[HPforGrownups] Comparison: Snape vs. Umbridge (depressing)

[Amanda Geist]

No: HPFGUIDX 69604

(aged Snapologist crawls out of the woodwork)

Terry LJ said

> My Inner Eye is opening...I see...red...I hear loud noises...yes,
> there are definite Howlers in my future...especially from the
> Snapeologists...

Howlers take *effort,* they take *time*....no, not on a Friday. Let's see,
now....

> Exactly why does everybody hate Umbridge?  Let's look at this
> logically.  What, overall, did she accomplish?  The fifth-years--not
> including the Slytherins--are much better at DADA than they are
> expected to be at this level.  Neville has gained a whole lot of
> confidence.  Fred and George have stopped messing about and gone into
> the "real" world of business.  Ron, due to their leaving, has gained
> his own self-confidence.  And last but not least, the whole school is
> united--nothing pulls people together like a common enemy.  Even
> McGonagall and Trelawney are not sniping at each other.  Well,
> everybody's happy except Filch.  It's also very subtle and probably
> no one (in the books) has realized it yet, but it's been proven that
> Hogwarts--and Harry--can survive without Dumbledore.

I will grant you this one similarity, that both have presented certain
Hogwarts students with situations which, in learning to deal with them,
survive them, or surmount them, have had a positive personal end result for
those students. In skills, in self-control, etc.

I think the similarity ends there.

> I've read on this list that Snape is only nice to the Slytherins
> because 1) the Death Eaters expect it, and 2) so the Junior Death
> Eaters will have someone to confide in, should they need it.  I've
> read that he's hard on Harry because he wants him to improve, because
> he knows he'll have to face Voldemort.  I've even read that he's
> harsh on both Harry and Neville because he knows that something
> screwy may be going on with that prophecy, and Neville could still
> wind up facing V.  So we are supposed to overlook everything bad
> Snape's done, because he's on the "good" side.

Nope. I never have. He's a mean, nasty, cruel man. But Umbridge is a mean,
nasty, cruel, *petty* woman. And therein lies the difference.

> Well, so is Umbridge on the "good" side.

I actually have some problem granting you this. But onward.

>  And everyone knows that the
> best way to get a teenager to do something is forbid it.  You want a
> bunch of lazy, hormonal, angry Quidditch-playing yahoos to learn
> DADA?  Tell them they can't.  Umbridge is using reverse psychology.
> And it works incredibly well.

I seriously doubt this was her intent, considering how viciously she tried
to prevent it, searched it out, and stamped on it. I think she is a control
freak, no more, no less (well, actually, more--she's a control freak with
power). I think her motives were exactly as presented: to spy on the school
for Fudge, because she, like he, seriously believed that Dumbledore
presented a threat that must be ferreted out and contained. I think she
honestly wanted to hamper the students and force them into her mold.

> In contrast, Snape's method of inciting students to learn achieves
> exactly nothing.  Neville actually gets worse when Snape's around,
> not better.

Neville does. But look what happened to Harry. Stung by Snape's "can you
read" treatment, he paid attention the next time and did well. *And* got the
point that what he had done wrong was fail to pay attention. And look at
Hermione, who brewed the Polyjuice Potion in her second year. And look at
the twins, who concoct God knows what in their products. I'd say a solid
amount of information was being conveyed; Neville is simply not able to
access it given his personal reaction to Snape.

You can fault Snape for not altering his teaching style to help Neville; but
I don't think you can call him a bad teacher, at least not in the sense of
passing skills and information.

> (Canon for Umbridge's reverse psych: at the DADA exam, when Harry
> does well, she's smiling triumphantly.  She also watches him closely
> throughout the book, as if she's inspecting him, taking his measure--
> as if to see if he can prove himself under pressure.)

She's smiling because he's given himself away, at least in her mind. They
failed to convict Harry of organizing a group earlier, because Dumbledore
took the rap. And now, look at this student who supposedly had nothing to do
with it, roaring through his DADA test. *Sure,* he wasn't involved, oh,
sure. And I think she was watching him to see if he'd break or reveal
something, not for signs of stamina.

> The Unforgivable Curse?  Not so Unforgivable after all.  Harry used
> one--anybody not forgiving him?

How did this get into the mix? We're talking Snape and Umbridge. And I'm a
little more bloodthirsty than the MoM; I think he was totally justified.

> The quill?  Yes, that's a hard one.  Surely anyone who could do that
> is just evil.  But...it's physical pain.  It's cruel, and it's
> horrible--but it will go away.  It can't even be too dangerous,
> because Harry did so much of it, he would eventually have passed out
> from lack of blood. And from it, he learned to keep his mouth shut
> and control his temper--not easy lessons to learn, ones I am still
> working on.

The hell he did. If he'd learned that, he'd have done better at Occlumency.
He learned to not show his temper to Umbridge. A start, but not nearly the
sweeping lesson you portray.

>  The pain even has magical remedies to help it.

So do most injuries and maladies. What's your point with this comment? It's
not bad because it's curable?

> The wounds Snape inflicts are harder to see, but harder yet to live
> with.  The comment about Hermione's teeth was childish and spiteful,
> and Hermione will probably remember it for a long time.  Snape's
> comments to Harry about his father are also childish and spiteful,
> and ought to be beneath his dignity.  But worst is what Snape
> continually does to Neville.  Emotional abuse is real, and there are
> no magical remedies for it.  There is nothing that can make you stop
> remembering how stupid, and humiliated, and small you feel in front
> of all your friends and enemies.  If continually putting down Neville
> is supposed to make him do better, it is a tactic that has failed
> miserably.  There is absolutely nothing to be learned from Snape's
> treatment of Neville.

Except that it can be survived. And eventually overcome. I'm not arguing
that Snape does anything good to Neville at all. Neville's incompetence
certainly seems to frustrate the bejeezus out of him. But if Umbridge had
had Neville in her office, you think she'd have been any more understanding,
any nicer to him? I beg to differ.

> It's significant that Neville's boggart is the only one that is a
> real person.  Not a monster, not a Dark creature, not a nightmare,
> not even a scary image of the Death Eaters that tortured his parents--
> a real person is the absolute worst thing Neville can imagine, and
> the thing he most fears.

I'd envy him that, actually. Real people are valid equations with real
parameters.

> So who is worse?  Snape or Umbridge?  Neville's scars just don't show.

Okay, I'm removing Neville-specifics from the equation and speaking more
broadly here.

In my mind, Umbridge is worse. And the reasons are scope, intent, and
effect.

Scope. When you step back from the trees of individual and specific
instances, and look at patterns, the difference is significant. Umbridge has
a position and an infrastructure she has invested herself in, which gives
her power. She will inflict cruelty, use clandestine and underhanded
methods, and lie to protect it. She protects it for herself, her own
interests.

Snape has a position and infrastructure he has invested himself in. It gives
him power, although not the position he desires most. He performs tasks he
does not enjoy, and so performs them nastily and cruelly at times. He does
this (so far as we know) because he has committed himself to a goal outside
himself, the defeat of a wizard who, left alone, endangers not only the
wizarding world, but the Muggle world as well. He doubtless has conflicting
reasons for doing this, some of which are undoubtedly *quite* personal, but
he is doing it for a greater ultimate good to result.

Intent. Umbridge's intent is as stated; she's protecting the small pond of
the Ministry where she is a big fish. She is oblivious to the broader
repercussions of her actions on any level--personal for the students,
personal for the teachers, historical for Hogwarts, danger for the
wizarding/Muggle world from Voldemort. Her concern is herself and her intent
is petty, dangerously narrowly focused, and she resists all attempts to see
the broader picture.

Snape's intent, or what I believe it to be, is to defeat Voldemort. My take
on him is that he keeps this broader goal in mind most of the time, and does
not really consider the smaller details of things to be worth too much
energy or thought. And indeed, as much of what Snape said can be interpreted
as thoughtless, rather than calculating. He has not set himself up as an
opponent to Harry; Harry sees him as this, but Snape is a full-grown man
with other concerns. He does seem to enjoy his posthumous revenge on James
by bedeviling his son, but other than that, I doubt he lies awake thinking
of ways to make Harry miserable. All of what he does with students--all that
we see through Harry's eyes--is a side note to what his main purpose is: to
work with Dumbledore and the side of right to defeat a seriously evil
wizard. Snape's intent is broad and for much more than himself, and he does
make allowances for realities and facts, albeit ungraciously.

Effect. Umbridge has been an episode that Hogwarts, its students and
teachers, will have to recover from. Some of the effects were good, as
mentioned above; some students did learn things by banding together against
her--but if unchecked, her actions could have seriously endangered the
effort to defeat Voldemort and contributed to an expansion of his power. She
actively resisted knowing the truth or recognizing any other viewpoint
outside her own selfish motives. This is ultimately destructive; the
inability to rise above self.

Snape has had, I believe, both good and bad effects. His behavior has been
showing the students for years that life is not fair, and that you must
learn to deal with it; and he is, I believe, a good teacher in terms of
conveying information (I do not think it is a teacher's job necessarily to
be a surrogate parent, kind, comforting, or an adult friend). The bad
effects are the possible long-term psychological stuff that Terry mentioned;
but as I said, I think Snape's eyes are on the horizon and the larger quest.
And frankly, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. If Neville
ends up in a mental ward but Voldemort goes down because of something Snape
did, it was worth the price. Snape's teaching is incidental, something to do
while waiting for this second Voldemort battle to be joined; it's even more
incidental now. Snape's effects are not to be measured in the schoolroom,
but in the ranks of the Order and the DEs. Far beyond self. Snape's effects,
in terms of effects on individual students, may be negative; but I believe
that his overall effect in the grand scheme is a positive one, and that
Umbridge's overall effect was negative and would have only gotten worse had
she continued.

Possibly I have answered you to your satisfaction; possibly not. Shred away.

~Amanda