James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again.

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 113703

Valky wrote:
> > 
> snip.
> 
> >> There you all have it. The British terms paint an entirely 
> different portrait of James, Sirius and Snape > 

> Alla wrote:
> 
>  I translated the term "lapdog" rather closely to your meaning.
> 
Valky:
Precisely my point, Alla. 
We, ourselves two, have been both involved in discussion regarding 
the pensieve recently. And neither you nor I feel particularly 
strongly that James is a atypical mean bullyboy picking on the 
defenseless and sensitive poet who has never done wrong in his life, 
Snape.
I am pointing out that those who do, which are many, have missed the 
implied meaning in "English" english of these two particular 
words, "Lapdog" and "Snivellus".

Alla:
> But, but, but.  How does this meaning portray new picture of 
James, Sirius and Snape?

Valky:
Because YOU *do* understand that Brits call an ar**-kisser a Lapdog 
YOU are willing to cut James and Sirius slack on their opinion of 
Snape, not much but you are willing. 
Where, for others that are stubborn in the defense that James and 
Sirius give "no other reason" for picking on Snape but that "he 
exists" which could "mean anything", the real obstacle to 
them "seeing" any other reason is because the reasons are in another 
language from their own. 
> 

> Alla: 
> I am pretty sure that you know my belief that Pensieve scene is 
only a surface under which we will lately uncover some Snape/Potter 
or Snape/Black feuds, quite possibly based on like/dislike of Dark 
Arts.
> 
> Term "Snivelius" is undoubtedly a derogatory one, but do we KNOW 
> what kind of weakness it berates?
> 

Valky:
That is my point with Lapdog and Dark Arts dabbling.
The weakness *is* a given.

Alla:
> Weakness is not necessarily a bad thing. Sure, I hate Pettigrew 
type weakness, but what if Snape was too "weak" to do something 
Malfoy told him to do? You know, "too weak" to do the bad thing?
>

Valky:
Then surely James would like him and Sirius wouldn't be calling him 
Lucius' "lapdog"?

Alla: 
> Yes, sure, he did the horrible thing afterwards, he became the DE, 
> but in GOF Sirius STILL does not know that.
> 
> Please tell me if I am being confusing. What I am getting at is 
that we don't know YET, whether Sirius had ANY RIGHT to berate Snape 
for the "perceived weakness".
> 

Valky:
And therein has *always* been my point with James/Sirius v Snape. 
They may not have had a RIGHT, in fact they didn't as far as I am 
concerned. But they did have a *principle*, as children, before 
Snape became a DE, when LV was terrorising the neighbourhood. It is 
given in their berating of Snape.

Alla:
> I am firmly persuaded that all hints at the feud are there, I LOVE 
> Nora's idea that Marauders could be executing Revenge at Snape for 
> what his older protectors (Bella, Lucius, etc.) did to them, but I 
> absolutely don't understand how the "Snivellius" alone can be 
> a "mitigating circumstance" so to speak.
> 
> Could you clarify, please?

Valky:
Ok to clarify completely, I guess that my post was fully intended to 
address only those that aren't convinced.
Snivellus is not a mitigating circumstance. It is an implied 
character judgement. 
Snivelling is not a description of someone who cried, in "English" 
english it is a 
*Character Judgement* 
Of someone who is weak. And, although, you learned it in English 
class Alla, I learned it in real life used by those in command of 
the language in which it was written. It implies a person is weak of 
*virtue*.