Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long)

[Renee]

No: HPFGUIDX 148182

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Shaun Hately" <drednort at ...> wrote:

<snip>

Shaun: 
> I do attach reasonable importance to 
> JKR's own comments. And I think I can understand why she 
> would call Snape sadistic. I wouldn't use that term myself, 
> but even as someone who defends Snape as a teacher, I 
> believe he's a very nasty man. And I would say that Umbridge 
> is most definitely a sadist.
> To me the distinction is that I believe a sadist is someone 
> who isn't just nasty or cruel, but is wantonly nasty and 
> cruel primarily for their own enjoyment.

> My test... if Snape was a genuine sadist (by my 
> understanding of the term) he would *like* having Neville 
> Longbottom in his class. He would *want* Neville to be 
> there, because Neville gives him the perfect excuse to be 
> mean and nasty. He wouldn't make any effort to try and get 
> Neville to improve in class, because that would get rid of 
> his foil - his perfect tool to express his sadism and get 
> pleasure out of it. But when I look at Snape, I see someone 
> who is actually trying to get Neville to improve in his 
> classes. I think Snape misjudges the situation with regards, 
> but I do think that is his motivation. Neville *annoys* him 
> by his lack of performance and Snape doesn't like being 
> annoyed. He is trying to make Neville competent because that 
> will stop him annoying him.

Renee:
If you understand why JKR calls him sadistic, but you can't see any
real sadism in his treatment of Neville, doesn't that imply you think
she used the term incorrectly or sloppily? Or does it mean you do see
him being sadistic, just not in the case of Neville? 

But I see at least one instance where Snape does use Neville as an
excuse to be nasty: Lupin's Boggart lesson in PoA. Assuming you don't
believe he wanted to warn his old friend Lupin from the goodness of
his heart, what reason did he have to take Neville down the way he
did, except that he liked to do so? It's gratuitous, except if you 
assume he enjoyed it. 

<snip>      

Shaun:
> If Snape was a genuine sadist, he would welcome Neville's 
> presence in his class - but frankly, I think Snape would be 
> much happier if Neville just ceased to exist in his classes.

Renee:
If Neville merely annoyed him, he could have ignored him before the
Boggart lesson and just left. 
 
> > Renee:
> >
> > Personally, I do see Snape's sadism quite clearly. The Trevor incident
> > is sadism, because Neville is obvioulsy terrified. 
> 
> This is where we get into problems - why does the fact that 
> Neville is terrified indicate that Snape is a sadist. I 
> don't see that.
> 
> When I got -3/10 in a Greek vocab test (and yes, that mark 
> was serious - each week we had a vocab test of ten words - 
> you got 0 for a wrong answer, and lost 1/2 a mark for each 
> subsequent mistake - so getting the root word wrong *and* 
> the conjugation *and* the tense, yielded a net mark of -1 
> for that question), you'd better believe I was utterly 
> terrified of what this teacher would do to me. But that 
> terror made sure I *never* did it again. The fact that a 
> teacher makes a child frightened doesn't make them a sadist. 
> And the fact that a particular child may be so sensitive 
> that something that would make another child mildly 
> apprehensive instead makes that child terrified doesn't make 
> the teacher a sadist either. Neville has made two very basic 
> mistakes he shouldn't have made in that class. Snape doesn't 
> target him for no reason - he's done something wrong, 
> something that he shouldn't have. He's got in trouble for 
> it. It's normal for a child to feel a little afraid in such 
> cases.
> 

Renee:
Neville is terrified because he fears for his beloved pet. Your
example, however illustrating, is about inevitable tests. The Trevor
incident is about playing a *game* with someone's love for another
being. A cruel game, and not inevitable. 

Renee