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

[feklar]

No: HPFGUIDX 113835

> 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:

What other terms would you use?  Ultimately, words are symbols and arguments
are equations.  If they don't work at their most simple iteration, they
won't work at a more complex iteration, they'll just be obfuscated by the
extra words.

Actually, I don't know that we know anything about them morally.  If
anything, their teenage selves come across as very amoral to me.  Again, to
me this is a characterization choice JKR made: they are typical of children
in that their cruelty comes of amorality rather than evilness.  Though I do
think by 5th year they were hitting an age where they should have been
developing a sense of morality, Lilly and Remus seem to be, but James,
Sirius and Peter haven't -- at least with regard to Snape.

By moral choices, do you mean we know they wouldn't choose to be be
cry-babies and tattle-tales?  Well, I guess, but what little boy would if he
could help it?  But honestly, I can't see Snape in those roles either--after
all, his first response to attack was to go for his wand and when Lilly
tried to help him, he not only refused help but drove her off with insults.
So he showed himself to be slow on the draw and an ingrate, but not a
sniveller in the one scene we have of him and the marauders.

As for Snape, we have even less evidence of what his sense of morality was.
Personally, based on his adult personality, I lean towards the idea that his
conscience was, like Sirius' and James', a bit late-blooming.  I can see him
as a fairly amoral intellectual until some crisis of conscience drove him
from the DEs to Dumbledore.  As an adult, I think he choses to be amoral
about most things (that way he doesn't have to feel bad about being
vindictive or rude) but in his mind they are the "little things."  He feels
he's doing alright so long as he does the right thing when it comes to the
big things--Support Voldemort or Dumbledore?  Save Potter or do nothing and
let him fall?  But it could be he had a highly developed sense of conscience
as a kid, but after seeing his mother abused, was just bound and determined
to defend himself at school no matter what sort of curses that required.
MAybe he only joined the DEs at DD's behest.  But I think that would make
Snape a less complex character.

> 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.

feklar:

Do we know that?    I can't really think of any evidence that they even know
what prejudice is much less disapprove of it.  Granted, they accepted Remus,
but maybe that was simply because he was a Gryffindor.  Maybe they just
thought it was a great adventure to know a werewolf?  Maybe if they had
known what he was from the beginning, they would have shunned him, but since
they didn't they were able to overcome that particular prejudice?  Maybe if
he'd been a Slytherin, they would have felt it just confirmed their belief
that Slytherin is full of dark wizards and dark creatures?

btw, w/r/t to the Neville hypothetical, I think James and Sirius would have
despised Neville.  Sirius didn't like that Harry wasn't "adventurous"
enough, how much worse would he think of Neville, who not only wasn't
adventurous (and unlike Peter wasn't interested in sucking up or applauding
their antics), but also was fairly morally aware at a young age and might
have called them on some of their actions or reported them?  More irony with
names:  Neville could easily be Sniville.

Valky:

> 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!)


Feklar:

Personally, I like the idea that Snape is a mean bastard who chooses to do
the right thing.  I think it makes him more interesting character.  I'd like
to think he actually enjoys his petty tyrannies, but other times I think
he's just so angry and unhappy that being a bastard is the only way he gets
through the day.

As for Sirius and James, they seem to have been "unkind" to others besides
Snape.  In any case, I don't think it's contradictory to that they were
amoral and cruel w/r/t Snape (or any individual), but think torturing and
killing muggles is wrong.  If anything, it's probably easier to want to save
a people you don't know anything about.  It's easier to idealize them as
innocent or helpless (as most of the benevolent WW seems to think of
muggles) when you don't know them.  Kind of like people who will donate
money to prevent starvation abroad, but are disgusted to encounter a
homeless person on the street.

There could be other reasons they ended up fighting with DD.  I think the
inertia factor played a major part.  As Gryffs, there would have been heavy
expectaions that they would join the side of light from the beginning.
James' family would have underscored this indoctrination.  17-year-olds
aren't exactly known for their deeply thought out decisions.  It's entirely
possible that they joined the OOTP and the side of light, because they were
taught to believe it was the right thing to do, without ever thinking about
what right and wrong really mean.  James also had a more selfish motivation:
impressing and, later, protecting and fighting alongside Lilly.  Also his
parents were killed, presumably by DEs, so vengeance was part of his
motivation as well.

Feklar