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

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 113832


> 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.  
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 "?
> 

Valky:
What it changes is small in staure but is fundamental. It puts a 
question mark over wether Snape was really the innocuous target he 
seems to be in the pensieve. That it implies he may have been a 
sniveller of the sort that we see in Fudge and Pettigrew, rather 
than limiting the bound of *what Snape was*, to James and Sirius, by 
the Webster etc *literal* definition of the word, which I have 
definitely come across in this discussion.




> > 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"?
>

Feklar: 
> <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. 

Valky:
Yes I was having a chuckle. 


Feklar:
 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, 

Valky:
it's circular reduced to those two terms but I think we are able to 
know a little more about what James and Sirius might choose 
*morally* in some respects than you are letting on. That is all 
assumed by my logic here.



Feklar:
> ......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.
> 

Valky:
We know that they dissapprove of prejudice, even as youngsters, so I 
seriously doubt that they would not have gotten to know a little 
about Snape before they decided that they did not 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

Because I am a literature lover studying mathematics so here is my 
outlet... because I have nothing better to do... for the fun of 
it... you pick.... lol

The story of Sirius James and Snape isn't all contained in that 
scene we have to take into the pensieve what we had previously 
learned about each character. Simple is to dismiss all the cruelty 
Snape had shown innocent Harry in books 1,2,3,and 4 and immediately 
imgine that this one day in his life proves he was *never really* 
this git that he *is*. 
I, personally, would rather avoid such unsound reasoning and remind 
myself that James and Sirius were fighters for good. Why does this 
*one* day have to mean that they weren't in their hearts those same 
people? 
(And yes I mean then! no dramatic change!)

Valky