Karma, Umbridge, etc. (Re: Snape and the "Chosen One")

[lupinlore]

No: HPFGUIDX 153365

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999" <foxmoth at ...> wrote:

> Pippin:
> I don't expect the Dursleys and Umbridge to live happily ever after 
> unless they change their ways. But in both cases canon is explicit 
> that they have abused  other people to a far worse extent than 
> Harry, so whatever judgement falls on them, I expect it will be for 
> that. 


Okay, that would be a kind of argument for karma that operates in the 
general pattern of things as opposed to the specific.  Correct me if 
I'm wrong about I think this is saying that, for instance, if the 
Dursleys have their treatment of Dudley blow up in their face they 
have been punished for being abusive people, just as if Snape ends up 
suffering mightily because Harry hates him and won't listen to him he 
has been punished for his own abusive behavior.  It is the same thing 
as saying that it doesn't matter which particular burglary a thief 
gets convicted of, as long as he's going to jail he is being punished 
for being a burglar and therefore, in the general scheme of things, is 
being punished for all the burglaries he's done.  Or, to give a real-
world example, it really wasn't all that important, in the great 
scheme of things, that Al Capone was convicted of tax evasion rather 
than fraud, racketeering, or murder.  If he had not been a fraud, a 
racketeer, and a murderer, people would not have been so determined to 
catch him out of the tax evasion charge and he would have gotten a 
slap on the wrist instead of ten years in the big house.  Nothing 
wrong with that, as long as everyone understands that the underlying 
justice of the situation, in these examples, has to do with a lot more 
than tax evasion, or a particular burglary, or whatever.

So far so good, but the part about them having "abused other people to 
a far worse extent" than Harry seems kind of problematic, at least 
with regard to Umbridge.  With the Dursleys we have Dudley and JKR's 
statement, although I'm not so sure that statement is as clear as you 
imply (i.e. I recall that she said Dudley had been abused "in some 
ways as badly" as Harry, not that he had clearly been abused much 
worse).  In the case of Snape, I'm also not at all sure that's true.  
Snape has committed crimes and evil acts (treachery and murder) but 
I'm not sure that he's abused anyone worse than he's abused Harry, 
unless you want to say that murder is a form of abuse, in which case 
under that definition you would be right.

But when we get to Umbridge, we have a big problem with canon being 
clear about her "abusing other people to a much greater extent" than 
she abuses Harry.  Who would that be, exactly?  Who has she abused 
worse than she abused Harry, and what exactly did she do to them?  
What has she done that is clearly worse and more deserving of 
punishment than what she did to Harry?

The werewolves, perhaps?  We know that she was a prime sponsor of 
anti-werewolf legislation.  Does that count as clearly abusing other 
people to a much greater extent than she has abused Harry?  If so, I 
think we need more detail, there.  I grant you we have some evidence, 
particularly with regard to Lupin's problems and the bitterness of 
the werewolves (and hence the difficulty Lupin has in dealing with 
them).  But clear evidence of greater abuse than was done to Harry -- 
that I don't think we have.


Lupinlore