Unfinished Business (was: did Lupin kill Sirius)

[B Arrowsmith]

No: HPFGUIDX 83056

Assailed on two fronts; no matter. Though the way be long and weary, 
onwards I toil, bearing a banner with a strange device.

First Laura, with snipping:
 >
We said several posts back that Snape *is* his anger. He has long ago 
chosen to make rage, contempt, cruelty and disregard his emotional 
vocabulary. Other people in the WW suffered exactly what you suggest he 
did, and yet they can continue to form relationships and take pleasure 
in the good things of this world.
 >

Kneasy:
Not sure what you mean by "...disregard his emotional vocabulary.."
I think it speaks to him clearly -  a bright core of tightly focussed 
anger. True, he does explode on occasion, though far  less frequently 
than is generally supposed (when Harry taunts him about James saving 
his life, the Shrieking Shack, Harry and the Pensieve). Other times (in 
classes, Sirius at Grimmauld Place) I read as calculated scorn or 
contempt. This is a cold man. Group hugs would never appeal even if his 
  life had been uneventful.
I sympathise. Ersatz coercive bonhomie does not appeal to me either. 
(An email from sylviablundell opined that Snape has much in common with 
  Cassius - a reasonable comparison in some ways.)

Laura
 >
Yes, I agree that Snape seeks catharsis. I wonder, though, what will 
change about him if and when he gets it. What I'm trying to get at is 
that I think Snape likes being angry. I'm not sure he perceives it as 
suffering at all, although we readers do.
 >

Kneasy:
He probably does nurture his anger, but to him it is a justifiable 
anger. So why let it go?
Will we agree with him when the full story unfolds? I probably will, 
you probably won't.

Laura:
 >
I don't agree that he's repressing his anger-come on, when does he
ever do that? Even if he doesn't verbalize it all, everyone in his
vicinity knows when he's about to erupt. What he's suffering from
isn't repression but delayed gratification-in other words,
frustration. That's understandable. What isn't is his belief that
it's appropriate to take it out on the entire world.
 >

Kneasy:
More crossed  lines here, I think. My point was that some posters seem 
to want him to suppress it, work it out, come to terms with it. My 
reading of Snapes character is that this is foreign to his nature. He 
keeps it under wraps hidden from public view usually, but this is 
because it is private, not because it is repressed.

Laura:
 >
I don't think we've scratched the surface when it comes to
understanding where Snape's anger comes from. Here's what we do
know: he arrives at school already well versed in the dark arts and
quickly proceeds to demonstrate his poor social skills by impressing a 
number of students with his general unpleasantness. And he's sorted 
into Slytherin, never a good sign.
 >

Kneasy:
Well  versed? One comment from Sirius about Snape knowing more Dark 
Magic when he joined the school than half the seventh year. This from a 
scion of the evil Black family and who probably knew just as much if 
not more of Dark Magic at the age of eleven (he didn't 'reform' until 
after he joined Hogwarts). Is Sirius an unbiased observer? Since Dark 
Magic is not taught at Hogwarts anyway, this may mean little or much.
I  think the comment is of  a class with Hagrid's 'nobody went bad 
except they was in Slytherin' - a commonplace exaggeration to make a 
point.



Laura:
 >Now we come to the night of the prank. Snape, who is already crossing 
privacy boundaries, decides to follow the advice of the last person in 
the world to whom he should have given any credence. Snape isn't 
stupid. He deliberately decides to follow Sirius's suggestion. He 
leaves the dormitory after hours and follows
Remus and a staff member clearly engaged in private activity. And
when he gets caught and has to be ignominiously rescued, he decides
that *he's* the victim?! If he'd minded his own business in the first 
place and used a millimeter of common sense he wouldn't have found 
himself in that tunnel. Who did something against school rules? Remus? 
No, of course not. James? No, of course not. Sirius? No- he did 
something unkind but what school rules did he break? It was Severus and 
only Severus who was out of line that night. He was
lucky DD didn't punish *him*.
 >

Kneasy:
Unsurprisingly, I don't agree with your interpretation of the 'prank'.
Firstly, canon for 'after hours' please. It states 'evening'.
Secondly, any teenager who goads, taunts, or 'jokes' another into 
extreme danger is not blameless. School Rules? Who could envision 
similar circumstances? What would cover the situation?
"Rule 17: Attempted manslaughter is not allowed."
Sirius should have been punished. He knowingly put Snape in danger. 
Remus, no. James, probably not, (but I'd love to  hear Snape's version 
of the episode; so far only Remus has told the tale and what he knows 
is hearsay. He only  knows what Sirius and James have told him). DD? 
probably culpable. A werewolf in a school? Not ensuring that Remus was 
secure? Not checking? The foursome cavorting around the countryside 
every full moon? Where's his much vaunted omniscience of activities in 
and around Hogwarts? Then instituting a cover-up and *continuing* the 
arrangement.
No wonder Snape was pissed.

Laura:
 >
Snape is so angry and insecure that he takes everything
as an insult except craven obedience-his reaction to Lily in Pensieve 2 
is an example. If every interaction you try is met with hostility, the 
attempts will soon cease-as witness Lily.
Yet no one did anything to Snape that he wasn't willing and able to
do to them first.
 >

Kneasy:
Wow! Where did you get this one from? Insecure? Just like Ghengis Khan. 
Expecting craven obedience from Lily? He just wanted her out of the way 
- she was just making things worse.
James and Sirius gang up on Snape; jump him without warning (such brave 
boys). He's disarmed before he knows what's  happening. Both jinx him 
when he has no wand (just  who the Slytherin and who the Gryffindor 
here?), then Lily jumps  in. Any connoisseur of male scuffles will tell 
you this is the worst thing she could have done. If she hadn't 
interfered, it would soon have ended; Snape was defenceless and James 
would soon have stopped (unless he was truly nasty). But once Lily is 
in, James has a point to prove to Lily and  then another to his friends 
when Lily has gone. (What do I care what she thinks?) They really were 
a nasty bunch of thugs.

Proof please that Snape did anything to WMPP that was not provoked.


Laura:
 >
When Sirius talks about Snape, his tone always sounds dismissive to me, 
so I imagine that Sirius wouldn't have bothered about Snape if James 
hadn't been in the picture. That's my take on it anyhow.
 >

Kneasy:
I doubt Sirius would  relish facing Snape without back-up. I doubt a 
fair fight would appeal to him. We all know characters like Sirius; 
happy to instigate mischief but missing when the blame gets 
apportioned. Snape seemed quite happy to  take him on in Grimmauld 
Place. Sirius? Wind and bombast and not much else IMO. The Ministry? No 
option without being accused of cowardice.


Nora, now:
 >
I can't find my cynicism post in the archives at
present; if you like, I'll email/repost/whatever. The
gist of it is that a true cynic (and by the way,
Ambrose Bierce isn't a real cynic, even) is so
convinced of the widespread venality/etc. that they
view everything with an equally jaundiced eye; then
why bother, when everything is worthless? Cynicism
erodes distinctions. I used Brunnhilde from the Ring,
when she says "Loyalty and treachery, meaningless
words!" That's a cynic.
 >

Kneasy:
I'd agree about Ambrose Bierce - he was just  sour. Personally, I'd 
highlight H.L.Mencken; a cynic to savour.
Cynics do recognise that honest men exist, they have to, otherwise 
there is no yardstick. It's just that they get corrupted so easily.

Wagner; not a favourite of mine and opera is not a form that lends 
itself to verbal subtleties, especially at the volume level he 
preferred. The Brunnhilde quote I would read as disillusionment or 
despair, but I'm not about to be dogmatic about it. I've only seen T&I 
once and I have no intention of repeating the experience.


Nora:
 >
I did read the post; my apologies, but I don't buy it.
It's too hypothetical for me, and I'm not willing to
argue off of something that speculative. However,
should circumstances change, I will happily bow and
accomodate. I agree that Snape isn't as overtly
odious as Umbridge, but he's not exactly a model of
good behavior, either. I think it's pretty obvious
that he's cruel, and I am emphatically not a supporter
of "Good but not Nice", for a number of reasons. I
also think DD's comments about Snape not being able to
put aside his feelings about Harry's father point
against the part playing, but I will wait for some
more confirmation before taking a solid stand.
 >

Kneasy:
It's OK. Agreement isn't compulsory. You'll be pleased to hear that 
you're part of a large majority, but us compulsive theorisers are 
incorrigible. The consensus is there to be challenged.
"Good but not nice."  He is not good, I've never argued so; neither is 
he nice. But he is co-operating with the goodies - why? What reason can 
be surmised for this change of stance?  It must be a very compelling 
one; no-one else has come up with a motive of sufficient strength to 
convince me of its validity. (I too take notice of facts and 
suppositions; I'm a scientist.)

Yes, DD  points out that Snape hates James. So what? He's intelligent 
enough not to mindlessly transfer his hatred to Harry. He doesn't like 
Harry, but to hate him would require actions by Harry, not James.


Nora:
 >
Well, some things like, you know, national legal
systems and most moral systems argue agains the
recipient being the sole arbiter of injury. Let me
incorporate here a response to a note recently posted,
arguing for the psychological understanding of Snape's
abusive actions. That's an explanation, but it's not
an excuse.
 >

Kneasy:
Psychological understanding leaves me cold. I worked for three years in 
a mental subnormality hospital (on the genetics side) and was involved 
in enough case conferences to appreciate just how uncertain experienced 
psychologists and psychiatrists are when considering root causes. It's 
always "it may be a factor" or "could have an effect" or "possibly 
indicative". Lawyers are the only ones to express certainty.

Of course legal and moral systems argue thus. It's the only way to 
prevent an outbreak of blood-feud. They look to the welfare of society, 
not the individual. Usually it's positive for the general good but may 
leave the injured party feeling short-changed. A bunch of professional 
windbags in a legislature deciding on the level of hurt felt by a 
person they've never seen? Huh. Most of the population accept it - 
until they're the injured party.


Nora:
 >
I understand that the side-effects of
abuse can't be tossed over or worked through solely by
a heroic act of will, but it is in part a personal
decision to be controlled by what has been done to
you, or to try to work through it. And if you're
ruled by it enough to take it out on the son over a
decade later, frankly, that's just sad.
 >

Kneasy:
Abuse. What a misused word. What boys do to each other in their teenage 
years is horrific in retrospect, quite common and usually acceptably 
ritualised at the time. Usually. Mostly it's part of the
the establishment of a dominance system. (However much it is decried it 
*will* happen one way or another - it's in-built.) What Sirius did to 
Snape falls outside the accepted parameters. That was  more than enough 
to engender a lifetime grudge.

Abuse by adults is something else. (This time I refer to the memory 
flash; it's not clear which episode you are referring to.)

But is abuse  actually occurring? The man is shouting at the woman not 
the child. Why is the child crying? No evidence. It may be that the 
child is upset at a parental explosion that the child is not part of. 
Even in the best regulated of families rows can occur in front of the 
children. Can this be considered abuse? If so, 90% of parents are 
abusers. Ridiculous. But I suppose the tribes of specialists and 
lawyers have to earn a living somehow. And so even the commonplace 
becomes actionable.

Kneasy

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]