Face it, there is a reward for being nice (was Re: Sadistic Snape)

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 140351

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "nrenka" <nrenka at y...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at q...>
wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> > Snape did comparatively little bullying of Harry this year,
(there's
> > no mention of how every class is a torture) , and none at all
> > of Neville, AFAWK. Neville is pretty much bully proof now, I
think.
> > He's learned to appreciate himself for who he is instead of who
> > he thought he should be. Odd how humility is the real secret of
> > self-esteem. And it didn't take an apology from anybody.
> 
> Why, Pippin--is that 'no harm no foul'?  That's a dangerous and 
> delicate road to walk down. :)
> 
> We can argue that Neville has not been permanently damaged, 
in part due  to Neville's own innate character and resources for 
coping.  Does that diminish the moral wrongness of Snape's 
actions towards him?

Pippin:
If actions like Snape's seldom or never cause severe damage,
then yes, I'd say the moral wrongness is diminished, compared
to acts that consistently do cause such damage.

Snape is nastier than he needs to be, and that's an abuse of his
power. He enjoys it and that's sadistic, loosely speaking. But--

If  Snape's abuse of his powers cannot be shown to threaten the
children and does not violate the rules of his society, then the only 
thing that's being deeply offended is our sensibilities...and that's
a  dangerous guide  to the rights and wrongs of other cultures.


Nora:
 If we  wanted to say 'no harm' at everything that didn't result in 
permanent physical injury, then most all of the bullying in the 
books goes off the table, poof.

Pippin:
I think we can say now that the wizards are not as vulnerable to 
psychological injury as we are. If really dangerous
Dark Wizards only pop up once every hundred years or so, if serial
killers are so rare that Slughorn is shocked at the very notion,
if Draco, despite being raised by the Malfoys and schooled in 
Slytherin, is still salvageable...then they're just way tougher than
you'd think.

Even though they hurt just as much as we do, even though when 
you prick them they bleed,  it takes a helluvalot more to damage 
a wizard than one of us -- we saw that in Umbridge's office, we saw 
it again in a different way in HBP.

 In real world terms, Quidditch is absurdly dangerous -- who would 
let their child participate in a game where iron balls are batted at 
hundreds of miles per hour towards unprotected skulls?

 In real world terms, Snape might be dangerously abusive. But in the 
Potterverse, Quidditich is a bit dangerous and Snape is a bit nasty, 
that's all.


 Quidditch may be easier  to dismiss as fantasy violence, but it
exists in the same world as Snape. As does McGonagall's decision 
to send Draco into a forest thought to be haunted by child-stealing 
werewolves. Talk about mental cruelty!  

And I wonder whether that punishment wasn't at least partly because
Lucius Malfoy had been threatening people with Fenrir for years--
which would make McGonagall just as guilty of holding people's 
fathers against them as Snape is.

But that's the way it is at Hogwarts, as Hagrid tells us. Think about
that the next time you wish you'd got a Hogwarts letter.

It distances us from the characters a little, yes. But that's
JKR being post-modern again. Just because something would make
the story more affecting doesn't mean it's true. Think of all the
little kids who were disappointed that Snape wasn't the villain in
SS/PS. Snape makes a much more satisfactory villain than 
Quirrell or Voldemort, but it doesn't mean that's what he is.

Pippin