What's wrong with being bad ?

[kyntor70]

No: HPFGUIDX 101990

Dreadnought wrote:
 
> A student doesn't need to be enthusiastic about a subject, or to 
> look forward to that subject, to do well in the subject. It can 
> cetainly *help*, and make it easier - but it's not essential.

Kyntor Replied:

Certainly enthusiasm isn't essential, but neither is condescension, 
sarcasm, and bias.


Dreadnought wrote:

> But is he concerned about them doing well in them? Yes, he is - if 
> for no other reason than their results reflect on him. And that is 
> the reason he teaches them.

Kyntor replies:

I think you are ascribing more nobility to Snape than he deserves.  I 
think Snape would be more than happy to have no Gryffindors in his 
NEWT class whatsoever.


Dreadnought wrote:

> I learned plenty from classes I was incredibly unenthused about, 
> and from classes I *dreaded* attending. I would have rather they 
> were different - but it wasn't critical that they were.

Kyntor replies:

I have also learned in classes that I was unenthused about.  However, 
being unenthused about a class is a lot different from the Professor 
purposefully sabotaging your results.

Dreadnought wrote:

> Now, do I think Gryffindors may learn well from Snape?
> 
> Yes, I do - because one of the natural reactions to being goaded in 
> the way Snape does is to defy that person. If a harsh teacher tells 
> you are too stupid to learn something, sometimes that can make you 
> learn it *just* to prove them wrong. The major problem with such 
> methods is that they certainly *can* damage children is overused, 
> or used with the wrong child.
> 
> But if you have a group of children selected for their personal 
> bravery, it's fairly unlikely they are going to be damaged by such 
> methods (this is why I have had concerns about Snape's methods with 
> regards to Neville - because until Order of the Phoenix, I wasn't 
> convinced Neville could handle this treatment - now I think he can 
> - he does have the resilience and courage he needs to do so).

Kyntor replies:

I find it hard to believe that the "piss them off so they do good 
just to spite you" approach to teaching would be very effective.  And 
I find it especially difficult to believe that it would work at all 
against 11 year olds.  The rebellious mindset needed for this method 
to work isn't present until the children mature a little.

Dreadnought wrote:
 
> Is it the best way to teach the Gryffindors? I doubt it. But is it 
> the best way that *Snape* is capable of using - possibly.

Kyntor replies:

Actually the best way he would be capable of would be to treat the 
Gryffindors exactly as he does the Slytherins.  I don't think it is 
about what he is capable of, but what he chooses to do.


Dreadnought wrote:
 
> Is it ideal? No - but if it has happening, then at least two 
> methods are in use in the class, rather than just one - and that is 
> some degree of improvement.

Kyntor replies:

Not neccessarily.  If the two different methods aren't chosen 
carefully, they could be less effective.  For instance,  I believe 
the grades would be much better in Snapes class if he treated all the 
house the way he treated Slytherins.  Being abusive to students 
doesn't provide any advantage that other methods don't include 
(except of course Snapes twisted enjoyment of bullying children).


I see Snapes behaviour as a very necessary part of the story.  I 
believe JKR wants us to be shocked at his behaviour.  She wants us to 
be outraged at not only how he treats his students but also by the 
fact that he gets away with it.  I believe that she is using this 
situation to reflect the darkness inherent in wizarding society.  A 
darkness represented by prejudice, abuse, apathy, and moral 
ambiquity.  A darkness created and perpetuated by the members of that 
society.  Just about every wizard that I have seen in this story is 
infected by at least some part of this disease, even Dumbledore.

I also believe that this was one of the reasons that JKR had Harry 
raised by muggles.  Modern society (muggles) is making great strides 
to eliminate these behaviours; something wizarding society has yet to 
do.  Harry, being on the outside of society and looking in, is better 
able to see and avoid this darkness.  The moral outrage and 
indignation brought to the wizarding society by Harry and the 
muggleborns is very important.  Without these precepts, wizarding 
society has no impetus to change.  And if wizarding society doesn't 
change, it will keep producing an abundance of dark wizards.

Sorry if I got a little off topic.

Kyntor