Real child abuse/ JKR intentions/ Snape again/Draco

[dumbledore11214]

No: HPFGUIDX 145737

> > >>Alla:
> > <snip>
> > Torturing Draco - sorry, I will sign it off to rough justice 
again 
> > and I think that Real!Moody would not have been above doing 
it.    
> > IMO of course. 
> > <snip>
> 
> Betsy Hp:
> Now how on earth am I supposed to take your opinions about child 
> abuse seriously when you say torturing a child is okay?  That *is* 
> what you're saying, yes?  Dropping a transfigured Draco onto a 
stone 
> floor from such a height he actually bounces is fine and dandy.  
> Catching Harry in the middle of a wrong doing and calling him on 
it 
> is abuse.  I'm sorry, but your logic completely escapes me.

Alla:

Huh? You are not SUPPOSED to take ANY of my opinions seriously, if 
you don't want to, Betsy. Just as I don't have to take any of your 
opinions seriously , if I don't want to. 

NO, I am not saying that torturing the child is Okay, but I am 
saying that making Draco bounce a few times is OK within the 
narrative? Why? Because  of whom he is. You know, I am reading PoA 
right now and it made me realize once again how much I hate Draco 
and how much IMO he deserves EVERYTHING he gets and more.

In RL I would not advocate teacher using ANY physical punishments on 
the child like EVER.

Poor Draco, who comes to the first lesson of Hagrid's already with 
contempt for Hagrid and who could care less about what Hagrid says 
and what instructions he gives and after being  hurt a little bit 
because he did not listen to those instructions, he surely puts on a 
wonderful performance throughout the books to condemn an innocent 
animal to death  and Hagrid's fired of course. 

Oh, and let's not forget that Draco is being bounced as a result of 
him launching an attack FIRST. Disproportionate punishment? Sure it 
is. Deserved one? YES, IMO absolutely it is and simply because it is 
Draco Malfoy. I would not be as sure to say that it was deserved if 
it was any other character, even from Slytherin House. 

Unless of course Fake!Moody would manage to do the same thing to 
Snape for some reason, then I would have been applauding him too. ;)


Betsy Hp:
> I'd also like to think that the real Moody would beg to differ 
with 
> your view that he'd eagerly torture a child.  After all, Sirius 
told 
> us he tried not to use the Unforgivables to fight the Death 
Eaters. 

Alla:

Nope, Sirius said that Real!Moody tried to bring his enemies home 
alive, NOT that he never used unforgivables. 
"I'll say this for Moody, though, he never killed if he could help 
it. Always brought people alive where possible. He was tough, but he 
never descended to the level of DE" - GoF, paperback, p.532.

But maybe he did not indeed use Unforgivables, how relevant is it to 
what fake!Moody did to Draco? He did not use Unforgivables on him 
either, didn't he? he punished Draco for attacking another student. 
Mcgonagall is not arguing that Draco does not have to be punished, 
does not she? She is just saying that Moody's methods are 
unacceptable. Personally, I find them quite fitting for Malfoy, VERY 
fitting in fact. JMO of course.


> Julie:
> Of course, these labels are not all mutually exclusive, except 
> perhaps DDM and ESE. DDM can flow into Grey, which can flow into 
LID, 
> etc, etc. The most believable Snape will have shades of several 
> qualities, just as real humans do. (Which is why DDM!Snape to me 
is 
> most definitely not analogous to Good!Snape or Hero!Snape, though 
> some insist on pressing that narrow definition.)

Alla:

Oh, Julie do tell, maybe you will convert me to DD!M Snape :-), 
because to me DD!M Snape is definitely analogous to Good!Snape, 
unless you are thinking of Snape which Severely Siguine postulated 
about - the one who kills Dumbledore to save his own life, but 
because he thinks that his life will be of value to good guys and of 
course in that scenario Dumbledore does not ask Snape to do him in.

Is there any other DD!M Snape who is not Good!Snape?


 

> Lupinlore: 
> > 
> > So, in a very real way, the HP stories are about child abuse 
> because 
> > we say they are about child abuse.  JKR, I am sure, did not mean 
> for 
> > them to be about child abuse.  But she doesn't have anymore 
right 
> than 
> > anybody else to determine what the stories are about.  Her 
rights 
> > consist of signing autographs and cashing royalty checks.
> 
> Julie:
> Again, she cannot tell a reader what a book is about, as that 
> interpretation belongs to each individual reader. But she has the 
> right to say she was making no personal statement about child 
abuse 
> in the books (i.e. she can't say what the books are about, but she 
> can say what she *wrote* the books about). Which does give her a 
bit 
> more say about her own stories than simply signing autographs and 
> cashing royalty checks. Oh, and she gets to keep the copyright ;-)
> 

Alla:

Right, I agree with Lupinlore's but not quite and I also agree with 
your last paragraph, Julie. JKR CAN tell the readers what she meant 
the books to be about, even though interpretations belong to each 
individual reader AND personally I find her insights to be very 
helpful to interpret characters behavior.

But I sort of disagree with lupinlore that she did not mean to raise 
the "child abuse" issue in the books.

There was a quote that she says that Dudley is just as abused as 
Harry is, so IMO it is quite clear that at least in regard to 
Dursleys she IS raising the issue of child abuse in the books and 
meant us to think about it.

I have NO clue whether she meant to raise the issue of child abuse 
in regard to Snape, although since she calls him a bully and teacher 
who abuses his power in her interviews, I don't think that it is 
unreasonable to think that she meant to raise this issue in regard 
to Snape too, because I think that " teacher bullying his students" 
and " teacher abusing his students" are two expressions which are 
quite close in its meanings, if not synonymous.

But indeed even if JKR did not mean to portray Snape as child abuser 
and only meant to portray him as bully, AND meant for those two 
definitions to be completely different, it does not matter to me, 
because I see Snape as child abuser and that is good enough to me of 
course.

 
JMO,

Alla