Snape, Apologies, and Redemption

[juli17 at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 152287

 
Leslie 41 wrote:
> 
> But Rowling doesn't "approve" of  Snape's behavior. When asked why 
> Dumbledore allows Snape to teach, she  basically said that "there are 
> all sorts of lessons in life; horrible  teachers like Snape are one 
of 
> them!"  



Lupinlore:
Ahh, but the real problem with that is that DD is supposedly  a "very 
wise man" and "the epitome of goodness."  Sorry, but in my book  a wise 
man and epitome of goodness does not stand back while children are  
abused.  And yes, I think showing him doing so does amount to  
approving of the abuse of said children.  Which is, IMO,  
reprehensible.  And which, barring further explanation and a profound  
and genuine apology from Snape for his abuse, makes the books much  
fodder.


Julie:
The bottom line really comes down to what each individual person 
considers "child abuse" at the level where it must be publicly  condemned
and punished. Clearly some things, such as sexual abuse, physical
beatings, burning with cigarettes (or magical quills), starvation, etc, 
would be almost universally considered child abuse of that sort. 
 
Unfortunately it becomes less clear when you speak of milder forms
of "abuse" such as yelling at a child, spanking a child, humiliating  a
child in front of a class, etc. One reason it is less clear is  because
EVERY HUMAN BEING born in this world has been abusive to others
in their lives, including children (unless they are never around  children).
We've all lost our tempers and said hurtful things to others simply to 
be hurtful, and many parents have called their children brats,  spanked
them for misbehaving, etc. Many regretted losing that control, though
others consider such actions acceptable discipline (spanking, for
example). 
 
The fact is, even the best parents and teachers sometimes give in to
their baser instincts. McGonagall did so with Neville, out of sheer
frustration. We regret it later, but we are all only human, and  thus
we frequently act human. The question is where does a person get
to the point where he/she goes beyond mean, unkind, etc, into 
actual child abuse.
 
This is a long-winded way of getting to my point, which is that I
don't consider Snape abusive in the criminal sense, where public 
condemnation and punishment are required. Now, whether he 
deserves a talking to from Dumbledore at times is another subject,
and I think he does (and he may get it, we just don't know). Albus
Dumbledore is not unaware of Snape's mean nature, nor are most
of the other teachers, who often take mild steps to counteract it.
But it's clear from the books that none consider it on the level of
abuse in the above criminal sense. 
 
That kind of abuse, what many of us here would consider definitive
"child abuse" is what is practiced by Umbridge, who does deserve
to be condemned and punished. And again, we don't all agree on
that definition, and each person is within his or her right to draw 
their line where they see fit. But in the WW, and yes, also in the
real world, Umbridge's actions are criminal and punishable, Snape's
are not. Thus Dumbledore is under no moral obligation to condemn
Snape, nor is JKR. (And lack of public condemnation does not
equal approval, IMO, but an acceptance of Snape's nature and 
the value of children experiencing such a nature, one which they  will
encounter repeatedly in their lives--as JKR so stated.)
 
Of course, I do think Snape will get his poetic justice, which is
another thing entirely. And something with as variable a  definition
as child abuse, which means we can argue about what exactly 
defines poetic justice forever also!
 
Julie
(who thinks a good part of poetic justice for Snape is that he has 
to live with his actions, and the bitterness that eats him alive as 
much as he uses it to metaphorically devour others)
 






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]