Boggart Snape (was:Re: Snape Wars vs Ship Wars...)

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 144752

> Pippin:
<SNIP>
> Even fear of Voldemort can be exaggerated. Fear of the name, as
> Dumbledore tells us, increases fear of the thing itself. So if 
Neville's
> fear of Snape is exaggerated, then yes, the boggart lesson still 
works.
> 
> But I thought your point was that Neville's fear of Snape was not
> exaggerated and that Snape is a cold-blooded murderer just as 
Neville
> feared.
> 
>  If that is the case, then the boggart lesson becomes pathetic,
> like the twins chucking snowballs at the turban. But the twins are
> presented as characters who do go too far and get carried away
> with their jokes, while the boggart lesson is presented as something
> we should all understand about fear.
> 
> If it becomes pathetic, with Lupin innocently teaching Neville to 
laugh 
> at his fear of Snape when in fact Snape is a cold-blooded murderer,
> then the lesson becomes  that there  is no point in learning to 
> laugh at your fears or accepting reassurance from others. 

Alla:

I can only refer you to Nora's post. We ALREADY have much more 
information that we did in PoA about Snape. We know that he is not 
just a nasty teacher, we know that he is a former DE and it is a 
reasonable assumption to make that he participated in many 
atrocities, IMO. We know that he is in essense complicit in 
Longbottoms insanity and essentially complicit in making Neville grew 
up without parents.

Are you arguing that knowing those facts ( I am sorry - those are 
facts for me of course, somebody may argue that they are not facts) 
Boggart lesson works less for you?

Because for me it works quite nicely still, so if we learn some 
additional information that Snape killed Dumbledore you know, not for 
the good and noble reasons, I don't see that I will experience the 
drastic change in my evaluation of that lesson. Except of course it 
will make Neville's fear of Snape even more justified IMO.



Pippin
<SNIP>
> Unless the mummy is proof that Parvati was abused by mummies and
> the banshee is proof that Seamus was abused by banshees, I don't see
> how we can say that Neville's fear of Snape is proof that he was 
abused
> by him. 

Alla:

Boggart is your fear, your abuser CAN be your fear, no? So, of course 
Boggart is not necessarily your abuser, since child may not be abused 
at all and then such child will have other fears, obviously. IMO 
anyway.

JMO,

Alla