Etiquette WAS Re: polite Dumbledore?/ Vengeance against characters

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 142693

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dumbledore11214" 
<dumbledore11214 at y...> wrote:

> Alla:
> 
> To me they are all evil in a different ways. Voldemort and Bella - 
> large scale evil, Snape and Dursleys are everyday evil, but who 
> can damage the person just as much or even more than large scale 
> evil, because really IMO in RL we are much more likely encounter 
> everyday evils than Voldemort like. I mean those happen too of 
> course, but usually during the time of war, IMO. Oh, and I am 
> talking on the assumption that Snape is not ESE of course, because 
> if he is, he belongs right there with Voldemort.

I thought this was pretty clear from OotP, but it's become even more 
of a theme in HBP, I think.  I was a little surprised in OotP when 
the animosity between Snape and Harry, which went unlanced, exploded 
into something that ended up having very stark consequences.  One 
major contributing factor to the situation at the end of the book is 
that Harry didn't trust Snape--he forgot of him as a member of the 
Order.  But that's just what *happens* when you get daily 
discriminatory treatment with no good explanation (and by that I mean 
something made forthright, someone actually bothering to make it 
clear instead of just saying "Do it!").  People don't trust other 
people who they have such poor connections with, generally.

Speaking of trust, I'm awfully amused that Darrin's prediction back 
in 69631 has an awfully good chance of being ultimately correct:

> You know what make distrust Snape even more? Not Harry's hate, but
> Hermione and Dumbledore's continual insistence that he is to be
> trusted.
> It really is a "sheesh, why are you protesting so damn much?" vibe
> I'm getting.
> I mean, we're setting up Hermione as this insightful oracle and
> Dumbledore is the Basil Exposition of the series and they keep
> insisting on Snape's good?
> Talk about Bangy.

If JKR is telling a story of the Ordinary Vices as well as of grand-
scale metaphysical Evil, then we should pay as much attention to the 
consistent patterns of ill behavior characters evince.  Things add 
up.  Voldemort probably couldn't have done what he did without the 
implicit cooperation of the attitudes of much of wizarding society.  
Smaller evils than larger ones, but so important in how people relate 
to each other.

> Carol:
> Any sarcasm or unfairness toward Harry is not only in the past but 
> minor in the extreme compared with murder, mayhem, and war in the 
> WW--all of which,IMO, Snape has been trying throughout the books to 
> prepare Harry to face. Perhaps he was mistaken in his methods, but 
> it's his motives that matter.

Oh, 'any means to achieve his ends?'  I'm wary of that, very wary.  
How does that fit in with your (IIRC) argument that there are methods 
Harry must eschew even in his quest to rid to world of Voldemort?  Is 
it that oh, Snape's methods aren't *that* bad so they don't matter, 
but Harry has to remain clean?  

Snape's motives are obfuscated at the present, but I do agree that a 
good deal of importance and meaning rests on them--so we're all left 
unsure.  I'm trying to think, though, about cases where we have a 
character actually doing good through profoundly flawed means.  We 
have Dumbledore and Harry at the Dursleys, but even that's a little 
different, because that's more a sin of omission than commission.  
Agency seems to be important for fault to accrue (which is why 
the 'it wasn't actually an AK' is so important to keeping Snape 
clean, isn't it?).

I think JKR believes in a kind of Schadenfreude.  She likes to show 
the bad receiving their comeuppance.  Even if she does complicate 
things as well, I think that fundamental property remains, and is 
hard to get around (if you want to retain coherency).

-Nora sings along: CEOs getting shackled... (and doesn't particularly 
weep for the Dursleys, either)