Prank AND the subversive point of view

[bluesqueak]

No: HPFGUIDX 80190

Laura:

> I have to ask-which is worse, a berk or a pillock? My knowledge of 
> contemporary British slang isn't what it should be, obviously. 

[Grin]. They're about the same: berk and pillock both mean a stupid 
person. But I'd rather be a berk than a pillock – `berk' is often 
said as `a bit of a berk', whereas `pillock' is often said as `a 
complete pillock'. Both are fairly mild, btw, and often quite 
affectionate.

Laura:
> As for the rest-you're just looking for a fight, and I choose to 
> rise above your provocation. Sirius IS the man. *grins back*

I prefer `trying to provoke discussion' rather than `looking for a 
fight'. [Grin] 

But for those who don't know me: I'm one of the subversives on the 
list. Do not expect a `face value reading' from a subversive 
theorist. Subversives specialise in taking a much loved, admired 
character and explaining why they are Ever So Evil, Ever So 
Manipulative, or in this case, Ever Such A Pillock. 

We don't do it with the deliberate intention of starting fights ;-)  
It's just that we have a knack for seeing the alternative view. 
Sometimes we're even right [grin]. 

A 'subversive' post is a call for lively discussion. It is not a 
Declaration of Flame War.

Subversive theorists have started some of the best discussions on 
the list. Challenging the face value interpretation of canon is 
perfectly OK on this list. Just as it is perfectly OK for posters to 
respond by defending the face value interpretation.

But both challenge and response should try to attack theorIES, and 
not the theorISTS.

Preferably by using lots of canon ;-)

Donna wrote:
> Could someone please quote cannon where the Prank 
> was first called that? I would like to know who first referred to 
> the incident as a prank.

Sorry, Donna, you're quite right. As Erin pointed out, `Prank' 
appears nowhere in canon. 

It's list slang; short for `That incident at the Shrieking Shack. 
No, not *that* incident. The first one, where Snape nearly became 
Wolfie Chunks. You know, Sirius's prank?'

Other list slang terms are MWPP (Mooney, Wormtail, Padfoot and 
Prongs) and `Marauders' (MWPP).

Cheryl the Lynx wrote:
>> Sigh. My basic reaction to The Prank, especially after the 2nd 
Pensive scene is...WHAT KIND OF AN IDIOT IS SNAPE? [Yes, I'm 
yelling.]

Here is the crew that, presumably, has taunted and bullied him all 
through his time at Hogwarts. And when Sirius tells him to go 
through a hidden tunnel at night, he goes? Frankly, after that I'd 
expect him to turn up on the Darwin List for self-elimination from 
the gene pool. Instead of sending him to his potential death, he 
could have been headed on a snipe hunt, with the Marauders and half 
the school waiting to laugh at him when he came out.

Why DID Snape go through the tunnel that night?
>>

I suspect that it may have something to do with the fact that Lupin 
was with a staff member when he was taken to the tunnel. Lupin said 
that Snape `had seen me crossing the grounds with Madame Pomfrey' 
[PoA, Ch. 18, p.261 UK paperback]. So whatever was in that tunnel, 
it was staff approved. Just out of bounds. 

Plus, I doubt Sirius told him in a friendly, helpful manner. 

It's speculation. But Snape continually snipes at Sirius in OOP, for 
staying safely at home, leading to the final comment of `why yes, I 
suppose I am' when Sirius finally says `Are you calling me a 
coward?' This suggests that quite possibly Sirius previously used a 
taunt of `coward' on him.

And that taunt makes 16 year old boys do incredibly stupid things.

Also, a public taunt of `coward' would mean that Snape would not 
expect a snipe hunt. Half the school would be laughing at him if he 
*didn't* go in. Sirius's version of events would be: Snivellus 
sticks to the rules because he's too scared to break them. He's 
trying to get us expelled because he wishes he were as brave as we 
are – we don't care about rules.

Speculation. But in 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/39662 
[which, incidentally, is a full blown example of the subversive 
posting style] I argue that Snape's behaviour in the Shack 
emotionally reverses the trick Sirius played on him. He puts Sirius 
in a position where he thinks he's going to die. 

Using Sirius's obedience to Dumbledore's rules as a pretext for a 
taunt of `coward' would be in exactly the same pattern – IF Sirius 
had used the same trick on him. 

Snape is not nice. Snape prefers revenge to forgiveness. What is 
often brought up in OOP is that many of Snape's actions do have a 
reason behind them. Equally, Sirius's actions have a pattern of `it 
seemed like a good idea at the time'. The Prank is a prime example 
of this.

I'm not sure whether Sirius underestimated Lupin's dangerousness, or 
underestimated Snape's courage. Either would explain why Sirius 
would see it as a `Prank' style joke, and why Snape (with a clearer 
idea of the dangerousness of werewolves and a better knowledge of 
his own courage) would see it as a murder attempt. 

Sirius either believed that his friend Lupin wouldn't *really* hurt 
anyone, or that his victim Snivellus wouldn't *really* go down the 
scary tunnel.

But that's another of Sirius's patterns. Lupin, Snape, Peter, 
Bellatrix.

He underestimated what people are capable of.

Pip!Squeak