Victims, Oppressors, and redress (was DD's sacrifice and Snape sacrifice)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 143755

 
> LUPINLORE:
> 
> You are, of course, quite correct in a legal sense.  Under wizarding 
> law Harry and Snape are both adults -- or will be as soon as Harry 
> reaches his seventeenth birthday and becomes a licensed wizard.
> 
> But that does not alter the fact that Snape is a child abuser.  Yes, 
> his abuse is not as bad as that perpetrated by some others, and he is 
> not the same as Voldemort.  But his abuse is one of the central facts 
> of the books.  Realization of legal equality does not restore actual 
> equality to such a relationship.  In order to do that serious redress 
> of emotional and social wrongs is required. 

Pippin:
Only if the emotional and social wrongs are serious. You might as 
well call the sniffles a serious disease. Sure,  it  could conceivably develop 
into pneumonia and kill you, but behaving as if that is likely to happen 
is  overreacting. 

 I don't blame Harry for overreacting, but he should
realize eventually that, as Dumbledore gently tried to tell 
him, a grownup wouldn't take Snape's taunts seriously.

 
> LUPINLORE:
> 
> Well, you are very big on the idea of adulthood as being a major 
> driving factor in the series.  I am not -- certainly not to the 
> extent that I think the wrongs of childhood can be dismissed or that 
> seeking redress for those wrongs in any way represents being stuck in 
> an undesirable state (and I'm not saying that you have made such a 
> statement, I'm only stating my own view).
> 

Pippin:

I don't think JKR is saying that the wrongs of childhood can be 
dismissed, just that the child's perspective about them isn't the last
word. Dudley, for example, has no idea that he's been wronged by
his parents, while more than once wrongly thinking that Harry has
wronged *him*. 

Lupinlore:
 If part of the driving factors behind the saga 
> is an insistence that the hero be unsupported save by boon 
> companions, then having Superspy!Snape roar out of the scenery to 
> save the day is frankly silly, and all he sillier if it is all part 
> of some plan of Dumbledores (yes, we have Anakin and Gollum, but 
> neither of them are superspies operating in accord with some pre-
> arranged plan or set of contingencies).  If she was going to do 
> something like that, I'd have been much more impressed if she had 
> defied outworn tradition and kept Dumbledore (or Sirius) alive.  

Pippin:
But they're much less peers of Harry than Snape is! Dumbledore is
superwizard personified, and Sirius is Harry's godfather and will always
be in a superior position. For either of them to rescue Harry yet
again would emphasize Harry's continued dependency, and make
him a second-class hero at best, whereas if  DDM!Snape helped Harry 
on his way, then Harry might just accept it as due recompense for all 
the crap he's had to put up with from Snape over the years. 

It's pretty clear that the final victory over Voldemort is going to be
Harry's, won with the weapons Voldemort himself has given him, one
of which might just be Weapon!Snape.

Harry's relationship with Sirius veered perilously close to co-dependency
in GoF -- I wonder if this is a danger for the readers too? Do we want
Harry to remain a helpless child so we can identify with his hope of
being rescued?


Pippin