Sadistic!Snape? and the Question of Harm

[kiricat4001]

No: HPFGUIDX 140332

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "horridporrid03" 
<horridporrid03 at y...> wrote:

> > >>Lupinlore:
> > If threatening to kill a student's beloved pet isn't sadistic, 
what
> > on Earth would be?
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Reread that incident.  Snape *never* threatens to *kill* Trevor.

Marianne:

POA, Page 128 US edition. Snape says "...watch what happens to 
Longbottom's toad.  If he has managed to produce a Shrinking 
Solution, it will shrink to a tadpole.  If, as I don't doubt, he has 
done it wrong, his toad is likely to be poisoned."

Okay, he doesn't say "I'm going to kill Longbottom's toad."  But, 
telling a 13-year-old who he knows is frightened of him that his pet 
is likely to be only poisoned, not killed, still doesn't paint Snape 
in the brightest of colors.  And, should something irreversible have 
happened to Trevor, then Neville would have had the additional 
burden of knowing that his own lack of ability created the potion 
that damaged his pet. 


> > >>Lupinlore:
> > The sad fact that he is allowed to teach is one of the 
deepest     
> > sins (and I use that word quite deliberately) of the 
Wizarding     
> > World, and helps account for the fact that so many fans have 
such  
> > deep contempt for that world, and would likely be happy to 
see     
> > Voldemort destroy it were it not for such rare examples as 
the     
> > Weasleys.
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Many "fans" hold the WW in contempt?  Why on earth do they call 
> themselves fans?  It's like saying, I loved Star Wars, except for 
the 
> annoying Jedi stuff.  And it's interesting that you'd bring up the 
> Weasley family as the example of all that's good in the world.  
Two 
> of their sons nearly murdered a fellow student.  Why do they get a 
> pass?  (All students are equal.  Gryffindors are more equal than 
> others?)

Marianne:

But, Fred & George didn't intend to murder him, just like Snape 
wasn't trying to kill Trevor and Draco really was only repairing 
furniture.  Trevor didn't die.  Neither did Montague or Katie Bell 
(necklace) or Ron (poisoned mead) or Snape himself (Prank). Maybe 
all these cases should just be put under the heading "no harm, no 
foul" and tossed in the rubbish bin.

I think part of the problem when looking at potential harm to people 
in the WW is that some problems can be taken care of rapidly or, in 
the case of a longer-term problem, can still be reversed with 
apparently little lasting effects, psychological or otherwise.   
Lose all the bones in your arm? No problem, we'll grow them back 
overnight. Petrified by a basilisk?  We'll just chop up those 
Mandrakes and whip a cure. 

JKR has veered between wanting us to be amused or horrified at what 
magic can do. Burping up slugs is disgusting, but it's not painful 
or dangerous.  But things like the Imperious Curse taking away one's 
free will or something like Sectumsempra immediately slashing one 
bloody are portrayed as dark and dangerous.  Yet, even Sectumsempra 
can be counteracted quickly.  Snape is able to get Malfoy on his 
feet pretty quickly, considering he was collapsed on the floor 
bathed in his own blood. 

Harry is horrified by what Sectumsempra does, and, IMO, regrets 
using it.  Are we to give Harry a pass here because he does realize 
the depths of how wrong he was to use this curse?  Is everything 
that Fred & George do written off as a joke by JKR, because jokes 
are what they do, even if they could have killed Montague?  Is the 
reader encouraged to think of that incident as a joke because, after 
all, no one died? 

Marianne, who really should go to bed