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

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 143770

> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...> 
> wrote:
> <SNIP> 
> > 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. 
> 
> Lupinlore:
> Boring.  The hero loses all of his parental figures, must strike out 
> on his own, yatta-yatta.  Boring, outworn, and so slavishly followed 
> by JKR as to at times be annoying.  

Pippin:
I'm not sure I'm following you.  You seem to be saying that for Harry to 
succeed on his own would be boring, while  succeeding with the help of 
others would make him less  compelling as a hero, which would only be 
okay if we get another hero instead, someone like Sirius or Dumbledore.
No anti-heroes need apply, because for an anti hero to contribute to
Harry's success would be  morally suspect and, if I understand your 
views,  unsuited to  literature. So, barring the return of Dumbledore or 
Sirius, or the total reformation of Snape,  the only interesting option for 
you  would be for Harry to fail? 

> Lupinlore:
> Co-dependency?  Danger for readers?  Errr... yeah.  Perhaps as big a 
> danger, or bigger, is that we forget the basic truth of adulthood -- 
> adult independence and freedom of action is 90% illusion.  The idea 
> that one grows up, turns one's back firmly on childhood, outgrows 
> parental figures, and moves boldly into the world has some truth -- 
> but only some.  To dismiss the traumas of childhood or the necessity 
> of healing them, or the continued importance of supporting figures, 
> even parental figures, into adulthood is a seductive pathology in 
> its own right.

Pippin:
Growing up is pathological and adulthood is an illusion? Whose basic
truth is that?  Achieving enough independence, emotionally and 
physically,  so that we can survive the loss of our parent 
figures is something  we all have to do, if we live long enough. I've seen
nothing in canon to show that wizards are exempt from this basic truth. 
It'd be nice if it happened only to those who are prepared,  but in a place 
as dangerous as the wizarding world, how likely is that? Harry's hardly 
the only orphan in canon.

I do not dismiss the traumas of childhood. I'm not saying Harry
hasn't been traumatized, only that he might be falsely fixed on Snape 
as the cause of the trauma. I've no doubt his fear of Snape is real, but is it
realistic? Or is it, like Harry's fear of the boggart dementor, provoked
by a superficial resemblance to things that Harry has learned to fear?

That Harry is terrified of Snape hardly proves that Snape is the cause
of Harry's fearfulness. 


Pippin