Comparison: Snape vs. Umbridge (depressing)

[greatlit2003]

No: HPFGUIDX 69621

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "terryljames76" 
<terryljames at h...> wrote:
> yes, 
> there are definite Howlers in my future...especially from the 
> Snapeologists...

Maybe not a Howler. How about detention? :)

> Exactly why does everybody hate Umbridge?  Let's look at this 
> logically.  What, overall, did she accomplish?  
(snip)

Umbridge did not want to accomplish any of the stuff that you 
mentioned. She did not want the kids to be better at DADA, so she 
definitely wasn't pleased that Harry conjured a Patronus during his 
exam.

> Neville has gained a whole lot of 
> confidence. 

Umbridge did not give this confidence to Neville. Harry did. Umbridge 
tried to stop the D.A. not encourage it.

 Ron, due to their leaving, has gained 
> his own self-confidence.  

Nothing to do with Umbridge. This was a growing-up period for Ron as 
he learned to accept himself and not feel put-down by his big bros. 
Many people go through this. The temporary headmistress did not 
wrought this change in dear Ronnie's life.

>And last but not least, the whole school is 
> united--nothing pulls people together like a common enemy.  

Once again, this doesn't mean Umbridge is better than Snape in any 
way. She did not want the school banding together. Just because she 
inadvertently caused this situation doesn't mean she should be 
praised. 

>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.

This I agree with you. Even JKR has said that Harry needs to learn 
that DD cannot solve everything.

> 
> 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.

No, we don't overlook what he has done. Some Snape fans (like me) 
acknowledge that he has a lot of shortcomings, but feel that his 
flaws make him a more interesting character. The man has good 
qualities: he is dedicated, brave, and very intelligent if he's 
fooling one of the most powerful wizards of all time. This is why I 
don't dismiss Snape's actions as "right" or "wrong" but am waiting to 
see what this leads to. Whatever he may be, Snape has an agenda, and 
that governs his behavior. I just want to know what this agenda is.

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

Umbridge is not on the good side. Period. The Ministry are bad guys, 
almost as terrible as V-mort. They don't kill, but they have ripped 
apart families, discredited people of everything they have worked 
for, and caused a lot of depression, anxiety, uncertainty, and 
tension. Not to mention the countless civil rights violations. In the 
end, is Avada Kedavra worse than having people read your mail, try to 
control your thoughts, force you to choose between your family and 
your livelihood, prevent you from reading what you want and 
congregating with other people?

>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.  

No she isn't. At least that's not the message I got when I finished 
reading the book. Umbridge set the dementors on Harry and Dudley. 
Exactly what was she trying to teach them? Where was the reverse 
psychology?

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

Ahem....Harry used the Unforgivable when a heartless woman took away 
the person he loved the most in the world. Umbridge wanted to use an 
Unforgivable Curse to protect the Minister's and her own careers. How 
can you even try to compare these two situations? (sorry don't wish 
to be rude, but I just didn't see your point)

> 
> 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 pain even has magical remedies to help it.

There are remedies for being bitten by a basilisk. Should a teacher 
use that as punishment? 


> The wounds Snape inflicts are harder to see, but harder yet to live 
> with.  

I can see what you are trying to say about emotional vs. physical 
abuse. But I think Umbridge's methods were also emotional. Like I 
mentioned before, she tried to control every aspect of life at 
Hogwarts. I don't think I could have lived there under those 
circumstances. It reminded me of George Orwell's 1984, with Big 
Brother watching your every move...if that's not psychological 
torture, I don't know what is...
 
> The point to this bizarre story is that physical 
> pain is sometimes easier to deal with than mental pain.  
> 
> So who is worse?  Snape or Umbridge?  Neville's scars just don't 
show.

I'm not saying that Snape is wonderful. But I would choose him over 
Umbridge any day, greasy hair and all :)

greatlit2003
setting a portable swamp in Umbridge's office, and then running 
straight to snape's dungeon to hide