Vengeance on Snape?Re: Snape--Abusive?

[justcarol67]

No: HPFGUIDX 115568


I (Carol) wrote:
> > For the record, vengeance is not justice. Merriam-Webster defines
"justice" (in part) as "the quality of being just, impartial, or fair
b (1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2):
conformity to this principle or ideal," which forces us to define
"just" (again partially) "2 a (1): acting or being in conformity with
what is morally upright or good : RIGHTEOUS."
> > 
> > "Vengeance," OTOH, is "punishment inflicted in retaliation for an
injury or offense : RETRIBUTION."
> > 
Dzeytoun responded:
> Very good, Carol.  I will agree with you that vengeance and justice 
> are not the same thing.  Having said that, it does not, in my own 
> opinion, particularly remove my desire to see Snape put in his place 
> firmly and in an entertaining fashion.  As Alla has pointed out, 
> vengeance may not be very nice in real life but there's nothing
wrong with it in a book (particularly if its well-deserved and juicy).  
> After all, when discussing Snape's behavior, some people constantly 
> point out that Hogwarts is not RL and Snape is not bound by RL 
> expectations.  I think it is somewhat inconsistent and very unfair
to expect Harry to be bound by RL rules when Snape is not.  
> 
> Actually, if you want my guess as to how this will turn out, I think 
> the whole thing will be moot because Snape will be dead.  After all, 
> what would he do after the war?  His whole adult life has been 
> dedicated to getting revenge on James and Voldemort.  With the one 
> gone and Harry either dead or in ascendency, Snape will be a man 
> leftover from another time.  Particularly if he does not change he 
> will be a rather pathetic figure.
> 
> Now, on the subject of vengeance vs justice, how do you see that in 
> the following situations:
> 
> 1) The trio vs Draco.  The trio are not "properly appointed 
> officials," yet they punish Draco regularly and in an entertaining 
> manner
> 
> 2) Harry vs Voldemort.  Harry has to kill Voldemort.  Is that 
> Justice?  If it is, how is he the one to carry it out?  Harry is not 
> a "properly appointed official."  Or do we consider the prophecy, as 
> the voice of God, so to speak, to override existing social and legal 
> arrangements?  If so there is probably a brisk trade in fake 
> prophecies.
> 
> Finally, on the subject of vengeance and justice, I agree that 
> philosophically, theologically, and legally they are two different 
> matters.  Having said that, in real life they are rarely, if ever, 
> separate.  I once heard, for instance, a superior court judge say 
> that "one legitimate function of the criminal court is to provide a 
> socially approved and controlled form of vengeance."  Now, he wasn't 
> speaking from legal theory so much as his personal experience of how 
> the "justice" system actually works and its social and psychological 
> functions in real society.
> 
> Also I would agree, as I believe you have pointed out and Alla has 
> pointed out, that justice is at root a moral concept.  As such, 
> ultimately it parts ways with questions of authority, legitimate or 
> not. <snip>
> But all of that is separate from the issue of Snape, and I will
stand by my belief that if he does not change, some form of
humiliating experience in the form of justice and/or vengeance would
be entertaining, satisfying, and perfectly appropriate within the
bounds of a novel as well as a way of wrapping up that particular
conflict.

Carol responds:
I think we've reached a point where we're dealing with preferences
rather than rational arguments. I don't like the scenes where Harry
and friends hex Draco and company, however much they may deserve it.
Retribution isn't righteousness; vengeance isn't justice. As for
Snape, he has every right to hand out detentions and deduct points.
Note that the points may be deducted unfairly, but detentions are
always deserved. As for the marks Harry receives, it's the
end-of-the-year marks (and the OWLS) that matter, and Harry always
passes. I'm not bothered by Snape's teaching methods; they're far
outweighed, for me, by his courage, his loyalty to Dumbledore, and his
repeated attempts to save Harry despite his dislike. And I would not
be at all entertained by any form of retribution by Harry or Neville
against him. (I didn't mind the twins' retribution against Umbridge,
but she had no redeeming qualities as a character.) I want to see
Harry mature, to put childish grudges behind him, to accept Snape's
contribution to the Order (as Snape simultaneously recognizes that
Harry is not James). I don't see Snape as at all superfluous or
"leftover from another time." He'll be all of forty when the series is
over, hardly a senior citiaen even by Muggle standards and quite a
young man within the WW. Moreover, he's highly intelligent and gifted.
I would love to see his gifts acknowledged--maybe a position with the
WW as a reward for his services to the Order. He's make a hell of an
auror, IMO.

As for Harry killing Voldemort, I hope it won't come to that, but if
it does, I want it to be an act of justice for the good of the entire
WW, not a personal act of vengeance for the death of his parents. But
I'm hoping for a way to destroy Voldemort without resorting to the
means and methods of the enemy--no Unforgiveable Curses, which
apparently corrupt the soul. It would be better, however sappy it may
sound, to kill him with kindness somehow. I don't know what I want,
exactly, except that I don't want Harry motivated by the petty and
ignoble desire to punish or get even, whether the enemy (or perceived
enemy) is Snape, Draco, or Voldemort. We saw that ignominious motive
with Sirius Black's vicious crusade to murder Peter Pettigrew. What
chance Black had to grow and develop as a character occurred only
because his quest for vengeance failed and Harry prevented him from
tainting his soul with murder. 

Carol