Nice vs. Good, honesty, and Snape:

[nrenka]

No: HPFGUIDX 152857

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "leslie41" <leslie41 at ...> wrote:

Not snipping this opening for a reason:

> > Lanval:
> > Last night watching 'House, MD', there was an exchange between 
> > House and a "patient" (don't want to go into details here, with 
> > those in mind who haven't yet seen it, or those who aren't 
> > familiar with the show). And these lines made me think:
> > "People aren't tactful and polite just because it's nice. They do 
> > it because they've got an ounce of humility. Because they know 
> > they will make mistakes and they know that their actions have 
> > consequences. And they know that those consequences are their 
> > fault."
> > 
> > I don't really agree with the last statement, but on the whole it 
> > makes a good case for being the right kind of 'nice'. 

Leslie:

> Yes, but I don't think it's accurate either. "Niceness" doesn't 
> spring at all from any sort of humility.  I think "niceness" (and 
> manners, etc.) spring from a desire to do what is socially correct, 
> and be socially accepted as a result. 

What we have here, people, is a failure to communicate.

Alla, Lanval, Lupinlore and myself are thinking of 'niceness' in a 
much different way than Betsy, Leslie, et al.  For one thing, I 
suspect all of us are properly contemptuous of 'fake' niceness.  What 
has been said about goodness can also apply to being nice--to 
genuinely DO it and to be it requires a lot of effort.  It is indeedy 
harder to be kind to people, to not go for the jugular when you could 
but to even be mindful of their thoughts and feelings and 
situations.  And if you take a view of morality that is deeply 
interested in the methods by which people carry out their actions as 
well as what the actions are and what the intentions are, 
being 'nice' suddenly assumes a lot more importance.

<snip>

> Not a reason for him to be humble, really.  Any attempt at such 
> would only ring false.  And though Snape may not be "humble," 
> neither is he a show-off.  

On the other hand, he does tend to have a kind of invincible belief 
in his own perceptions of a situation being the right one.  Witness 
his screaming fit both in the Shack and afterwards, which basically 
amounts to a Tom Cruise-esque "I know what's going on here, Hermione, 
you don't--don't be facile!"  The irony is intentional, I'm sure. 

> Leslie41:
>
> But I don't think he loved her.  That's a romantic idea but not to 
> my mind a logical one.  

Don't discount that it could come up in a distinctly creepy, dare I 
even say EWWWW-inspiring way.  (Look it up in Hypothetic Alley.)

> Leslie41:
> I think all the explanation we need for Snape JOINING the DE is 
> that Snape was a tormented outsider, humiliated and violated by 
> the "popular kids" in school.  The appeal of the Death Eaters is 
> the same appeal of the "Trenchcoat Mafia", and the Nazis.  

I think we need a little bit more, given that the public front of the 
DEs was all about the blood thing (as we're told with Regulus joining 
up), and as noted above, in Snape's case, the irony burns.  Of 
course, the Trenchcoat Mafia is also an interesting parallel IF you 
want to go there, given their scorn, hatred, and utter disdain for 
everyone else at the school and life in general.

> As for why he felt remorse, we don't have the details, but in truth 
> we don't need them, really.  Snape had an epiphany, where he 
> realized that he was "better" than that, and that no matter how 
> powerful and accepted he felt, what he was doing was wrong.

Assuming that he's not ESE!.

-Nora hopes that this sunny (but COLD!!!!) weather lasts and looks up 
train schedules