Power vs. Trust (was:The Possibilities of Grey Snape...)

[ellecain]

No: HPFGUIDX 143126

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "lupinlore" <bob.oliver at c...> 
wrote:
>
> Carol <justcarol67 at y...> wrote:
> > At any rate, there's nothing trite about it. That's what life 
> > is about. If we knew everything there is to know at eleven, 
> > if we learned nothing from experience, then adults would need 
> > to step aside and let children rule the world. 
> 
> Lupinlore wrote:
> LOL!  They could hardly make more of a mess of things than the 
> adults have.  Where the trite comes in,
<snip>is that 
> Harry is supposed to simply trust in DD and allow some Great 
> Plan to carry him through to adulthood, even if that Great Plan 
> involves folly, injustice, and abuse.  Nonsense.

Elyse: First of all, Dumbledore never had a Great Plan to defeat 
Voldemort. He was simply trying to salvage what was left of the WW 
in times of war.
His trust in Snape was not part of a Great Plan, he never planted 
Snape as a spy among the Death Eaters, and his trust in Snape was
never part of a secret coldly manipulative plan to infiltrate 
Voldemort's camp. The fact is that when Snape came to Dumbledore 
with what Dumbledore presumed to be sincere remorse, Dumbledore 
helped him to turn to the Light side rather than die like Regulus or 
Karkaroff. His trust in Snape was a by product of his fight against 
Voldemort's increasing power, not an inherent part of The Great 
Master Plan.
And as for folly and injustice, what did you expect? I know Harry 
Potter is a fantasy story but really, a world where there is no 
injustice and epitome of goodness is infallible and makes no 
mistakes, and has a Great Master Plan in which everything is all 
rainbows and butterflies.....now thats what I call trite.


> 
> 
> Carol wrote:
> > How, if I dare ask, is it "insipid and morally revolting" for 
> > the protagonist to grow up, to know and understand more at 
> > seventeen than he did at eleven? Why have the books at all if 
> > the child protagonist knows no more about anything except how 
> > to cast a spectacular spell or two at the end of the series 
> > than he did at the beginning? I honestly don't understand how 
> > having Harry learn that Dumbledore was right to trust Snape 
> > (or about choices and death and all the other lessons he
> > attempted to teach Harry) would be "morally revolting." 
> 
> Lupinlore wrote:
> Hmmm.  If these lessons involve making a hero out of a child 
> abuser, and that is what Snape most definitely is, I'd say they 
> are indeed morally revolting and reprehensible.  To put it 
> another way, they do have the aromatic quality of that substance 
> which is the most excellent leaving of the digestion, and which 
> doth make the grass grow and the flowers bloom.
> 

Elyse: I have never seen what Snape does as "child abuse", so here 
we differ. Teachers like Snape abound all over the world, they 
really do. I myself have one who is WORSE than Snape. She is even 
more sarcastic then he is and routinely insults any random student's 
parents. She openly tells certain pupils that their parents have 
done an awful job bringing them up. But she happens to be the Head 
of Department of Biology in my college.
What kind of punishment do you propose for her? Is every sarcastic 
teacher going to be punished the way you want Snape to be?
The fact remains that many teachers wield their power over students 
in ways that are utterly reprehensible, but they are not carted off 
as child abusers and put on Death Row.
As I said before, to expect a world where every teacher is oh-so-
nice and understanding, is an impossible fairy tale.
JKR has shown aspects of life that do not take place in an ideal 
world, Ron's jealousy of Harry in GoF being a prime example.
The world she is writing about is flawed and to make every teacher 
in Hogwarts wonderfully nice and understanding is far more trite and 
unrealistic than anything else.
I'm not condoning Snape's teaching methods, and nobody is saying 
that he is a hero. But I do not feel that he should be thrown into 
Azkaban for being a savagely sarcastic teacher.



> 
> Lupinlore wrote:
> ROFL!  Primitive and childish?  You mean the natural and 
> perfectly correct desire for justice in the face of cruelty, 
> abuse, and maltreatment?  
> snip>
> As for the Crucio, it does seem an imperative with many that 
> Harry not use it.  Interestingly enough, Snape's use of the AK 
> seems perfectly all right.  Now why on Earth is that?  Because it 
> was part of DD's plan?  Or because Our Lord and Savior Severus 
> Snape has, by definition, only Harry's best interests at heart 
> and therefore HIS Unforgivables are perfectly... well... 
> forgivable?
> 

Elyse: Maybe Snape suffered what in RL would be termed as severe 
child abuse? Maybe his parents beat him up when he was five with a 
belt and a crowbar, and maybe he suffered more abuse from his fellow 
Slytherins than James and Sirius ever did to him? 
Doesnt Snape have any rights to the sort to "natural and  perfectly 
correct desire for justice in the face of cruelty,abuse, and 
maltreatment" that you seem to be okay with? 

And are you saying that while Snape's AK was truly unforgiveable, 
our hero Harry of pure heart is justified to Crucio a teacher 
because of the so called child abuse he suffered at his hands?
Harry is justified to use an Unforgivable because the man is using 
it on used one to kill his mentor? I dont get it. Are you expecting 
Harry to get away with the Unforgivable curses "because Snape 
started it first"?

Elyse