James the Berk?

[delwynmarch]

No: HPFGUIDX 105662


Kyntor wrote :
> You're right neither one of us know for sure if Snape has 
> used "mudblood" before.  However, he does use it here.  My thinking 
> is that if he used it here, he has probably used it before, whether 
> or not it was against Lily.

Del replies :
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you : I'm pretty sure the word must
have escaped Snape's mouth quite a few times in all those years. But
my point is : we don't *know* that, we have no *proof*. And so we
can't use it as an argument.

Kyntor wrote :
> James is definately not being noble in this scene, he is being a jerk 
> (he is also showing off for Lily).  What these two points do suggest 
> though is that the pensieve scene was not stand alone or that it 
> displayed James' typical behaviour towards people.  The pensieve 
> scene was one confrontation between Snape and James of many.  We 
> really can't judge the severity of this one without seeing the 
> others.

Del replies :
I agree. However, my original point, quite a few posts ago, was to
counter Valky's idea that James showed nobility during that scene. No,
he did not, IMO.

I, Del, wrote :
> > To believe that physical injury is worse than emotional injury is a
> > common mistake. They are both damaging, but most people sustain the
> > first one much better and with far less long-lasting damage than 
> > the second one. After all, which memories of Dudley's bullying does
> > Harry remember during his Occlumency lessons ? The humiliations, 
> > not the beating up.

Kyntor answered :
> What James did to Snape wasn't really all that sever.  I had much 
> worse done to me when I joined a fraternity in college.  I really 
> doubt that it scared Snape for life (and I doubt even more that James 
> was trying to.  As I mentioned before, he was showing off).  What 
> James did do Snape seemed to piss him off, not shame him.

Del replies :
I don't care. To me, humiliation is mean and bad, period. Just because
other people do worse or because the victim doesn't *seem* to care
doesn't make the facts more acceptable. James *was* denying Snape his
dignity as a human being, that is all I'm concerned about.

Kyntor wrote :
> James is immature, not sadistic.

Del replies :
Agreed. That doesn't change the fact that what he did was wrong.

Kyntor wrote :
> We really don't know what Snape was trying to do with that curse.  
> Did it only hit James in the cheek because he tried to dodge it?  
> Would the curse have missed him completely?  Would it have cut his 
> eye?  We can't really say what Snapes intentions were.  Cutting 
> someone on the face or neck is very dangerous.  I do not believe that 
> anyone would attempt it unless they were trying to seriously hurt the 
> other person.

Del replies :
We have no indication that James moved. It seems that the curse did
exactly what Snape intended it to do.
And *of course* Snape was trying to hurt James ! James had just
attacked him for no reason, he had *repeatedly* made fun of him in
both words and actions, and he was stupid enough for not checking on
Snape. I'd say Snape had all the reasons in the world to want to hurt
James. Maybe someone more noble than Snape, like Harry, would have
just tried to Disarm James. But then there would still have been
Sirius. There was no way to get rid of both of them at the same time,
so I guess Snape just settled on doing the maximum harm he could on
his one unique chance to retaliate.

Del