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

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 148217

On 16 Feb 2006 at 2:23, dumbledore11214 wrote:

> > Shaun:
> > 
> > Two reasons.
> > 
> > First of all, it's because if she used the word precisely, she 
> > would be claiming that Snape got sexual pleasure out of what he 
> > does. That is the precise definition of sadism. And, frankly, I 
> > don't think there's even a shred of indication in the text that 
> > Snape gets sexual pleasure out of anything. So at the very least, 
> I 
> > think she must be using the term in a non-sexual sense, which is 
> > already showing a lack of precision (admittedly a very common lack 
> > of precision when it comes to that word).
> 
> Alla:
> 
> I am sorry but I still do not understand it. Earlier in this thread 
> Renee brought up THREE definitions of sadism and Zara brought them 
> up downthread again. Sure, the one about getting sexual pleasure is 
> the original definition, but I COMPLETELY disagree with you that it 
> is more precise one. Often words' meanings changes through the time 
> OR the words acquire another definition ( so many words in Russian 
> language for example pronounced the same, but have many different 
> meaning either similar to each other or even completely opposite 
> ones).
> What I am trying to say is that I of course agree that JKR did not 
> use the first definition, but IMO it is clear that she used the 
> second one ( 2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive 
> pleasure, from cruelty.). If she used this one, could you explain   
> to me how is she being not precise in any way?

Shaun:

Well, for a start, I don't think she did use that definition. I 
don't see any sign that Snape derives pleasure from cruelty. I 
really do not. I see no sign of that whatsoever in the text. I've 
gone into why I see no sign of it in considerable detail in another 
post and I won't restate that completely here - but in simple terms 
the reason I disagree with that defition is because if Snape got 
pleasure from having Neville in his classes, and that is why he 
treats Neville the way he does, then Snape would *welcome* 
Neville's presence in his classes because it would give him the 
opportunitity for self gratification. In my view, it seems 
absolutely clear that giving a free choice, Snape would get rid of 
Neville from his classes. He doesn't want him there.

A sadistic teacher who gained pleasure from the presence of poor 
students in his classes because he had the opportunity to abuse 
them for his own pleasure is not the type of teacher who would 
impose very high standards for entry to his NEWT level classes. He 
wouldn't *want* to get rid of these students, he'd want to keep 
them in his classes. It seems to me very clear that Snape doesn't 
want the 'dunderheads' in his classes. A sadistic teacher who was 
able to derive pleasure from their presence would want them there. 
Snape clearly wants to get rid of them.

I focused on the first definition in my last message, not because I 
don't have serious problems with applying the second to Snape as 
well, but because the point I was trying to make there was made 
more easily if I looked for common ground on definitions.

> Alla:
> 
> Are you saying that the second definition is less valid or less 
> widespread? ( I am just trying to get clarification, I am not saying 
> that this is what you are saying :-))

Shaun:

Actually I think it is less valid, but *more* widespread. I think 
it's an example of a definition that has been used carelessly so 
often that large numbers of people came to believe that it was an 
accurate definition. I would say that today, it is a reasonable 
definition, because I most wholeheartedly agree that the meanings 
of words can change over time, and I believe this one now has to 
the extent that that second definition is reasonable for use in 
that way. But I do think it is less valid (though not invalid). 

Having said that, I think JKR could reasonably use that definition 
- however for reasons I have described above, I don't think it's 
accurate in the case of Snape. A sadistic teacher would welcome the 
opportunity to practice their sadism in class - not set policies 
that deliberately limit their opportunities to do so. To me it 
seems quite clear that Snape doesn't want these children in his 
classes. Because he doesn't enjoy their presence.

> Alla:
>
> Come to think of it, this second definition is certainly the first 
> meaning of the word "sadism" I learned and funnily enough it stayed 
> with me as primary one. I know it could be just my strange 
> experiences, since the book of Markis De Sad certainly was not 
> widely available for reading in Soviet Union when I was growing up, 
> BUT at some point it became available and when I learned the 
> original definition of this word, as I said funnily enough in my 
> mind it became just a secondary definition.

Shaun:

Sure, and that's not uncommon. As I have said, I believer that 
definition is the more common one, even if I believe it's a less 
valid definition.
 
> Alla:
> 
> Yes, I know the whole quote. But I read it as her characterizing 
> Snape as BOTH sadistic teacher and the one who abuses his power. I 
> think those two qualities can go well together. :-)

Shaun:

Yes, they could go together. But in my view, the way she talks has 
her describing these as all part of the same thing - not as 
separate connected things.

> Alla:
> 
> Yes, I see plenty of evidence in the books that she meant definition 
> two ( maybe she also meant definition three, but not definition 
> one). As you can guess I find the explanation for those incidents 
> other than Snape's enjoinment of tormenting Neville and Harry not to 
> be convincing, EXCEPT your explanation about Marauder's Map. I still 
> think that the fact that Snape had a "horrible smile" on his face 
> can point out to the fact that he WAS having a swell time tormenting 
> Harry, but sure I find your explanation to be entirely plausible.

Shaun:

The thing is while I disagree with both definitions 1 and 2 as 
describing Snape, I'd have little problem with definition 3. The 
only problem is I don't believe definition 3 is valid.

Interestingly the main dictionary I use - the Australian Concise 
Oxford Dictionary only has two definitions for sadism.

1. form of sexual perversion marked by love of cruelty to others.
2. deriving of pleasure from inflicting or watching cruelty.

Similar to the first two definitions in those given here. But it 
doesn't have a definition that corresponds to 'extreme cruelty'. 
And frankly, I do think that type of definition for sadism is too 
broad. If you start defining words too broadly, you wind up robbing 
them of all meaning. And I really do think that sadism is a lot 
more than cruelty, a lot more than even extreme cruelty. I think it 
has to involve pleasure on some level, and while people may 
colloquially use it without that qualifier, I believe that they are 
incorrect to do so. While it's true that useage over time can 
change the definition of a word, misuse, no matter how common, does 
not automatically do so.

It's time for the big guns - the Oxford English Dictionary. Not the 
concise, not the abridged - the big one.  This is the closest thing 
we have in the English language to a definitive dictionary. 
Wikipedia describes it in these terms (and, yes, I know Wikipedia 
has issues - but just so people realise I am not the only person 
who gives the OED primacy):

"The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) is a dictionary published by 
the Oxford University Press (OUP). Generally regarded as the most 
comprehensive and scholarly dictionary of the English language, it 
includes about 301,100 main entries, as of November 30, 2005, 
comprising over 350 million printed characters. In addition to the 
headwords of main entries, the OED contains 157,000 combinations 
and derivatives in bold type, and 169,000 phrases and combinations 
in bold italic type, making a total of 616,500 word-forms. There 
are 137,000 pronunciations, 249,300 etymologies, 577,000 cross-
references, and 2,412,400 illustrative quotations.  

"The policy of the OED is to attempt to record all known uses and 
variants of a word in all varieties of English, worldwide, past and 
present. To quote the 1933 Preface:  

"The aim of this Dictionary is to present in alphabetical series 
the words that have formed the English vocabulary from the time of 
the earliest records down to the present day, with all the relevant 
facts concerning their form, sense-history, pronunciation, and 
etymology. It embraces not only the standard language of literature 
and conversation, whether current at the moment, or obsolete, or 
archaic, but also the main technical vocabulary, and a large 
measure of dialectal usage and slang.  

"The OED is the starting point for much scholarly work regarding 
words in English."

and here is what the OED (online edition) has to say about the 
words in question:

Sadism:  A form of sexual perversion marked by a love of cruelty. 
Now understood as cruelty that evidences a subconscious craving and 
is apparently satisfied, sexually or otherwise, by the infliction 
of pain on another by means of aggressive or destructive behaviour 
or the assertion of power over that person; also loosely, 
deliberate or excessive cruelty morbidly enjoyed.

Sadist:   An individual affected with sadism (Syd. Soc. Lex. 1897); 
more generally, someone who derives satisfaction from inflicting 
pain or asserting his or her power over others. Also as adj.

These are, I believe, the closest thing we get to a definitive 
definition.

And every single part of that definition requires enjoyment, or 
craving, or satisfaction. Cruelty (in whatever form) alone is *not* 
enough. 



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