MostlyAboutSnape/SociopathyTMR/taste4cruelty/DeathEating/DeadDumble/thePrank

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 47063

Judy Serenity wrote:

<< Snape lacks the qualities of a sociopath -- an ability to charm 
others, a lack of introspection, a desire for action, a lack of 
remorse for hurting others, poor impulse control, an inability to 
learn from one's mistakes. Now, Sirius on the other hand...." >>

This is not about Snape or Sirius, but you've got me thinking about 
sociopathy... 

Post # 46398 by Anakin Bester said: "I just read a lot about 
psychopaths this summer, and the attitude discribed seemed to nail 
Voldemort on the head. (snip) generally, psychopaths do not have long 
term goals for themselves. They indulge in self gratifying behavior 
and keep it up so long as it's entertaining, then throw it aside when 
they get bored (This describes their treatment of people too ^^)"

I need you smart people to educate me about sociopaths and 
psychopaths. Same thing? What Judy listed of the qualities of a 
sociopath sound to me like Tom Marvolo Riddle, such as "an ability 
to charm others" and "a lack of remorse for hurting others". I don't 
know whether the sudden change of goal shown in CoS (from cleansing 
Hogwarts of Mudbloods to catching Harry Potter) fits the sociopath 
list.

ANYWAY, it seems to me that Tom Marvolo Riddle DOES have a long-term 
goal, or at least a long-term motivation: his feeling that he was 
terribly wronged by his Muggle father, resulting in his anger against 
his father and his hatred against all Muggles, resulting in his 
on-going desire for revenge on Muggles and everyone else. I've read 
somewhere that sociopaths don't have any feelings at all, therefore 
assume that no one else has any either, that everyone else is just 
faking it, and therefore they learn to fake it very well, but does 
that (if true) mean that sociopaths don't feel that sort of 
self-pitying rage and hatred? What about psychopaths?

Eileen wrote:

<< It's my humble belief, after studying way too much 20th century 
history, that everyone has a taste for cruelty." >>

I don't think that requires studying 20th century history. What about 
public hangings being a popular form of entertainment for centuries, 
bear-baiting, the Roman arena? What is the appeal of such sports as 
boxing and American football? On a lesser but constant note, what 
about school kids picking on other school kids? What about slapstick 
humor, which often involves physical damage and property loss as well 
as mere humiliation to its butt: back when I used to have time to 
read, I often laughed my head off while weeping "Oh, no! That poor 
guy!" at various scenes written by John Dickson Carr... 

I cynically suspect that all normal people have a taste for cruelty 
against those whom they view as their inferiors and even us squeamish 
weirdos have a taste for gloating over a certain amount of misfortune 
happening to people whom we dislike.  

OTOH, *my* Snapetheory has him so far from being a physical sadist 
that his conversion started from his visceral and emotional response 
of being squicked by torture (actually, by the resulting physical 
damage) and killing. (I am grateful to JUDY SERENITY for pointing out 
what [the dog] Sirius didn't say [in the nighttime] -- it gives me 
support for my view of Snape as being only verbally and emotionally 
cruel.) I imagine that Avery and Mr. Lestrange were also squicked. 
All three tried (and mostly succeeded) to tough their way through it, 
as it was part of the job. The Snape difference is that all three 
thought "why am I such a wuss?", but only Snape thought "what is 
this accomplishing? Is there a philosophical theory of Ethics 
whose distinctions of good and evil would lead to more useful 
accomplishments than the Dark Lord's lesson that there is no good 
and evil, only power and weakness?" 

Dicentra wrote:

<<"As you can see, yew trees are themselves death eaters: feasters on 
the dead. But I doubt Voldemort and his cronies are exhuming graves 
to gnaw on moldy old bones. No, they've undoubtedly found a new way 
to eat death--cause it, then profit from it. >>

I was ecstatically thrilled to see myself being quoted in re yew 
trees! Alas, that has inspired me to quote my own fanfic: "And then 
he will reward his loyal disciples with immortality!  We're called 
Death Eaters because we eat death and spit it out!"

JOdel:

<< And I agree with Pip that the test of Snape bringing him 
Dumbledore's head on a platter is one very strong possibility. (I 
remember posting something very like it on the AOL board (IIRC) a 
year or so ago.) And, what's more, I can see Dumbledore agreeing to 
it. Particularly if there is a chance of buying his side some major 
magical protective advantage by his willing sacrifice. (I can easily 
see Dumbledore choosing to trump Voldy's ace by playing the Obi-Wan 
card.) If this is the case, I think it is more likely to be in book 
five than in book six. But this is only one possibility, and Rowling 
may very well not choose to go there at all. >>

Dumbledore's death, for a good purpose, involving Angst!Snape: 
http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/R_J_Anderson/  (I think it's in 
the third book)

<< But I DO think she wants to keep us guessing over Snape's real 
alliegances. I do NOT think that she is going to sit back and let us 
comfortably start taking him for granted as one of the good guys. >>

I totally can not think of how she could show us Snape's emotional 
anguish over Dumbledore's death without revealing what side Snape is 
on.

Also, everyone who thinks that Dumbledore's head on a platter is 
the proof of Snape's allegiance that Voldemort demands -- when this 
conversation began, the purpose of Snape being accepted back by 
Voldemort was so that Snape could spy on Voldemort for Dumbledore. 
What is accomplished by having Snape in place as a spy for a side 
that no longer has a leader? In J.K. Rowling's books, which are about 
Harry Potter (unlike R.J. Anderson's books, which are about Snape 
and Maudie), Dumbledore cannot die until Harry is ready to be the 
'good' side's leader. So far, Harry is not up to running Spy Games.

Jazmyn:

<< Seems to me that Lupin, not Snape, would have more reason to be 
mad at Sirius. Snape might have been killed, but as death effects the 
living more then the dead (who can no longer feel, except if they 
return as ghosts). >>

I think JKR said in some interview that in some future book, we 
will learn why some people become ghosts. IF becoming a ghost has 
something to do with having a personality like Moaning Myrtle's, 
young Severus was a good candidate for it.

<< Lupin would have to live with the fact that he killed a fellow 
student for the rest of his life, >>

Which might not have been very long, depending on what Wizarding Law 
specifies: 1) as penalty for a werewolf who kills a wizard, or 2) as 
penalty for a wizard (e.g. a friend of Snape's seeking vengeance) who 
kills a werewolf. 

<< which would have been a horrible thing for Sirius to have 
inflicted upon Lupin. Surprised that Snape and Lupin didn't become 
friends over this when they realized they were both victims. >>

Dear Severus, who is very stubborn in his misapprehensions, remained 
convinced that Lupin was one of the plotters, not a fellow victim. 
If Remus had had a chance to tell Severus: "Why would I plot to do 
something that would send me to Azkaban, or at least be expelled 
from school with my secret reported on the front page of the Daily 
Prophet?" Severus would have replied: "Don't ask me to fathom the way 
a werewolf's mind works."