What's wrong with being bad ?

[arrowsmithbt]

No: HPFGUIDX 102008

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "darrin_burnett" <bard7696 at a...> wrote:
> 
> So... any fallout from any abuse, be it Harry's, Neville's or 
> Snape's, is ultimately the fault of THAT person, rather than the 
> subterranean layers of hate built up through abuse.
>

Kneasy:
It's not absolutely clear who is the *THAT person* is in
your comment. Please clarify.

darrin:
> Good. Excellent. I like that. 
> 
> And my first application of the rules is:
> 
> Get.
> 
> Over.
> 
> It.
> 
> Snape.
> 
> Now.
> 
> That felt good!
>

Kneasy:
Why on earth should he? If he can justify it to himself, why change?
He doesn't give a damn about how Harry, Neville, whoever, feel about
him; he's not interested in being "Most Popular at Hogwarts" in an
end of year poll. He doesn't crave the approval of others. It's likely
that he enjoys being nasty. He is, in fact, an archetype drawn from
a long tradition of English schoolteachers in fiction. There is always
one in every story/book that is the bane of the schoolboys existence.
To be accepted as nasty, they have to be shown to *be* nasty.
In these books it's Snape. So what? Why should this be a cause for 
concern?


> darrin: 
> Ah, the advocate for the bully downplays the effects of the bullying 
> on the victim.
>
 
Kneasy:
What effects? You haven't shown that there are any of any significance.
And please don't  drag in cod psychology; it doesn't apply. The 'abuse
excuse' is only worth flourishing in retrospect - if eventually Harry can
be shown to be emotionly screwed. Even then, more weight would be
given to the trauma of his parent's deaths and the fact that someone out 
there is trying to *kill* him than to a few snide comments from a teacher 
he hates but does not seem to fear.
  
> darrin: 
> Actually, Harry HAD shown flashes, glimpses of promise, and Snape did 
> not exploit them. Never once do we see TEACHING from Snape. We 
> see "close your mind," "master your emotions," "defend yourself" or 
> essentially, "How come you're not getting it?"
> 
> And again, in the debriefing in D-Dore's office, he does not bring up 
> Harry's part in the mess, which I grant is there, but blames himself 
> for thinking Snape, who is responsible for his own actions and must 
> accept the consequences, could grow up enough to deal with it.
> 
> Snape chose to give up. Whether he believed he was justified or not 
> is irrelevant. He made that choice and for his role, must accept the 
> consequences.
> 
Kneasy:
But how do you teach control of your own mind? It's not like Potions - 
add this and that, stir well, regulo 5  for 30 minutes. How can he 
demonstrate it? In effect, he can't. Occlumency seems to be a form of 
*self* discipline, no-one can do it for you. To not think of things  is
bloody difficult, try it sometime.  To do it when there is a continuing
temptation to do otherwise (the corridor, the door) makes it impossible.
Unfortunately Snape can do nothing about these visions, he can have
no influence on them whatsoever short of a mind-wipe or Imperio!
The lessons are doomed to failure. Snape cuts his losses and perhaps
prevents Voldy getting in his (Snape's) memories via Harry. Snape must
know some interesting tid-bits about the Order that Voldy would love 
to have.  


> darrin:
> No, sometimes bad is bad all the time. Some actions or behavior's can 
> be bad one day, acceptable the next. What Snape does in his 
> classrooms is not acceptable most of the time.
> 

Kneasy:
And sometimes it isn't. 
But it must be acceptable at Hogwarts - it happens almost every day.
They do things differently there; within living memory (Filch) students
were hung up, screaming, in the dungeons, Arthur received an unspecified
but severe  physical punishment for being out after hours with Molly.
Comparisons with  RL detract from appreciation of HP  as a coherent
whole. Wishing that a fantasy complied with the Real World seems bizarre
IMO. Isn't it the whole point of Fantasy that it *isn't* real?

Discussing the enormity of Snape's actions, or his motivations as *integral
parts of the plot* is one thing. To apportion blame, as if he could rewrite 
his character if he wanted to seems delusional. 


> > Mind you, Snape doesn't give a toss anyway.
> > He is sublimly indifferent to the opinions of others.
> 
> Puh-LEAZE! 
> 
> "You will respect me!"
> 
> "You should be thanking me on bended knee!"
> 
> "You didn't listen to my opinion, Headmaster!"
> 

Kneasy:
Demanding respect for an appointed position has nothing to do with
opinions, as many have pointed out. It is to do with recognition of
authority and relative status.

Recognition of gratitude due is good manners, again separate from 
opinions about the person involved.

Opinion here refers to advice, not personal assessment. As a senior
master it is his duty to offer such and to ask why it is not being given
due consideration.
  
> 
> > There was a commentator who asked one of the activists for peace why
> > they lobbied the US President and not people like the Ayatollahs or 
> Saddam Hussein. Answer - "Because he listens and they don't." Guess 
> which group Snape falls into? He wouldn't listen to  anything any of 
> us have to say. The only reaction that I can imagine would be ironic 
> >amusement.
> 
> And this is admirable, how?
> 

Kneasy:
Admirable? It's wonderful! It's true to his character. It's what he is.
And nothing any of us  can do or  say will change him. Accept it.

Suppose by some miracle your witch-hunt (wizard-hunt?) of Snape
succeeded beyond your wildest dreams and everybody on the site no
longer posted contrary views. What would that mean? That you had 
imposed your own interpretations onto everyone else. The exact opposite
of what this site is about.

>darrin:
> This is where I sometimes think Snape defenders are defending just to 
> defend. I really wonder how folks deal with the Snapes in their 
> lives. My guess is not with the same open-minded stance, once it's 
> applied to the real world.

Kneasy:
You're missing the whole point, Darrin. It's not the real world and never
will be. That's the definition of fiction. It ain't real. Most of us can
separate the two without difficulty or confusion and appreciate Snape
as an extremely well-written and intriguing character. A real life
Snape would be something else, same as a real life Dracula would be.
But he's not, he's a figment of the imagination, deliberately presented
as a boo!hiss figure. Relish it; he's an exemplar of the breed; not many
writers could do it so  well.
  
> darrin:
> I think you might be overestimating the tone of the Snape 
> bashers. "Agitated."
> 
> I get agitated when my cat is limping, or when I don't get phone 
> calls returned at work. This is recreation.
> 
> Consider me ironically amused at the Snape defending.
> 
>
Kneasy:
That's not the way it reads. It reads close to obsession. Try checking
some of your past posts.