[HPforGrownups] Re: Snape! Snape! Snape! Snape! Loverly Snape! Wonderful Snape! (long)

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 148192

On 15 Feb 2006 at 13:10, Renee wrote:

> --- 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? 

Shaun:

I think she used the term colloquially, rather than precisely. It's 
one of that words that is quite often used in a colloquial sense, 
rather than being used in *precisely* the way it is formerly 
defined. As some people have pointed out, for example, technically 
the word implies a person gets sexual pleasure out of inflicting 
pain if you want to get really precise. Over time, it has come to 
be used more loosely.

Personally I find the statement (made at the same time that JKR 
made the 'sadistic teacher' comment) that Snape abuses his power 
much more telling. Because in that case, I think JKR means exactly 
what she's saying. Those are simple words and simple concepts. The 
point is, though, there's sometimes a fine line between 'use' and 
'abuse'. I experienced corporal punishment in my schooling. To me, 
it's use was appropriate in the circumstances, it was fully legal 
(still is in private schools here, till the end of this month at 
least), it was a fairly accepted practice (although it had already 
become unfashionable and had been banned in state schools here a 
few years earlier). To other people, though, it was by definition 
'abuse'. Now I respect their views, and I respect their right to 
express their views in their writing. However, that doesn't mean I 
concede that they are right. Different people see different things 
as abusive. JKR sees Snape as a teacher who abuses his power - 
fine, she has every right to do so. That doesn't mean she is right, 
because other people's definitions differ.

JKR is not the fount of all wisdom. Her definitions of things like 
abuse are not unchallengable, just because she's a writer.

I also think people can make too much of precise words used in 
interviews. I don't think all that many people have been 
interviewed by the media really. I have been on several occasions, 
although on only one of those occasions did the details of that 
interview wind up in the media. I don't think that using a word 
imprecisely in a media interview is a sign that a person is sloppy, 
it's just a reflection of the fact that you are having to think on 
your feet and often condense quite complex ideas into a fairly few 
words.

I've also written a number of articles about my childhood and 
educational experiences (one of which is going to be in a book 
published in the US this year). There are teachers that, based on 
my experiences of them, I would describe as having abused their 
power. But other people who were taught by them would totally 
disagree. The difference is that we are different people, and we 
see the world differently. A pupil who never learned from a teacher 
who was harsh with them, is much more likely to see that teacher as 
abusing power, than another student who got the same treatment and 
learned from it. And that does happen. People have a tendency to 
think their experiences are far more universal than they are.

Hypothetically - and this is utterly hypothetical - let's say you 
could find the teacher that JKR modelled Snape on (she said there 
was one in the 'sadistic' quote). If you managed to track down 
every student he taught, and 90% disagreed with her assessment of 
that teacher, would that make her assessment wrong? As I say, 
that's hypothetical - you might just as easily find that 90% agreed 
with her. But my point is, though, that different people see the 
same people differently, they see them through various lenses. If a 
writer feels a teacher was cruel, then naturally any teacher they 
base on that person will be one that they think was cruel. But 
someone else writing about the same teacher who sees them 
differently, will also see the literary construct differently.

I've recently been reading a history of the school I attended at 
the age of 13. I can recall four of my teachers from that year 
being described in that book - now the people who wrote this book 
are professional historians - many school histories are written by 
people who attended the schools in question, these authors had no 
contact with the school at all, until they were commissioned to 
write the history at which point they interviewed dozens of people 
associated with the school to try and build up an overall picture. 
As I say, I can recall four of my teachers from that year being 
described in that book - and I really don't agree with the 
descriptions of any of them. *But* at the same time, reading them I 
can appreciate that they are probably an accurate amalgam of 
opinions across the board, and objectively are probably pretty 
accurate. It's just the way we see people are so coloured by our 
experiences and beliefs.

> Renee:
>
> 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. 

Shaun:

No, it's not - not in my view at least. This is what I mean by 
things being coloured by our experiences and beliefs. To you it 
seems that there's no reason for Snape to do this except out of 
pleasure. I can see other reasons based on my own experiences as a 
student and a teacher.

Let me make clear that I don't think Snape should have done this. I 
think it's inappropriate. But I can see reasons a teacher does 
this. And that is pure frustration.

Teachers did do it to me - and I've seen teachers do it in the 
staffroom. When a student has *really* frustrated you, one of the 
first things a lot of teachers want to do is tell a colleague about 
it - to get it off their chest by telling someone else who'll 
understand what it feels like to be banging your head against a 
wall trying to teach a child something. You go into a typical 
school staffroom at recess or lunch and you will often hear 
teachers criticising their students quite heavily. It's 
unprofessional, and it's generally frowned upon today - but it's 
not at all uncommon.

That is what we see in that scene with Lupin.

This event occurs soon after the potion class. Snape has gone to an 
empty staffroom. It seems very likely that Lupin is simply the 
first teacher Snape sees. Under the circumstances, sheer 
frustration is an absolutely common reason for a teacher to sound 
off about a student.

Doing it in front of other students, doing it in front of the 
student in question - that's something Snape should not have done. 
But I think to say he did it because he enjoyed it, is putting a 
very particular spin on it. To me this is exactly something that a 
teacher might do out of sheer frustration - and I do think Neville 
frustrates Snape.
 
> 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. 

Shaun:

Sorry, no. My example is not inevitable tests. It wasn't the tests 
I feared at all. What I feared was the punishment I would receive 
because I hadn't done what I was supposed to (which in my case was 
failing to study the vocabulary and grammar I needed for the 
tests). I wasn't afraid of the inevitable tests. I was utterly 
terrified by the punishment I was facing for my failures.

And that is exactly the situation Neville is placed in. He's failed 
to do what he is supposed to do - and his fear comes out of a fear 
that he is going to be punished for that failure. The threatened 
punishment is harsh, yes, very harsh. But as I've said before, I 
don't think Snape is going to carry it out - *and* he also gives 
Neville the chance to correct his mistake and tolerates the best 
student in the class helping him to do so.

Snape isn't playing a game. He is trying to find *something* that 
motivates a student who is still making the same mistake after two 
years that he was making in his very first class - not following 
basic instruction. This isn't a game. It's deadly serious.

Now just as an additional comment - I rewatched one of my favourite 
movies last night on television - Kes, based on the novel 'A 
Kestrel for a Knave' by Barry Hines. I commend the movie to anyone 
who wants to see a truly sadistic teacher in action - Mr Sugden, 
the sports master - and a truly ineffectual teacher in action who 
isn't so much sadistic as seems to have given up - Mr Gryce. 
(Incidentally both these teachers were played by real teachers - 
who were apparently nothing like their characters). Sugden really 
is a truly sadistic teacher in my view. (I am now having visions of 
Ken Loach being asked to direct a Harry Potter film - now *that* 
would be an interesting take. I think he'd do a superb job with 
'Half-Blood Prince' (-8 though I am not sure that the kids would 
like being in the film! He'd be likely to really cut Harry's hand 
open, given what he did in Kes - having boys really caned on 
camera, and trying to make one young actor seriously believe the 
animal he'd grown close to had been killed for the sake of realism 
in the film. Nasty.)

Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia