TBAY - CholericSadist!Snape

[lucky_kari]

No: HPFGUIDX 47042

"No, I didn't mean that sociopathy was the only possible cause of
cruelty," said Judy, but she wasn't sure Eileen had heard the last
part of her sentence; the singing from the bar was quite loud at the
moment.  "What I meant was, normal people experience distress when
they cause or witness the suffering of others.  They may do cruel
things under certain circumstances, but cruelty is not something they
seek of their own accord, not something they do *for fun*.  Normal
people are not born with a taste for cruelty. I believe that people 
who enjoy cruelty for its own sake -- the Macnairs of the world -- are
generally sociopaths, complete with the full constellation of
sociopathic traits such as lack of introspection and poor impulse
control. Snape does not fit into this category...." 

"No, Snape isn't a psychopath," says Eileen. "I think we can agree on
that. But I still don't believe that he didn't take a certain pleasure
in cruelty. Because distress is not the only thing normal people
experinece when they witness the suffering of others. I think that
normal people have a taste for cruelty somewhere in there."

"I would say that everyone has a *capacity* for cruelty; that they
might behave cruelly under certain social conditions, but that very
few of these people really would  *want* to act cruelly if left to
their own devices."

"I'm not sure I disagree with you," says Eileen, a funny look in here
eyes. "After all, the fact that the world hasn't entirely gone to
pieces would uphold that idea."

"Right," says Judy. "As evidence, look at Stanley Milgram's famous
experiences on obedience.  He had an authority figure command ordinary
people to give what they thought  were dangerous, even lethal, shocks
to an innocent victim. Most of his research subjects complied and
continued giving shocks until the authority figure told them to stop."

"Ugghh..." says Eileen. "I can't say that surprises me. Have you ever
read about Stalin's Dekulakization?"

"No. I was too busy reading about Mao's Anti-Landlord Campaign," says
Judy.

Eileen looks at Judy with respect. "We two should get together some
time and compare notes. Anyway, on with Milgram, whose ethics seem a
bit screwed up to me. Is that really fair to the test subjects?"

"It's been a matter of controversy, of course," says Judy. "As you
would find out, if you did a quick search on Milgram on the web. But
his methodology is well-respected, and the results, I think, speak for
themself. However, as Milgram noted, the subjects did not enjoy
shocking the victim.  In fact, the subjects seemed quite conflicted
and distressed at giving shocks and were greatly relieved to learn
that the 'victim' had not actually been hurt. Furthermore, when other,
similar, subjects were asked to shock a victim, but allowed to set the
shock level themselves, almost all of them picked low levels of shock.
 Only one out of 40 subjects voluntarily selected the highest level of
shock available." 

"Hope for humanity, I suppose," says Eileen with a twisted smile.
"However, I don't think this can stand as a parallel for what we're
dealing with here."

"Why not?" asks Judy.

"An essential ingredient is missing. Dehumanization. "Kulak,"
"Mudblood." In the Milgram experiment, a person volunteered to take
part in a study that would examine the role of punishment in the
learning process. When they got there, lots would be drawn, and one
person would be made the "teacher," administering the electric shocks,
and the other the "learner." Of course, the catch was that the lots
weren't really drawn, and the "learner" was an actor. Still, the point
is that the experiment actually encouraged empathy with the "learner."
The "learner" was presented as another person who had come in
volunteering for the experiment, and there was no attempt from the
person controlling the experiment to influence the "teacher's"
emotions towards the other person in a negative way. Meanwhile, the
"learner" acted in a way designed to draw the sympathies of the
"teacher." All this was crucial to the goal of the experiment. Very
few people took pleasure in what they were doing. However, the sort of
cruelty in which non-psychopathic people take pleasure bears no
relation to the Milgram experiment."

"How so?" asks Judy. 

"As I said, there's no dehumanization involved. No conception of the
victim as the "other." I remember reading any interesting account from
a young woman, who Komsomol member, of course, who took part in a
rather vicious attack on certain "kulaks" for no reason whatsoever.
(It wasn't ordered by anyone, but when they went to tell these people
to move out, things got out of hand.) Years later, she was extremely
remorseful about this (though sad to say, there were plenty of others
who weren't in the slightest, as far as can be seen.)She emphasized
the fact that she and the others had numbed any original feelings they
might have for the "kulaks" with the idea that they were not human,
"vermin" was the word she repeatedly used. And, once she thought of
them as "vermin," she could take pleasure in stomping them out. I
think I was just discovering Harry Potter at the time I was reading
this, btw."

"I think canon opposes this reading of Snape's character, even if
Snape does say a lot of nasty things to the Gryffindors during potions
class, though," says Judy.

"Just *what* canon opposes Sadist!Snape?" asked Diana.

"Both the fact that Dumbledore hired Snape -- and what *Sirius* said
 about Snape."

"Sirius?" asked Eileen.  "Sirius despises Snape."

"Indeed he does," Judy said.  "But, you will note that Sirius never
says anything about Snape being a sadist.  He says that Snape knew a
lot of curses, didn't wash his hair, and wanted to get the Marauders
in trouble.  Sirius *doesn't* say that Snape engaged in wanton
cruelty.  If Snape had been torturing small animals in Magical
Creatures class, or practicing painful curses on the younger students,
or kicking around the house-elves, don't you think that Sirius would
have mentioned those things, rather than criticizing Snape's
hairstyle?" 

"A very interesting questions," says Eileen with a frown. "Now that
you mention it Sirius's entire attitude towards Snape seems rather
restrained. I've done my fair share of Sirius-bashing on the list,"
(Dicentra glares at her), "but I've actually never considered the fact
that Sirius doesn't badmouth Snape as much as I'd expect him to. Can
you imagine Harry years later describing Draco Malfoy or Dudley
Dursley in as neutral terms as Sirius employs here?"

"So you see," says Judy. "Snape couldn't have been that bad a kid."

"However," says Eileen. "First a question. How does Sirius know Snape
knew all these curses? I think I assumed that Sirius was confirming
there that Snape was, as I think I've always believed, a bit of a
bully at school, even if he was also something of a victim. I don't
know whether he was at the middle or on the fringes of the Slytherin
gang, but I don't believe they weren't bullies, and Snape by being
part of them, must have been a bully of some sort. (And he certainly
is later in canon!) However, you are right that Sirius really is
remarkably restrained towards Snape. Odd that. Do you think Snape was
really a passive kid who didn't behave cruelly towards others?
Because, sadist or not, I'm not seeing it."

Dicentra suddenly wanders up. "Snape must have been just as bad as the
other Death Eaters.<snip> Dumbledore could have explained to Harry
that Snape wasn't as bad as the rest. Surely Harry should know
something like that. But no, Dumbledore's sitting on a Bang, as sure
as I'm standing here. Snape turned back after having been in up to his
eyebrows."

Judy said, "Oh, I'm sure there's a Bangy reason why Snape left the
Death Eaters, one that Dumbledore can't tell Harry, but it's not proof
that Snape is a sadist."

"But Judy," says Eileen in amusement. "I don't want a Bangy reason for
Snape to leave the Death Eaters. I'm a Georgian, remember? A Georgian
fascinated with Bangs, to be sure, but I want my Bangs kept clear of
Snape's decision to leave the Death Eaters."

"Fine then," says Judy. "The details are so 'eeewww' that I'd rather
not go into them again actually, but you can read my theory in post
34857. Of course, Snape would be mortified if Harry knew he had been
in love with Lily.  That's why Dumbledore refuses to tell Harry why
Snape left the Death Eaters."  

"Oh yes," says Eileen with your smile. "Your theory. I adored that
theory. Eventually, I shamelessly stole it for Peter Pettigrew."

Judy sniffed. 

Eloise, who had been sitting quietly at the table, suddenly looked up.
"Snape, much as it pains me to admit it," ("Much as it pains you to
admit it?" asks the Sirius Apologist in disbelief) "isn't, apparently,
a terribly nice, kind, loving person. I'm afraid that I *can* see him
joining in with the other Death Eaters. Like Elkins, I think that
unfortunately he *does* have a taste for that sort of thing, although
I'm not sure whether he actually enjoys it or whether it isn't more of
a reflex. But for some reason, he began to question Voldemort's
philosophy. Maybe he twigged that Voldemort was the only one who
*really* benefited, that even if he sought power for himself, he would
always be controlled by Voldemort."
 
"No, that can't be it, Eloise," Judy replied.  "If Snape enjoyed
torture, and only left the Death Eaters because he felt that Voldemort
wasn't sharing power enough, then Dumbledore would have never taken
him in." 

"Well, I agree with you there, Judy," says Eileen. "But you only
adressed the last sentence of Dicentra's little speech. I think Snape
did "question Voldemort's philosophy," and came to the conclusion that
it was wrong. Is there anyone on the Bay, btw, who disagrees with
this? Does Cindy still promote that Prince of Lies rubb... errr. theory?"

Everyone shrugs their shoulders.

"Anyway, I like Eloise's line there. "I'm not sure whether he actually
enjoys it or whether it isn't more of a reflex." Because I'm fine with
a reflexive taste for sadism. I don't really see Snape sitting down
every morning, and going, "Must get my daily fix of Muggle torture."
McNair, as you pointed out, I do wonder about, but Snape I see more as
that Komsomol woman I was talking about. "It got out of control,"
that's a sentence I don't want to hear in my life ever again, btw." 

Eileen tapped her fingernails on the table impatiently.  "You keep
attacking the Sadist!Snape theory, Judy, but you haven't offered any
alternative.  If Snape isn't a natural sadist, then why was he a Death
Eater in the first place?  Why is he so mean to the Gryffindor
students?  Just what's your explanation for Snape's behavior?"

Judy looked as though she had never been asked a more flattering
question.  "Oooo, I thought you'd never ask!  My theory is that Snape
has the sort of personality that naturally angers easily."

"I think that would withstand a vigorous canon offense," says Eileen
with a smile. "Go on."

"Back when it was believed that personality was dominated by bodily
fluids, he would have been said to be full of bile.  I rather like
using the concept of the four humours when discussing Snape -- he does
teach potions, after all.  So, I call my theory Choleric!Snape." 

"Oh very nice," says Eileen. "I may indulge in 20th century
totalitarianism, but I'm really a medievalist by inclination."

"So, I'm saying that Snape has a naturally resentful, envious
personality.  He sees the world as hostile to him. He believes he's
being treated unfairly, even when he's not.  And  when he IS treated
unfairly -- *cough*prank*cough* -- he's downright implacable.  He's
mean to the Gryffindors because he's convinced that they are getting
privileges they don't deserve.  And, I believe that he joined the
Death Eaters because he thought that those opposing Voldemort, even
Dumbledore himself, wanted him dead."

"I'll buy into Snape being choleric," says Eileen, "and a complete
paranoid. But did he really think Dumbledore wanted him dead at the
age of 16? That seems a little bit of a stretch to me
I'mSoParanoidIShouldBeInSt.Mungo's!Snape. Otherwise, nice analysis of
Snape's character."

"Yeah, but is he really all that different from the other Death
Eaters?" Diana asked. Eileen nods her head.

"I'd say that he is," Judy replied. "I admit, he gets angry too
easily.  He doesn't know how to forgive.  But, leave him alone, and
he'll leave you alone.  He doesn't go after people whom he feels have
never hurt him.  You can't say that about the other Death Eaters --
they were torturing the campground owner and his family after the
Quidditch World Cup, just because they *could*."

"Oh wait a second," says Eileen. "Let's go back to your original
analysis of Snape. "He's mean to the Gryffindors because he's
convinced that they are getting privileges they don't deserve," you
said. If there's one thing that's emphasized again and again it's that
Malfoy and the others feel that they are being robbed of something
that rightfully belongs to them, by the entry of muggleborns into
their society. Hardly sane, but neither is this belief that Harry is
getting priveleges he doesn't deserve at their first meeting. (Later
maybe, but not then.) It's the same type of mindset at work. I can see
Snape being very into the pureblood thing as a student."

"I still don't buy Snape as having a taste for that sort of thing,"
says Judy. "Are you an expert in this field?"

"No," says Eileen. "I'm not. But I'm going to do something terrible
now. I would suggest that, even though she hasn't been able to make a
real appearance to defend her theory about Snape, Elkins isn't
speaking out of an ignorance of the subject. I consider myself bent
and even I was freaked out when I heard about her job for Amnesty
International, cataloguing "interrogation techniques," as she calls
them. I'm not saying you should endorse Sadist!Snape on her say-so,
but be aware that, while I probably don't know what I'm talking about,
she does. I just have this sudden urge to protect Elkins from my
stupidity. Don't mix her up weighted opinion with mine."

Eileen, who really hopes she didn't write anything in the above that
will have Elkins shaking her head and wondering what Eileen will say next