Sadistic Teachers (was:Re: Teaching Styles)/ quick question to Neri

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 148083

> > Neri:
>  I suspect that when Harry had to
> > cut his own hand with a magic quill in Umbridge's detention, he 
was
> > actually suffering much less than Neville when he had to cut and
> > disembowel a barrel full of toads in Snape's detention (GoF, Ch. 
> 14).
> > And of course, Snape knew that Neville's pet is a toad and that
> > Neville would come out of this detention "in a state of nervous
> > collapse". Subtlety here means knowing your victim's personal
> > vulnerabilities and exploiting them to hurt him the most,....

Alla:

Ooo, BRAVO, Neri. I completely forgot about this example. You know , 
this example also seems IMO of course to rebut the idea that "toad 
lesson" did anything to improve Neville's performance in Potions 
since this detention occurs well after "toad lesson".

 
> Potioncat:
<SNIP>
> No apologies, Snape is mean. 

Alla:

And your fairness is another reason I love your posts so much. :-)
(This was serious despite a smiley face)

Potioncat:
> Why did Snape choose that particular punishment for Neville? I 
don't 
> know. Maybe he needed a supply of bowel-free frogs, or a supply of 
> frog entrails for Potions class and gave the job to Neville. How do 
> you think Potion Makers get eye of this and tongue of that? 
> Witchcraft isn't pleasant.

Alla:

I think Neri's point (sorry if I am wrong) is that Snape gave the job 
to Neville specifically because it will remind him of his pet. Of 
course witchcraft isn't pleasant, but toads are not the only things, 
supply of which Snape may need. Did he have to give THIS job (cutting 
toads) to the boy who has toad pet? I mean, as far as we know Neville 
is the ONLY one who has toad as a pet (maybe some other people do, 
but we don't see them to the best of my recollection). It cannot be 
that someone else could not have been assigned THAT detention and 
Neville could have been cutting something else.

Irene:
<SNIP>
> Or do you mean Snape should have cared that these
> animals remind Neville of his pet? I'm not sure
> McGonagall would.

Alla:

Yes, I think that was he meant ( Again, sorry Neri if I am wrong). 
Mcgonagall treated Neville very badly couple of times, no question 
about it. But since she changed her behavior (like IMO truly good 
FLEXIBLE teacher would), I am able to respect her.

But still I don't remember McGonagall ever asking Neville to 
transfigure his toad into something awful.

> Renee:
<SNIP>
> As for the meaning of sadistic: `deriving sexual gratification from
> Inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others' isn't the only 
official
> definition; `the deriving of pleasure from cruelty' is another one,
> and I daresay one that is used more often. I don't doubt most of the
> people who accuse Snape of sadism, JKR included, are thinking of 
this
> second one. (I even found a third definition: 'extreme cruelty', 
but I
> wouldn't go as far as calling Snape *extremely* cruel.) Anyway, the
> second definition goes further than just mean, nasty and unfair: it
> says you like being that way. To me, Snape's glittering eyes
> definitely point towards enjoyment. 

Alla:

You know, Renee, I would like to read those posts too. I absolutely 
see Snape as sadist, but I did not even THINK once about Snape 
getting sexual kick out of Harry and Neville's, and maybe some other 
student's sufferings (whom we don't see).

I absolutely use your second definition of sadism "the deriving a 
pleasure from cruelty". I don't know if Snape derives sexual pleasure 
from it (that IMO seems like fanfic oriented argument, I don't think 
canon tells us one way or another). I just see in the books that he 
LIKES to watch Harry and Neville suffer and THAT leads me to think 
that he is  a sadist. 

> Alla wrote earlier :
<SNIP>
but it somehow ties for me with Snape being DE in the 
past and trying to figure out again ( we did have discussions in the 
past about it) what part of death Death Eaters are really eating - 
really or metaphorically.
 
Maybe they feed their magic on people's fears?

Wasn't it Neri who speculated something to that effect? That DD lets 
Snape "feed" on his students' fears as long as he does not "eat" too 
much. I maybe awfully confused here.<<
> 
> Neri:
> Yes, well, this was one of many outlandish speculations from those
> pre-Horcrux days, when we still asked ourselves how would Voldy be
> immortal in a thematic way. It really should have been obvious that 
he
> simply split his soul into seven parts and hidden them in magic
> trinkets for the hero to find. Now why didn't we think of that? <g

Alla:
But it was such a GOOD speculation, Neri. I have a question for you. 
Do you think that in "after Horcrux world" the name "Death Eaters" is 
still significant for thematic reasons or there is really nothing 
important to be implied from it? "Death Eaters" they are, because 
they like the name or something like that?
Gah. I so tried to snip this part well and so could not. 


Neri: 
> But unexpectedly JKR found another way to suggest Snape's sadism. 
Not
> only she showed him using an Unforgivable, but also taunting Harry
> about his inability to use them, much as Bellatrix did in the MoM
> battle. And as Bella told us then, the Unforgivables require sadism 
in
> order to work.


Alla:

Yes, it seems such widely accepted argument that Snape was teaching 
Harry at that moment, but really I see nothing in the text that 
excludes the possibility that he was simply taunting the boy, nothing 
more than that.

JMO of course,

Alla