

I disagree.  That is not how it happened in the book.  In the book 
(unlike the movie), Draco fails to get Harry and Hermione in trouble; 
he is caught by McGonagall long before Filch catches Harry and 
Hermione. McGonagall takes 20 points from Slytherin because Draco was 
out of bed and trying to get Harry & Hermione in trouble, and then 
takes 150 points from Gryffindor because she *thought* Harry and 
Hermione were plotting to get Draco in trouble. In other words, 
McGonagall misjudged Harry and Hermione, and took an excessive number 
of points from Gryffindor.  This is hardly Slytherin House's fault.  
Why should Slytherin be punished, and Gryffindor rewarded, for an 
injustice committed by the head of *Gryffindor*? 

I really can't see Dumbledore wanting to publically humiliate Snape 
and the Slytherins.  We know that Snape and Dumbledore have a close 
relationship. (Not *that* close, for anyone whose mind is now rolling 
around in the gutter.)  I think JKR had Dumbledore do this for 
dramatic purposes, and it is out of character for Dumbledore. As 
Dicentra said "Shift 'er into WARPDRIVE! (See Inish Alley.)"

Someone raised the interesting possibility that maybe Dumbledore had 
warned Snape in advance about the House Cup switch.  This could have 
strategic advantages.  Snape needs to pretend he hates Dumbledore in 
order to convince the Death Eaters that he is still on their side.  
So, having Dumbledore publically humiliate him might be something 
Snape would agree to, to make it seem like he and Dumbledore are 
enemies.  The humiliation to the Slytherin students could be justified 
as necessary in the war against Voldemort.  So, this would make this 
scene *not* a mischaracterization. (Although I doubt JKR really wrote 
the scene for this reason.) 
 
Dicentra also asked:
> To what extent is Dumbledore trying to prevent those at-risk kids
> from turning out like many of their parents?  I don't think I've 
> seen him do anything to that effect....  I don't know that he sees 
> these kids as redeemable, or that it's his job to intervene.  He 
> seems more interested in training folks for his own team than
> preventing kids from becoming Voldemort's minions.

Excellant point, and that seems like another flaw in how the stories 
are written.  JKR has repeatedly said that Dubledore is goodness 
personified (getting back to the original "Good and Evil" question.) 
Furthermore, Dumbledore offers forgiveness to all who ask in the 
leaving banquet scene in GoF.  A "Go ahead, Slytherin Punks, make my 
day" approach, where he is willing or even happy to have an excuse to 
fight the Slytherins, just doesn't fit. But, we never see Dumbledore 
trying to prevent the Slytherin students from joining Voldemort's 
side.  

-- Judy, who would dis a snotty Malfoy if she thought she could get 
away with it, but who would probably melt all over Snape's shoes