Snape: Crime and Punishment/Punishing Draco

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 143835

Sorry for the complicated post, but I'm replying to Steve and Gerry 
and Nora on related issues:

STEVE:

-- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve" <bboyminn at y...> wrote:
>
<SNIP> So, what you are saying is you will settle for nothing less 
than
> in-your-face direct confrontational accusation and punishment, and
> what I am saying is that there is simply not enough book left to 
waste
> time on that; yet, we all know that what goes 'round - 
comes 'round.
> Life will punish these people in ways the courts never could.
> 

NORA:

And make no mistake, Rowling really, really likes comeuppance. 


LUPINLORE:

I agree with both of you.  Now, the question is what constitutes 
comeuppance?  I think that comeuppance or karmic justice or poetic 
justice, whatever term you want to use for it, is a kind of 
Newtonian morality.  That isn't an exact analogy, of course, so I'm 
not arguing you can map things out with equations.  But, as you say, 
Steve, what goes around comes around.

So, in order for justice to be poetic or karmic or comeuppance, the 
reaction has to fit the action.  I.E. the punishment has to fit the 
crime.  Which is why what happened on the tower and Snape's 
punishment for that will in no way satisfy the demands of 
comeuppance for his treatment of Harry and Neville, whatever side 
Snape is shown to be on.

However, for the punishment to fit the crime does not mean that the 
punishment is formal or involves a court hearing or is even in-your-
face.  Rather it means that the punishment flows quite obviously 
from the crime.  Thus, in Snape's case his punishment has to be 
linked directly to his treatment of Harry and Neville.  Saying, as 
Gerry says might be the case (and I'm paraphrasing): that "he's DDM 
and that counterbalances his teaching methods" or "he's being 
punished enough for the murder of Dumbledore" just doesn't cut it.

Nor would it be in any way a "waste" of the book to deal with these 
issues.  As these issues have been a constant thread through all 
seven books, it would be very bad writing on JKR's part NOT to deal 
with them relatively explicitly.  Once again, I'm reminded of all 
the opining about Umbridge and the Dursleys, i.e. "It would be a 
waste of time to deal with those issues."  Well, evidently JKR did 
not think so, and I, who often disagree with her, think in this case 
she was right on the money.


NORA:


That's why (contra Steve) I actually *do* expect some kind of overt
comeuppance for Snape, probably a little more than his flight at the
end of book 6. Why? Because I think she regards his behavior
towards the students as nasty and unpleasant. She's the one who
calls it an abuse of power, after all.


LUPINLORE:

Exactly.  Like Nora, I suspect that JKR is in the end a believer 
that character is fate.  She might not put it that way, in fact I 
suspect she isn't working from any rigorously systematic set of 
beliefs or philosophy or theology at all.  But there is a great deal 
in her writing that leans in that direction.  Added to that is a 
delight in the turning of fate's wheel.  Now, this raises all sorts 
of questions about essentialism and free will, but that is for 
another discussion.  

Once again, comeuppance does not have to be formal.  But it does 
have to be direct and fairly obvious.  Saying "he's being punished 
for this so he doesn't need to be punished for that" doesn't cut it, 
and neither does "well, he's done this and that makes up for this 
unrelated situation."  Thus, Snape's punishment for his actions on 
the Tower don't apply to his child abuse (which I agree with Gerry 
he does engage in), nor does the fact of him being DDM (if he is) 
release him from punishment.

NORA:

It's not realistic, of course, but that's the joy of writing
fiction. You get to determine the moral rules of your universe--
indeed, you get to determine *if* you're writing a universe with some
kind of definite moral structure to it. This isn't George R. R.
Martin, writing a story explicitly lacking in the punishment and
reward regulators of fiction. Rowling's in a different part of the
genre.

LUPINLORE:

Very good.  It is true that there are fictional universes that do 
not act according to karmic laws.  JKR's doesn't appear to be one of 
them.  Realism is good to an extent, because it carries with it 
believability and, as Steve has pointed out, helps us in entering 
into the emotional lives of the characters.  However, for a novel to 
approximate reality in all its grimness and injustice would not be a 
particularly good move, at least in this case.  As Hitchcock once 
said (and once again I'm paraphrasing): "What's so great about 
reality?  It's difficult and horrible and we flee from it every 
chance we get.  People don't come to a movie [or read a novel] to 
find reality."  Very wise man, Hitchcock.


Lupinlore