[HPforGrownups] James and Snape. Was. Re: Snape and Harry again.

[feklar]

No: HPFGUIDX 113817

> 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*.

feklar:

I don't dispute your def. of snivel.  but I'm not sure how that changes any
thing.  As you say, the use of snivel implies a character judgement, more to
the point it's a subjective term that implies dislike or disdain of the
subject.  The use of lapdog is pretty subjective too.  What is the
difference between "friend" and "lapdog" in the eyes of your enemy?  I think
it is entirely possible that Snape was objectively as well as subjectively
Malfoy's lapdog, but I think that because of my own reading and
understanding of the story--a highly subjective declaration by someone who
dislikes Snape carried the least weight in my analysis.  In any case, we
already knew James and co. disliked Snape and therefore use derogatory terms
about him.  How does this create a "different portrait of James, Sirius and
Snape "?

> 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"?

<LOL>  I'm assuming you meant that as a joke?  James and Sirius were cruel
kids.  Snape may or may not have been a cruel kid--we don't know for sure,
it wouldn't surprise me, but it's likely he was at least arrogant, rude and
snarky.  After reading your post a couple of times, I think you are saying
James and Sirus dislike Snape because of a moral decision on their part?
And that the evidence of this moral decision is the fact that they use
derogatory terms implying Snape has a weak character?  Aside from the fact
that that is rather circular logic, why whouldn't they use those derogatory
terms simply because they don't like him?  Do you really think they would
like him if he was an undeniably good guy?  What if he was a good little
Gryffindor like Neville and turned them in for something, isn't it as likely
they would call him a snivelling brat?  The point is we don't know why they
call Snape those things other than that they clearly don't like him.

I guess for me it's a case for Occam's Razor.  Sirius admits they didn't
like Snape in school because he existed (after school better reasons to hate
him might have arisen, but that's not what Sirius was talking about).  This
is, unfortunately, very common among kids, so it's believable as most of
JKR's kid-characterizations are.  JKR is very good at showing how kids make
up irrational rationalizations to explain their world and their decisions.
So why make it more complicated?

Feklar