Snape and Harry again.

[Nora Renka]

No: HPFGUIDX 113106

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "justcarol67" 
<justcarol67 at y...> wrote:

<snip>

> Carol:
> I never said he was a good person; only that I'm sure he's on the 
> side of good. But he does have admirable qualities: loyalty to 
> Dumbledore, impressive powers of deduction (when he doesn't let his 
> assumptions get in the way), and remarkable courage for a 
> Slytherin. As for "sadistic" vs. "sarcastic," I still go with 
> sarcastic. Sarcasm involves the caustic and often ironic use of 
> words as ridicule. Sadism, as I'm sure you know means taking 
> pleasure in inflicting pain, usually physical pain. (I'm ignoring 
> any sexual connotations; this is the HP series, after all.) At 
> least two qualify as sadists in my view: Umbridge and Bellatrix. 
> Based on their treatment of Dobby, the Malfoys may also fit this 
> category. (Imagine making the poor creature iron his hands!)

Not that it necessarily settles anything, but I'm going to go with 
the authorial imprimitur of 'sadistic' here, and I think it's there 
for a *reason*.  Why?
 
Snape is harsh and sarcastic, at times even cruel.  This is not 
particularly debatable, as we've settled on.  But it's a little bit 
more than that--it's that he seems to genuinely, at times, *enjoy* 
the discomfiture and embarassment of other people.  He enjoys reading 
the Witch Weekly article outloud, to Hermione's great embarassment.  
He may not be intending to actually do anything to Harry and Ron, but 
he sure is getting a kick out of scaring the poo out of the kids.  He 
manages to often do what actually is the right thing, and maybe 
towards the right end--but those means could sure use some work.

No, he's not Umbridge, and he's not Bella.  But we don't need to 
succumb to the incarnation of "I see no difference" and surrender to 
the slippery slope here.  To get meta, I think JKR is telling us not 
to expect any grand exculpatory reasons for Snape's behavior, and 
that he really is unfair, and 'a sadistic teacher who abuses his 
power'.  He manages to do the right thing on some levels, and 
completely fails on others, which makes him one of the more complex 
(if, I still think, overestimated in his actual complexity) 
characters in the series.

> Snape, however, uses *words* to ridicule students who perform poorly
> or otherwise annoy him. I don't think it causes them any real or
> lasting emotional pain.

Snape was Neville's worst fear in PoA.  Granted, Neville is tough and 
he seems to have gotten past some of that...but that is telling.  Let 
me throw in a great quote here, although it doesn't completely apply.

"What is moral cruelty?  It is not just a matter of hurting someone's 
feelings.  It is deliberate and persistent humiliation, so that the 
victim can eventually trust neither himself nor anyone else."

If Neville were less tough, or had less supportive friends, I can see 
him turning out that way.  And it's absolutely no excuse for Snape 
that he didn't, unless you *want* to play a strict no-harm-no-foul 
rule on ethics, here.  I don't think any of us do, because the 
results across the board are unpleasant.  [Pr*nk arguments, anyone?  
No one *actually* got hurt, right?  What's the problem, then?]  [I 
break my own rule here--I don't argue Prank threads without the 
evidence we're missing.  But it's a good illustration of why the 
unknown or elusive intention needs to be factored in, not just the 
results.]

<snip>

> Even what I think is Snape's meanest moment as a teacher, "I see no 
> difference" in reaction to Hermione's elongated teeth, caused her 
> no lasting harm.

As above, lasting harm is not the only circumstance we should be 
thinking about--intention on the part of the offender is a big one, 
too.  Does it excuse someone who intends to/wants to act viciously 
just because they might be incompetent at it?  Draco, for example, 
may not have actually managed to do anything truly awful yet, but 
indications are pointing towards the idea that he wants to, and he 
intends to when he can.

<snip>

> Carol:
> I honestly believe that his singling out Harry isn't sadistic, 
> though of course his reference to "our new celebrity" is sarcastic 
> (caustic, ironic, and intended as ridicule). But I believe that 
> there's a valuable lesson being inculcated here. Harry *doesn't* 
> know anything about the WW at this point. He didn't *earn* his 
> celebrity status. It's not through any skill or talent of his own 
> that he's the Boy Who Lived. And Snape wants not only Harry but 
> everyone in the class to know that. He doesn't want an insufferably 
> arrogant Harry (a second James) who thinks he's better than 
> everyone else. It's very important that Harry recognize and remedy 
> his ignorance before Voldemort returns. (Yes, I do think that Snape 
> has been briefed by Dumbledore regarding Harry's special role in 
> the war to come even though Snape doesn't yet know that Voldemort 
> is under Quirrell's turban.)

There's a phrase that comes to mind, here: "When you assume, you make 
an ass out of you and me".  Trite--but I think it applies well to 
Snape in this situation.  He may well think that he is doing Harry 
and everyone else such a big favor by this immediate cutting down of 
any possible pretension, but what he's also doing is sabotaging the 
chance of normal relations from the beginning, and all on an impulse 
where he (I think) has incomplete information.

<snip>

> No, I don't credit Snape with altruism in publicly exposing Harry's 
> ignorance, but I do think he has a reason for what he's doing and 
> believes it's a good one. (He also, no doubt, enjoys doing it.)

The enjoyment really is the kicker on the mild sadism, as seen 
above.  I think there's something a little, ummm, wrong with someone 
who gets their kicks out of the exercise of superior power over their 
inferiors.  No, Snape doesn't behave that way towards his other 
colleagues (with the possible exception of some of the behavior 
towards Lupin), because he's not in power over them.  But he freaks 
out when anyone in an inferior position makes any sort of challenge.  
This is canonical. :)

Ah, Snape.  Such a good illustration of the Ordinary Vices.  Capable 
of doing good without being a good person.  More information, we 
await you eagerly.

-Nora notes that a friend of hers still has that book, alas