Real child abuse/ Snape again

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 145628

> Betsy Hp:
<snip>
>> *McGonagall* is their in loco parentis and I notice that you 
never 
> argue that *she* emotionally abuses Neville.  Though she shames 
him, 
> in front of his entire house (or family), at least twice.  Both 
> times completely undeserved.  So I think it's inconsistent to 
> suddenly shove *Snape* into the parental role in order to argue 
> abuse.  Especially with Neville. 

Alla:

EXCEPT, I did in fact said several times what you just argued. If 
you did not read the posts where I certainly argued that Mcgonagall 
treated Neville badly, that does not mean that they do not exist. In 
fact I could refer you upthread to read one of my posts in this 
thread (when Mcgonagall name was there), where I most certainly said 
that Mcgonagall treated Neville badly, I think I even said twice, 
but the fact and the matter is that Mcgonagall is NOT Neville's 
boggart, Snape IS, to me it suggests that Mcgonagall's behavior does 
not amount to the level of emotional abuse, while Snape does IMO. 
And Mcgonagall also changes her behaviour towards Neville and even 
praises him sometimes.

Betsy Hp: 
> Harry, with his role in the fight against Voldemort, does have a 
> closer working relationship with Snape.  But Harry has never 
trusted 
> Snape, ever.  That in itself is a problem to my mind.  But it's 
not 
> one of abuse.

Alla:

IMO, it is. Harry never trusted Snape because Snape made sure to 
treat Harry as enemy. Harry had no clue who Snape was till Snape 
showed him what "teacher" like him can do.


 
> > >>Miles:
> > > Another necessity for abuse is that they cause or could cause 
> > > serious behavioral, cognitive, emotional, or mental disorders. 
> > > We never saw any student of Snape's classes that suffers 
from   
> > > any of this.
> 
> > >>Alla:
> > You may have not seen it, but I definitely did - to me Neville's 
> > boggart is a metaphor for all that. IMO of course.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> That just doesn't make any sense to me.  Neville *defeated* his 
> boggart.  Quite successfully.  So how on earth does that suggest 
an 
> inability to mature?  How does it suggest a serious emotional 
block?

Alla:

Where did I say that Neville's boggart suggests "inability to 
mature"? I said that Neville's boggart is a metaphor for all things 
which abused child experiences as consequence of interactions with 
his abuser.

We have NO indication in the text that Neville's Boggart changed, so 
it is still there. JKR has no book space to show what Neville 
suffers because of Snape, so she just gives us a shortcut, IMO.





 Betsy Hp:
> We've *seen* Neville suffering from a huge emotional blow.  He was 
a 
> total mess after Fake!Moody's class and their private little 
> meeting.  Neville was *not* a mess after his boggart scene.  In 
> fact, I'd say facing down his boggart was a moment of *growth* on 
> Neville's end.  And it was fairly easily done, too.  One try and 
> Neville was laughing at what you're arguing is a huge emotional 
> wound in his life.  Would Harry laugh at his mother's dead body so 
> easily? Or Sirius's?

Alla:

Harry is afraid of the Dementors, nevertheless he defeats them with 
his Patrobus. Are you arguing that Harry is NOT afraid of the 
dementors anymore? That he overgrew them or something ? The fact 
that Neville can defeat his Boggart suggests to me that he can face 
his wounds, NOT that such wounds do not exist. IMO of course.




> Betsy Hp:
> I agree with Miles, Alla.  I think you've cherry picked out a 
> partial definition of emotional abuse.  Yes, you didn't write the 
> definition you used, but you ignored those portions that directly 
> contradict your argument.  To my mind you ignore the behavior an 
> abused child exhibits.
<SNIP>

Alla:

I used the full definition of emotional abuse which I found on the 
Internet. That may not have been the most detailed definition , but 
I certainly did not ignore anything .

And I do not know how many times I have to say that - to me 
Neville's boggart is a metaphor for all those behaviors. You do not 
accept it, that is fine, but if I am answering the inquiry not to 
your satisfaction, it is NOT the same as not answering it at all, 
IMO.

BY the way, I also don't think that to show abused child, JKR is 
obligated to show ALL behaviors. To me, in Neville and in Harry she 
showed the main indicators and that is good enough for me.

I think that Sirius was absolutely depressed in Grimmauld place and 
JKR showed the main indicators perfectly, but did she show 
everything, I doubt it.

Same with Harry's posttraumatic stress disorder, which I personally 
have no doubt that he had after Graveyard.


> Betsy Hp:
> Honestly, you can pull up example after example of Snape behaving 
> badly.  But, as Miles has said, being a scary, badly behaved, 
unfair 
> teacher is not abuse.

Alla:

Yes, but if you interpret those examples as abuse, then they are.



Betsy Hp:
  And so I *do* see the "Snape is a child 
> abuser" arguments as very "outlandish".  Certainly I don't see 
them 
> a reasonable.  That's my opinion, anyway.

Alla:

That is your right and prerogative. It is my right and prerogative 
to argue against it.

JMO,
Alla