/ Umbridge / Snape / Snape / Snape / Dumbledore/ JKR's writing

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 163146

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince 
Winston)" <catlady at ...> wrote:
<SNIP> <SNIP>
> (I have read long posts of arguments that the Dursleys' and Snape's
> Behavior is not abusive because there are other people (in real 
life)
> who abuse worse, a lot worse, and of arguments that Snape is not
> abusive at all but merely a demanding good teacher. I agree that 
there
> are lots of people, in real life, who abuse worse, but I've never
> believed that minus-one is a positive number because minus-one-
million
> is so much more negative.)

Alla:

Oh, well said indeed.

Catlady:
> As for Dumbledore, you say, if he failed to stop child abuse, that
> means he condoned it. I would rather believe he didn't have the 
power
> to stop it. I have read many posts arguing whether he had the 
power to
> stop it and I don't want to take part in that argument. 

Alla:

Certainly, I would much prefer to have such Dumbledore as well and 
with a little persuasion I can even see the possibility of such 
Dumbledore in Umbridge situation and Dursleys situation. Umbridge - 
well, the argument certainly can be made that Harry indeed concealed 
the consequences of his detentions so well, that even constantly 
watching him Dumbledore did not notice.

Dursleys, well, considering unhappy DD at the beginning of HBP I 
can buy that he hoped Dursleys would treat him well, unfortunately I 
am unconvinced that his non- interference policy was somehow 
justified, but at least with Dursleys with some mental gymnastics I 
can convince myself that when Dumbledore **initially** placed Harry 
with them, he did not have an evil intent.

But no matter how hard I would try to hypnotize myself, nothing can 
convince me that Headmaster was powerless to stop Snape, 
unfortunately. So, yeah, in this instance in my book he looks 
unquestionably guilty of condoning abuse.

I mean, if one does not consider what Snape does to be abuse, then 
of course Dumbledore can be excused, but we seem to agree on that, 
so I just do not see how Dumbledore could not have stopped Snape if 
he wanted to.

But here is where my agreement with LL  stops and we are going into 
different directions, sort of.

Whether I consider Dumbledore putting a stamp of approval on 
Snape's 
actions or not, I most certainly do not equal that with JKR 
approving child abuse.

Yes, I am guilty of **liking** JKR's public persona. So much of her 
views that she expresses in interviews and books are very close to 
what I think on many issues. Yes, maybe she is awful and horrible 
person in her private life, I certainly do not know her, but unless 
I do, I am afraid I am going to continue to feel sympathy to her and 
I just have very hard time imagining her approving child abuse. And  
even though it is certainly possible to like the art and dislike the 
creator of that art ( for example, I cannot stand Walt Disney RL 
persona based on what I read about him and I love the cartoons), I 
did not reach that stage with JKR yet.

She gave me some truly amazing characters to like, to root for, to 
cheer them in their triumphs, wanting to smack them when they make 
mistakes. I like that, I  am certainly not disappointed in how the 
kids developed, even if I grew more and more disappointed in the 
adults, and I am still grateful for that. 

Catlady:
> You say, if Dumbledore condoned child abuse and Snape is not 
punished
> for child abuse, the writing is bad. I say, you must mean that the
> writing is MORALLY bad. I say, writing that is morally bad is not
> always bad entertainment and not always bad stringing of words
> together to create a word-weave of beauty or humor. I say, even if
> Dumbledore condoned child abuse and Snape is never punished for 
child
> abuse and even if this series is morally bad, its writing is still
> good entertainment and humor and possibly a word-weave of beauty.

Alla:

I do not know if I would even go as far as saying that the writing 
is morally bad, frankly. I mean, the much discussed **epitome of 
goodness** phrase, didn't she say it few years ago? ( I tried to 
search for it, but my computer was giving me trouble). She never 
came back to this phrase, ever again?

I mean, if I were to learn that she still thinks of Dumbledore as 
epitome of goodness, I would certainly be disappointed, but isn't 
what she says in her recent interviews and books is that Dumbledore 
makes mistakes and his mistakes are bigger than many's?

I certainly do not see any inconsistencies, if her intent is to 
portray Dumbledore as deeply flawed man ( flawed in the real sense, 
not just so called human mistakes, which are not really mistakes) 
with the best intentions 
nevertheless. I certainly have many slap Dumbledore moments, but 
even I think that he means well. Most of times, I guess.

I do think though that Dumbledore's suffers because of the need of 
the plot multiple times in the series. Too many hats, I cannot 
escape from that conclusion  and even though in general I am much 
happier with JKR writing than LL is, I cannot escape from conclusion 
that DD speech at the end of OOP did not express clearly what she 
wanted to convey, but even that conclusion I do not base on the 
speech itself, but on DD of beginning of HBP, which I do not find to 
be very consistent with OOP speech.

There are also several characters that in my book suffer from plot 
needs. Do I buy that loudmouthed Molly, who has no problem letting 
anybody have a piece of her mind, asked for or not, would let Harry 
stay with Dursleys? No, I don't.  I loved CAPSLOCK Harry of OOP, I 
certainly did not find the abrupt dissappearance of it to be very 
believable. Teens certainly go through stages, but Harry showing NO 
sign of his temper once through HBP? Just once? I found it strange, 
except for the plot based reasons.
But as I said in general, except Dumbledore, I am quite happy with 
characters I like so far.

No matter how frustrating I find Lupin keeping his distance from 
Harry, I find the characterisation to be certainly consistent.

I found Harry's grief for Sirius to be very well done, etc.

Catlady: 
> Oh, and by the way, even if Snape unexpectedly turns out to be a
> simple villain who murdered a pleading Dumbledore out of loyalty to
> the Dark Lord or some other evil motive, he's STILL a sexpot.

Alla:

If you say so :)


> Catlady:
> > I've always considered that, like the claim that kappas are more
> > common in Mongolia, to show dear Sevvie's lack of knowledge 
rather
> > than lack of nastiness. Also in GoF, Harry and Ron spent a 
detention
> > "forced to pickle rats' brains in Snape's dungeon". I've always
> > thought that one was aimed at Ron as a rat-owner. As the pain 
aimed at
> > Neville may have missed because horny toads aren't toads, the 
pain
> > aimed at Ron missed because he had ceased to like rats at the 
end of
> > PoA. That suggests that Severus had no idea that Scabbers was
> > Pettigrew and therefore was still sincere in his belief of 
Sirius's
> > guilt.

Alla:

I think Neri showed pretty unequivocally  that in JKR's world those 
creatures **are** toads, so I am not sure that pain aimed at Neville 
was missed, good point about Ron though.



> Pippin:
> Or it suggests that Snape had come to believe that Pettigrew was
> indeed a traitor and wanted to see Ron and Harry take some 
vicarious 
> revenge. Snape seems to have accepted Dumbledore's belief that 
> Sirius was innocent by the end of GoF. He never gives up his
> loathing for Sirius but he never accuses him of being untrustworthy
> again.

Alla:

You mean, Snape was being nice to Ron and Harry and gave them 
opportunity for vicarious revenge or that Snape was giving himself 
the opportunity to watch Ron  and Harry doing that and thus having 
some vicarious revenge? I don't know.

I think nice play on that was when Sirius was eating rats in GoF.


HAPPY HOLIDAYS, GUYS .