Bullying WAS: Re: Prodigal Sons

[M.Clifford]

No: HPFGUIDX 141062

Valky:
> Going off on my own sort of tangent here, I don't think that people
> change. The intimation is certainly touted plenty, but I don't think
> that makes it true. What others call change in a person I call
> change in the person's perspective and understanding, the person 
> themselves remains the same.<snip>
> Snape's mean vindictive behaviour is not the tragic 
> legacy of his lonely childhood, it's his real personality. His
> childhood, his torment, is fuel for that fire, but the spark is in
> Snape himself. 
> 
> Pippin:
> Um, then there's really no point in JKR telling us to choose what's
> right over what is easy, is there.

Valky:
No I am not sure I agree with that at all. The choices define the
person, according to Dumbledore, more than abilities. This is the
yardstick that JKR has given us to measure her characters with, in the
context of her story, and I think that it is this about the series
that agrees with the philosophy that people don't change. What they
are truly about, deep down, will stay pretty much the same revealed in
their choices.

To me, the point of choosing right over what is easy is not to
demonstrate that a person suddenly changes who they are and becomes
something perfect always choosing the right, that doesn't happen.

James is a good example I think, of the difference between whats right
and whats easy while the essential person remains the same. Young
James list of Character traits adds up to a bloke who has strong
beliefs about the WW. He dislikes blood prejudice, and he Hates Dark
Arts. He is also well liked for good reason, as well as the
superficial reasons, because he sees no colour with outcasts like
Lupin, Sirius and Pettigrew, and he makes people laugh too (most
probably not always for being an ass). The pensieve adds more
dimensions to James, sure, but the dimensions we started with are not
invalidated by that, they are added to, there is still a lot of nice
guy about James Potter.

So my assessment of James generally a nice guy, who deliberately and
openly sets himself against things that he thinks are wrong and evil. 

His groups of best friends - A Werewolf, a Blood Traitor, and a
virtual Squib. Who he dislikes - DE gang of Slytherins (Lucius) and
Snape. So from the start his character is perfectly consistent, with
my assessment. Later he openly defies and humiliates the student who
invents Dark curses in his schoolbooks, then after that saves the same
kids life, and then even later continues to cross wands with Snape.   
The last three things aren't consistent actions at all. But they
reveal a consistent character both sides of choosing right over easy.

Before the prank James turned his defiance of all things he hated, all
things that were wrong in his mind, on an easy target. Snape. 
Then confronted with the choice to let Snape face Lupin alone and
unprepared, he saw another wrong, but this time his defiance of it
needed to be turned upon his best friend Sirius. A Hard choice, and
James, the same essential person, made the choice of what was right
over what was easy and defied his best friend to save Snape. 
After a while James has moved on from turning his 'I defy' s on his
peers (and focuses on more adult pursuits most likely). He wins Lily's
heart, but he still fights Snape in secret. The essential James hasn't
changed, its grown up and moved on, he still defies what is evil in
his opinion, he still cares about the welfare and rights of people in
minority groups, but now he chooses right over easy a bit more often
than not.

Pippin:
> JKR talks about the animal side
> of us in her interviews. I think she's getting at the idea that all
> of us have instincts to be cruel because it *is* sometimes 
> necessary to hurt others for their own good -- the Dursleys have
> failed Dudley by their unwillingness to punish him. 

Valky:
Yes I think I agree with that in most ways. But there are many ways to
be wrong even if you are hurting others for their own good, and JKR
gives examples of that too. Dumbledore hurts Harry to protect him by
sending him to the Dursleys, some may think that was wrong but I am
inclined to disagree, OTOH Dumbledore admits he was wrong to leave
Harry so alone in fifth year because it hurt him so much, there were
reasons why it was for the best, but Dumbledore admits that it
probably was the reason things turned for the worst, another example
is Nevilles Uncle Algie throwing him out windows and such, for his own
good, yes, according to Algie, but really quite cruel anyway. I also
think that James and Sirius thought they had the measure of what was
good for Snape and the school in general when they were bullying
Snape, but they were wrong, and Snape definitely thinks he has the
measure of Harry throughout the series, and he chooses to be cruel and
he tells others that he really believes he's doing whats best for the
boy, but he too is wrong.
 

Pippin:
> That instinct is very strong in Snape -- but he's not a horrible 
> person because of that. He didn't choose his brain. He's a horrible
> person only when he lets that instinct run away with him. 

Valky:
No, but when he gets called a horrible person for that, by someone
like Harry, then it should be a lesson to him like Lily's chewing out
of James in the Pensieve should be (and probably was) a lesson to
James. He's wrong about it, and if he doesn't want to be seen as
horrible then he needs to lift his eyes and aim for a higher purpose. 
Snape did choose how to use his brain. And he can choose differently
next time.


> Pippin:
> But I think he can learn to control it, though maybe not as 
> well as someone in whom that instinct is weaker, or better 
> balanced by the instinct to be fair.

Valky:
I agree with that. I think we are on the same page here, somewhat,
too. Instincts, IMO are quite neutral and can be turned either way.
Snapes instincts are, I think, that he needs order and rationality,
and he needs to feel he has a secure handle on his greater
environment, he is very in need of control. He chooses what is easy,
to express those instincts, when he spies on the Marauders, trying to
take control of what happens in their lives. Later James saves him
from the werewolf and this cuts him deeply because it takes away his
sense of control over the situation. As Dumbledore said, Snape could
not bear to be in debt to someone who he hated so much. It wasn't
logical or ordered, it was cross purposing his sense of control over
his environment, in knowing where he stood and where James stood, and
why he was good and James was bad. It all went out the window for him
in that moment. It was easy to resent James for the life debt, rather
than deal with his own confusion and question his belief that James
was bad. The hard, but right choice would have been to shake hands and
move on making order in his future environment. Both are valid choices
for the same essential character, if you see what I mean. Just one
leads to better things than the other.
Later in Snapes life Dumbledore offers him a hard choice, that suits
his essential neutral character and turns it to the fight for good.
Snape is an excellent double agent. It was a Hard choice to be a spy
for the Order, the losing team, as so many have pointed out, but it
was an easy choice for Snape to be a spy, because that is his true
person. All we need to know now is whether Snape made the hard choice
or the easy choice, that would answer all questions, past and future,
about Snape. I lean towards hard choice now, myself, but IMO it's
still almost impossible to know, so I don't blame anyone for leaning
the other way.
<g>

Valky