Sadistic!Snape?

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 140274

Nora:
> Okay, we all know that Snape actually does *not* do as he says he's 
> going to here, and takes them back to the castle.  What else, then,
is  he doing in this excerpt than enjoying Black and Lupin being
scared,  and pleading?  This is the point where Snape is in control
of the  scene, after all.  If we want to say "Oh, just a little
gloating at having caught the evildoers," that actually makes my
point.

Pippin:
I agree. Snape fan though I be, I think Snape is sadistic in the
sense JKR uses it -- someone who does not suppress the instinctive 
urge to be gratified by pain. I think all the characters show this
instinct to some extent, even Dumbledore, who kicks Fake!Moody 
over onto his back. Certainly Harry does -- he keeps trying to use
the cruciatus curse. 


But I also think that Snape's instinct to be protective is damaged, so
that when he does protect someone it is not out of animal instinct 
but actually, in JKR's eyes, nobler because it is a choice, though
Snape isn't always noble enough to make it. 

Nora:
> I still have some real questions about this part of the book: my
main  one is whether Snape is sincere when he says that the children 
have been Confounded, because if not he's trying to shut up anyone 
who could  contradict his story, and that's not the action of a man 
doing the  right thing.  

Pippin:
He's also protecting Harry, Ron and Hermione from punishment for
attacking him - an offense, together with being out of bounds after
dark, which would surely demand expulsion, at least for Ron who has
no celebrity to protect him.

Dumbledore says himself that without Pettigrew there is no hope of 
convincing anyone to take the word of three thirteen year old wizards
and a werewolf who is known to be an old friend of Sirius. I don't
think three thirteen year old wizards and the word of an ex-Death 
Eater who is known to be Dumbledore's man would have made any
difference either.  Fudge didn't take Snape's word about Voldemort's 
return when Snape had actual evidence. Why should he take it about
Pettigrew when Snape didn't have any proof at all? 


The truth, as Dumbledore  says, should be treated with great caution.
If Harry and Hermione had admitted to  helping Black willingly and 
been guarded more closely, who knows what would have happened? 

Pippin